Highlighting a Flawed Approach
A Review of Lucas Miles’ The Christian Left: How Liberal Thought Has Hijacked the Church
Lucas Miles’ book, The Christian Left, is an example of some major flaws within the “conservative” movement. Specifically, flaws in its response to the so-called “Christian Left” or “liberal” theology, and the context surrounding the author itself. A context hinted at briefly by two extremely problematic claims made within the book. My motivation to review this book comes mostly from the flaws I see within the book and those exemplified by the author himself; rather than the positive benefits that come from it. This is because it highlights an especially deficient approach. One that is far too prevalent in both American Evangelicalism and the broader conservative coalition. It is an approach worth dissecting.
Now, I don’t want to give the impression that this book is bad. So it would be unfair to portray it as such. Some issues I have come from the cursory treatment of a few subjects the author touches on. Yet, this book is not an academic treatise or a thorough analysis. It should not be expected to explain everything. It is actually a relatively short, but useful read. At least useful in a specific context. I found several points within the book to be insightful and useful for my research. Miles also explains some flaws with “Progressive” Christianity in a way that I think is both well thought out and succinct. So his book would be helpful for those who need an introduction to this material. Just so long as they have the discernment to read things he says with a huge grain of salt.
This book is instructive in a couple of ways. The first is the subject-matter itself, namely the problems, origins, and nature of the “Christian Left.” The second, and much more important of the two, is actually the treatment of that subject and the movement from which it derives. As opposed to the specific topic itself. In this case, American Evangelicalism and how representatives of it (like Lucas Miles) deal with the phenomenon that he calls the Christian Left.
Miles’ description of the Christian Left has several explanations for what is going on. He points to several factors like the shallow “seeker sensitive” model of churches (pp. 12-14), postmodernism (p. 15), pharisaical legalism driving people away from Christianity (p. 31), and rationalism (p. 34). In summary, he would describe what we are seeing with the Christian Left through a question he poses and answers, “how is it that the Left is succeeding in convincing Christians that its postmodern (and in some cases post-Christian) message embodies the true teachings of Jesus? As we will come to see, this obfuscation of the gospel stems from the successful infiltration of leftist ideologies in the church, which if left unchecked will inevitably lead to the eventual radical takeover of Christian doctrine.” (p. 15, emphasis mine). This premise is where we see the first major flaw.
The categorization and description of the “Christian Left” is riddled with faulty assumptions, misleading language, and overly simplistic framing. The most prevalent case here is the false left/right spectrum. No such spectrum exists. What we call the “left” and the “right” are just two different political alliances of loosely aligned groups. These groups only align because they oppose the other political side. Natural sorting, social pressure, and self-interest explain where people end up between the left and the right. There is no unifying logic or belief system behind either the left or the right.
This means there is no such thing as “leftist ideology.” There are worldviews, religions, belief systems, or perspectives on various social issues that exist within the “leftist” political alliance, but none of them are entirely dominant or define membership within that political alliance. It is a mistake to describe the social justice activists, “woke”, or Progressives who call themselves Christian as “the Christian Left.” Doing so conflates a religion or belief system with membership in a political tribe. Nobody on either the left or the right agrees with everyone else on their side. Not even on fundamental matters.
That is why I coined the term Distrephism. There was a need to label and portray the social justice/woke religion properly. Distrephism is a religion and worldview that exists within the political left. It is not itself the leftist political alliance. This category error and equivocation is a serious blind-spot in the conservative movement. A blind-spot prevalent in many works by conservative authors. Not just one found in Lucas Miles’ book here.
The first aspect of this blind-spot is the equivocation of Distrephism, the religion, with the Democrats/Left as if they were one and the same. This equivocation makes it seem as if only those on the political left adhere to the tenets of Distrephism. It creates an overly simplistic caricature that misrepresents a lot of what is actually going on. Distrephism may be dominant within the Democratic Party (which is identical to the political left in actuality) but it is not at all the only religion found within the left.
This flawed portrayal relies on another aspect of this blind-spot and that is the assumption that conservatism or the “right” is in fact a meaningful ideology or belief system. Rather than just the opposing political alliance. There is no such thing as “conservative Christianity” for the same reason we must reject the concept of “progressive/liberal/leftist” Christianity. We can talk about orthodox Christianity (by which we mean Christian traditions that fall within acceptable bounds of theological orthodoxy) if we wish to contrast forms of the Christian religion. Specifically, those that retain biblical faithfulness and adherence to historical Christian orthodoxy in theology, versus those that have departed into apostasy.
This very framing of left versus right, which assumes there is some kind of essential ideology uniting either the left or the right, creates a very distorted picture. Because, for all intents and purposes, conservative, right-wing, and Republican all mean the same thing. As do liberal, left-wing, and Democrat all refer to the same thing. Membership in an alliance doesn’t mean ideological agreement; it means cooperation for a common purpose. Sometimes a very loose and inconsistent purpose.
Miles falls into the same trap that every other conservative does when he tries to describe the phenomenon of “Progressive/Liberal Christianity” as left-wing or liberal. This gives the false impression of a politically motivated movement rather than an alternative religion. This is the factor that is really behind the so-called “Christian Left.” Distrephism is infiltrating the church. These people aren’t Christian at all but syncretists who have abandoned Christianity in everything but name. They present themselves as Christians solely because their true adherence to a competing, false religion, which is diametrically opposed to Christianity, has not been exposed. They wear Christian garb and falsely present themselves as within Christendom, but their self-identification is entirely false. Calling them the Christian Left is a mistake. They only exist on the “left” because they support the Democratic Party (which just so happens to be dominated by humanists and neo-pagans of various kinds). They aren’t Christian, so why are we even pretending they are? Why do we use that wording when it isn’t accurate? To even use such labeling is to give a false impression and to play the disingenuous word games that opponents of Christianity perpetuate.
The author does highlight the fact that the political spectrum isn’t a simplistic two-dimensional spectrum, but his “horseshoe” diagram fails to accurately address the failures of the political spectrum myth (pp. 43-46). It just slightly changes the shape of the line when it was never a line to begin with. No matter what shape you make it.
In the first chapter, Miles explains how Distrephism (the better descriptor of the phenomenon he is talking about) is a Trojan horse. An outwardly benign but inwardly malicious trap. He is absolutely right about this. Not because it is “leftist ideology” but because it is an entirely different and hostile religion wrapped in Christian dressings. His framing of the threat is off, but he is ultimately correct here.
In the third chapter, which I consider the best chapter in the book, Miles makes an excellent point that Distrephists hold to a corruption of Christian love. They use the word “love”, appealing to it quite frequently in fact, but their “love” is a self-indulgent and narcissistic perversion of the self-sacrificial love of God. They do not practice Christian agape love but a different, self-serving and hedonistic pseudo-love. He explains, “inherent within the nature of true love is the idea of self-sacrifice, not self-indulgence. Practically speaking, with Christ as our example, love is limiting my freedom in order to give life to another. And whereas the balance of grace and truth always guides biblical love, the love of the Left is without parameters, is void of rebuke or warning, and embraces truth only as long as it doesn’t violate personal preference.” (p. 49). Distrephists (noting again what I consider the true nature of what he calls the “Christian Left”) have redefined biblical sin to be almost irrelevant. In its place is what Miles describes as “Herodian politics” (pp. 56-58) whereby politicians (on the “left” of course) proclaim the “biblical” or “Christian” nature of their supported policies. Except their language is like that of King Herod, who might have given lip service to Scripture or Mosaic law, but was clearly a cynical and opportunistic unbeliever. These Democratic politicians attempt to give the appearance of Christian support by selectively quoting verses and using pseudo-Christian language about “love,” but in reality are promoting a heretical pseudo-Christian religion. Miles confuses it for the “Christian” Left, which is more properly understood as the non-Christian religion of Distrephism.
The second most interesting chapter is one where the author describes something he calls the “Christian Cabal.” Chapter 6 explains that part of the Distrephist infiltration of the church comes from a “cabal” of Evangelical leaders who have actively worked to promote Distrephism within the church. Miles describes this as “a group of Christian elites and leftists who control a significant portion of Christian publishing, religious news, faith films, and even Christian higher education” (p. 100). His point is very important here, though covered in arguably a much more cursory length than I believe it deserves. He explains the harmful impact that several have had on the church, like the reporter Jonathan Merritt, who represents “an interconnected network of journalists, bloggers, and university professors complicit in furthering pseudo-Christian ideas under the guise of orthodoxy.” (p. 100) He references JD Hall’s depiction of the “Evangelical Intelligentsia” to help explain that this network of people are a kind of elitist group that deliberately work against accountability and orthodoxy throughout American Evangelicalism. Besides Merritt, he calls out people like Beth Moore, Jen Hatmaker, Richard Rohr, and Peter Enns as influential individuals who have worked to spread heretical ideas but with the appearance of Christian orthodoxy or, at least, a “Christian” origin.
What he points out is useful, but it is actually worse than he describes. It’s a subject that highlights a serious issue I have with the church’s handling of this issue (Distrephism in the Church). In addition to issues I have with Lucas Miles himself. Which is what motivated me to review this book to begin with. There are two specific examples of this in his book. The first is something the author said that was a major red flag.
At the end of the chapter titled “Sovereignty and the Socialist Mindset” (chapter 4) he says this, “There exists a deeply related parallel between Socialism and sovereignty---the same spirit behind Socialism (unfavorable or preferential treatment of one over another) is present in any doctrine that claims God causes or allows circumstances in our lives in order to discipline people, teach them a lesson, or bring glory to himself.” (p. 77) I get that he might have an issue with the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty (such as with double predestination) but his claim here is extremely off-base. He is saying that socialism, and any doctrine that maintains God “causes or allows circumstances in our lives”, is guided by the same spirit. Yet, isn’t that exactly what God says he does? On page 78 he continues this thought and says “And to the bible-believing Christian, late author Brennan Manning reminds us that the greatest expression of God’s sovereignty is whenever anyone ‘[readily accepts] the truth that each person’s destiny lies in his or her own hands.’” Which is just plain false. This form of decision theology is essentially a rejection of God’s sovereignty and is outright unbiblical!
As he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered. “This came about so that God’s works might be displayed in him. We must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:1-5 CSB)
Jesus rather clearly responded to the Apostles’ questions about a man “blind from birth” by stating, in blunt fashion, that his blindness wasn’t because of something either he or his parents did. There was no sin that directly caused this blindness. It was this way so that God would be glorified by Jesus’ miraculous healing of the blind man. Jesus simply stated that some circumstances exist in order to glorify God. The exact opposite of what Miles claimed here.
For consider him who endured such hostility from sinners against himself, so that you won’t grow weary and give up. In struggling against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons:
My son, do not take the Lord’s discipline lightly or lose heart when you are reproved by him,
for the Lord disciplines the one he loves and punishes every son he receives.
Endure suffering as discipline: God is dealing with you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline—which all receive—then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had human fathers discipline us, and we respected them. Shouldn’t we submit even more to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time based on what seemed good to them, but he does it for our benefit, so that we can share his holiness. No discipline seems enjoyable at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:3-11 CSB)
The author of Hebrews likewise makes it extremely clear that God absolutely allows circumstances for the purpose of disciplining those whom “he loves.” Miles got this entirely wrong. In such a way that I wonder what exactly he is trying to say here. I am not a Calvinist; I reject their view of predestination, yet God is most certainly sovereign and absolutely controls our circumstances. He absolutely allows things to happen either for discipline, his own glory, or to teach us lessons. This claim made me question his theology.
Lo-and-behold, another statement indicated a serious red-flag. In Miles’ chapter “Is the Right Right?” (chapter 8) he says the following: “Forged within the central framework of our faith is the paramount individual responsibility of cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus...reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Knox, resuscitated the biblical ideas of individual repentance and the confession of faith by the believer. The groundwork laid by the reformers, especially revitalizing the importance of personal faith in Christ, was perpetuated by later ministers in America, such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, and eventually twentieth century evangelists, like Aimee Semple McPherson, T. L. Osborn, Reinhard Bonnke, and the Reverend Billy Graham.” (p. 141, emphasis mine)
This list of people should raise the hairs on the back of your neck. I won’t go into all of them; that is far beyond the scope of this review, but just take Aimee Semple McPherson. McPherson was a fraud and a false teacher. She is not at all worthy of praise, and for Miles to list her as one of these supposed great evangelists is an enormous problem. McPherson regularly performed fake healings, preached the heresies of the early 20th-century charismatic movement, and was involved in numerous scandals. Including the infamous kidnapping hoax. Several others on his list are likewise unworthy of praise such as Charles Finney who preached the false idea of perfectionism (that Christians can and should become sinless in this life) and T. L. Osborn (who is part of the heretical Word of Faith movement).
Such praise of false teachers and pushers of fraudulent “miracle” healings is not at all acceptable. If you do some research, you’ll find that Lucas Miles is part of the “Nfluence Church” where you see another red-flag. That is the fact that his church has Krissy Miles as an “Executive Pastor.” There is no such thing as a “female pastor.” This issue does not end here because Lucas Miles is the head of TPUSA Faith, which has proven itself to be lacking in discernment. That comes from its significant and uncritical association with false teachers in the Word of Faith and broader Charismatic movement. Sean Feucht is one particular example of this (I recommend checking out this video here). So you have praise for heretical figures in the Charismatic movement, female pastors, and involvement in an organization that is tolerating and promoting false teachers and frauds. There is an immense problem with the infiltration of Distrephism in the church. Unfortunately, Lucas Miles is part of that problem.
This is where I have to separate the book from the author because it is only those two points that Miles makes which I have very serious issues with. If we are talking about the book alone, at least. The book is well-written and offers useful points, once you look past its “Christian Left” framing. Including a commendable section encouraging those on the “right” to take a better, more humble, and fair approach towards those outside the church (see pp. 150-154). He deserves recognition for calling out those on the “right,” as too few Christians and conservatives do this properly.
The context of this book is rather problematic, though. Miles is involved in a movement that is part of the problem. His tolerance of female pastors showcases a massive blind-spot in his presumed Christian orthodoxy, and his promotion of false teachers is a very concerning indicator of his theology. Despite this, I would still recommend the book because it offers useful material, but you should know its originating standpoint. This side of American Evangelicalism is seriously compromised. It is just as responsible for allowing the infiltration of heresy and false teachings within the church, as the so-called “Christian Left” is.
Ultimately, that means the book is worth reading, and worth taking to heart some of the guidance it provides. One just needs to keep a hefty amount of salt available because it is derived from a corrupted and deeply flawed aspect of American Evangelicalism. One that creates as many problems as it solves because of its roots in unbiblical theology common to the mega-church leaning, charismatic movement. Though valuable, we still need better approaches to the problem of Distrephism and the other forms of pseudo-Christianity prevalent in Western Christianity.
I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!