What do you think?
Rate this book
Original Grace: An Experiment in Restoration Thinking
In Original Grace, Adam S. Miller proposes an experiment in Restoration What if instead of implicitly affirming the traditional logic of original sin, we, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, emphasized the deeper reality of God’s original grace? What if we broke entirely with the belief that suffering can sometimes be deserved and claimed that suffering can never be deserved?
In exploring these questions, Miller draws on scriptures and the truths of the Restoration to reframe Christianity’s traditional thinking about grace, justice, and sin. He outlines the logic of original sin versus that of original grace and generates fresh insights into how the doctrine of grace relates to justice, creation, forgiveness, and more.
As we embrace the reality of God’s original grace and refuse the logic of original sin, we achieve a deeper understanding of our relationship with Christ and the meaning of his atonement. Christ suffers with us in order to heal our wounds and redeem our suffering. He rescues us from sin by empowering us to exercise our agency and accept. God’s original offer of grace. He fills us with this pure love by teaching us how to respond to all suffering the same way God with even more grace. Indeed, as Miller suggests, the very substance of salvation has always been a grace-filled partnership with Christ.
In exploring these questions, Miller draws on scriptures and the truths of the Restoration to reframe Christianity’s traditional thinking about grace, justice, and sin. He outlines the logic of original sin versus that of original grace and generates fresh insights into how the doctrine of grace relates to justice, creation, forgiveness, and more.
As we embrace the reality of God’s original grace and refuse the logic of original sin, we achieve a deeper understanding of our relationship with Christ and the meaning of his atonement. Christ suffers with us in order to heal our wounds and redeem our suffering. He rescues us from sin by empowering us to exercise our agency and accept. God’s original offer of grace. He fills us with this pure love by teaching us how to respond to all suffering the same way God with even more grace. Indeed, as Miller suggests, the very substance of salvation has always been a grace-filled partnership with Christ.
111 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 6, 2022
176 people are currently reading
1296 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 322 reviews
June 16, 2023
I've liked Adam Miller's books and philosophy on religion for many years. In my opinion, he just wrote his best book with Original Grace. I worried that it might be just "Grace is Not God's Backup Plan" in another cover, but I assure you he has built his perspectives and thinking about grace in profound ways that deserve to be considered. I appreciate that he doesn't try to pass these as missed doctrines, but shares that it is "an experiment in restoration thinking" since Latter-Day Saints generally believe in the ongoing restoration.
Miller's ideas resound with me in such a deep way. His books always have. But he rightly asserts that while we generally reject Original Sin as Latter-Day Saints when it comes to doctrines, we generally go on our lives embracing it without realizing it and not recognizing instead that what was offered before Original Sin is Christ's Original Grace. He puts the idea of justice, punishments, getting what one deserves, etc. in a new light and rightly points out that grace, viewed rightly, doesn't see a wrong being responded to with a wrong. Evil shouldn't beget evil. Instead, wrongs should be met with rights and with an attempt by us all to go to the aid and help.
This line summarizes it nicely:
"It is never morally legitimate to use God's law to judge what someone deserves. Rather, God's law can only be used to judge what good someone needs."
I found myself asking the following question as I read: What if we re-read and re-interpreted scriptures about there being a punishment affixed for every sin or wrong doing? Perhaps that punishment affixed is actually the good that is needed to help the wrong or the sin. What if God doesn't return evil for evil in punishment and justice, but good for evil. Christ showed time and again that the way he treated sinners was not by rendering a harsh punishment, but a loving welcome.
I'm excited to dig into my notes and underlines again in more detail. Miller and Terryl Givens are the two LDS authors whose books I get most excited about...and this one should make us all shout for joy because of the restoration thinking he provides which to me are both provocative and true.
Miller's ideas resound with me in such a deep way. His books always have. But he rightly asserts that while we generally reject Original Sin as Latter-Day Saints when it comes to doctrines, we generally go on our lives embracing it without realizing it and not recognizing instead that what was offered before Original Sin is Christ's Original Grace. He puts the idea of justice, punishments, getting what one deserves, etc. in a new light and rightly points out that grace, viewed rightly, doesn't see a wrong being responded to with a wrong. Evil shouldn't beget evil. Instead, wrongs should be met with rights and with an attempt by us all to go to the aid and help.
This line summarizes it nicely:
"It is never morally legitimate to use God's law to judge what someone deserves. Rather, God's law can only be used to judge what good someone needs."
I found myself asking the following question as I read: What if we re-read and re-interpreted scriptures about there being a punishment affixed for every sin or wrong doing? Perhaps that punishment affixed is actually the good that is needed to help the wrong or the sin. What if God doesn't return evil for evil in punishment and justice, but good for evil. Christ showed time and again that the way he treated sinners was not by rendering a harsh punishment, but a loving welcome.
I'm excited to dig into my notes and underlines again in more detail. Miller and Terryl Givens are the two LDS authors whose books I get most excited about...and this one should make us all shout for joy because of the restoration thinking he provides which to me are both provocative and true.
January 13, 2023
This short book uses Dr. Steven Robinson’s much-loved Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News as a starting point for his discussion. He makes it clear that he is not declaring doctrine but is exploring the concept of grace beyond what Dr. Robinson did. He wants to make sure that we understand that our partnership with Christ is eternal, even after we have achieved perfection and exaltation.
(For more on grace, I recommend these two excellent articles: The Enabling Power of the Atonement and His Grace Is Sufficient.)
Mr. Miller uses his background in philosophy and logical reasoning to argue that God’s grace begins before the earth was and continues through eternity. He explains how what he calls “original grace” is much more logical than the false doctrine of original sin. This means that bad things that happen to you are not a punishment.
Mr. Miller uses a lot of examples from his father’s life to illustrate his points. Some things I had to read several times to fully grasp. But it’s written in a conversational tone. Overall, it’s uplifting and gives the reader hope and a clearer idea of how grace works.
Summary/additional thoughts:
As Latter-day Saints, we hold a very different view of the Fall compared to most Christians. This also means we reject the doctrine of original sin. Mr. Miller argues that we believe in what he calls original grace instead.
Mr. Miller’s other key point is that suffering is a consequence of mortality, not a punishment God is inflicting.
God does not look for the slightest excuse to bar people from heaven. He does not say, “You messed up. I have to punish you.” Instead, he gives us what we need to become better, even if it’s not what we want. The parable of the prodigal son is a great illustration of this. Grace gives suffering a purpose. He can say, “That sucks you lost your job. Let’s see what we can learn from this experience. Let’s see what good can come from it.”
He will never say you deserved suffering. Likewise, we will never deserve grace. We can’t earn our way to salvation; it is freely given. Sin is when we reject grace, when we reject what we need. Sin is when we distance ourselves from God. His will is for us to become the kind of beings who can endure his glory and live with him. The good news is we aren’t doing this alone. Life is not easy, but it’s a lot easier with Christ as a partner.
Clean content
======================
The doctrine of original sin is an explanation for suffering. The story goes like this: we suffer because we’re being punished, we deserve to be punished because we’re sinful, and we’re sinful because we’ve inherited that sinful nature from Adam and Eve. As Calvin puts it, original sin is “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath.” In short, original sin is the idea that suffering is always deserved and that beyond deserving to suffer for own sins, we deserve to suffer for Adam and Eve’s transgression.
In my view, a grace-filled partnership with Christ is the original plan, full stop—not an unfortunate intervention necessitated by my failure to save myself. Further, in view, there aren’t two kinds of perfection. The only kind of perfection is perfection-in-Christ. Perfection results from growing deeper into the grace of a divine partnership so that, as Christ put it, we “all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” And, finally, in my view, sin is not what happens when I fail to save myself. Sin is what happens when I try to save myself. Sin is what happens when I abandon God and reject his original offer of a grace-filled partnership.
While the Christian tradition views our collective fall into mortality—and thus our collective fall into suffering, sickness, and death—as a catastrophic loss and a just punishment, Latter-day Saints view our fall into the troubles of mortality as, ultimately, one of God’s greatest gifts. Our troubled mortal lives aren’t a punishment. Our suffering in mortality isn’t proof that God’s original plan was ruined. As Latter-day Saints tell the story, mortality is God’s original plan.
Does sin cause suffering? Yes. Does God’s justice require suffering as punishment for sin? No. Sin adds to our suffering because “wickedness never was happiness,” not because God insists that we suffer (Alma 41:10). Suffering is a problem, not a punishment.
Does suffering, in general, have a purpose? No. Suffering is just a fact of life. But suffering can, by way of grace, be given a purpose. In addition to being relieved, it can be redeemed. It can teach and strengthen and empower. It can, in God’s hands, be repurposed for growth and progress.
Sin begins from the original assumption of guilt and concludes that suffering is deserved. Grace begins from the original reality of suffering and concludes that redemption is needed. Sin uses God’s law to ask what is deserved. Grace uses God’s law to ask what is needed.
Sin is self-inflicted suffering. As a result, sinful actions always result in unnecessary suffering. In other words, our moral choices always have natural consequences in the material order of things. But, I’m arguing, these natural consequences are dictated by the material order of things, not by the moral order of things. The suffering that follows from sin is a material fact, not a moral imperative. In this respect, a kind of “punishment” for sins is naturally built into the material order such that there’s always a “punishment that is affixed … in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer that opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement” (2 Nephi 2:10). But, again, this suffering is a natural, self-inflicted consequence of sin, not a moral obligation, required by justice. The moral order never demands punishment as required by justice. The moral order never demands punishment as an ethical obligation to return evil for evil. The obligation imposed by the moral order—by the logic of justice—is to respond to all suffering, whatever its cause, with whatever good is needed.
Is there, then, no part for punishment to play in the execution of justice? If punishment is a moral imperative to return evil for evil, the answer is no. There’s no such thing as a moral imperative to do evil. But if punishment is instead a moral imperative to return good for evil by helping people to learn discipline and take responsibility for the natural consequences of their actions, then the answer is yes. In this latter case, “punishment” is clearly a good that is needed—a grace that is required regardless of what someone deserves—not an evil to be imposed.
This, then, is my hypothesis: It is never morally legitimate to use God’s law to judge what someone deserves. Rather, God’s law can only be used to judge what good someone needs.
If suffering cannot be deserved, then there’s no need for Christ to vicariously suffer that punishment for us. Against the backdrop of original grace, Christ doesn’t suffer in our place to meet the law’s demand for punishment. Rather, Christ suffers with us to meet the law’s demand for compassion and grace. In both cases, Christ’s vicarious suffering fulfills the demands of the law. But whereas in the first case justice demands the evil we deserve, in the second case justice demands the good we need. … Christ fulfills God’s law by suffering with us in order to heal our wounds and redeem our suffering. … Instead of suffering punishment to reconcile God’s justice with God’s grace, Christ’s vicarious suffering now works to reconcile us to the root logic shared by both God’s justice and God’s grace. Christ’s atonement directly addresses a problem internal to my own nature as a sinner, not a problem internal to God’s nature. He bridges a gap caused by my rebellion against justice and grace, not a gap between God’s justice and God’s grace.
By liberating me from the logic of original sin, Christ not only relieves my suffering, he also redeems my suffering. He relieves my suffering by sharing the yoke of that suffering with me, by vicariously suffering whatever I may be suffering, be it pain or sickness or sin or death. In Christ, I’m never alone. In Christ, I’m never abandoned.
But more than this, by liberating me from the logic of original sin, Christ also redeems my suffering by changing the quality of that suffering. In addition to no longer suffering alone, I no longer experience my suffering as an accusation. I no longer experience my suffering as an evil I deserve—an evil required, in the name of justice, by God’s own law. I no longer experience my suffering as plain and painful evidence, in addition to the suffering itself, of God’s judgment and rejection.
Sin is my rejection of God’s original offer of grace and partnership. It’s my refusal to love what God has created. It’s me running from my nothingness and hiding from the impossibility of ever deserving anything. It’s me trying desperately to cobble together, through any means necessary—idolatry, vanity, theft, adultery, violence, deceit—some bundle of good things that more closely matches what I wanted than what God gave. It’s me wanting to win more than to love. It’s me choosing the hollow isolation of fantasies over the shared difficulty of God’s reality.
This … is how the logic of sin works: regardless of how you answer, it divides you from God. According to the logic of sin, if you an save yourself without God’s grace, you’ve proven you don’t need God. But if you can’t save yourself with your own works, you’ve proven you don’t deserve God. Either way, you’ve been separated from God. Trapped inside this logic, a covenant partnership with Christ will always look like a crutch that must be outgrown in order to achieve “real” perfection.
More than a logic, this is what grace literally feels like: to be empowered in the present, to be endowed with freedom, to greet all suffering with succor.
In the context of original grace, my goal in life is not to prove that I will eventually deserve some future grace or salvation that God is currently withholding. Rather, my single Christian obligation is to stop rejecting the grace and redemption that God is already and continually willing into being.
There is no secret to grace. It can be resisted or embraced. If I resist grace, I cut myself off from it. This is sin. If I embrace grace, I’ll find myself giving it. This is the strait path, the direct route that leads immediately to salvation: “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37).
Gratitude and succor are modes of forgiveness. Gratitude is the work of forgiving things for being whatever good they are, rather than what I want them to be. Succor, in turn, is the work of forgiving things for needing from me the good that I am. It’s the work of accepting the often-taxing claims that things in my world—my body, my wife, my children, my church, my job, my community—continually make on me.
Awake to grace, I become aware of and grateful for even the smallest and most ordinary things: breath, eyes, hands, lungs, lights, trees, water. Awake to grace, I become aware of and responsive to even the smallest and most ordinary needs: a smile, a thank-you, a call, a compliment, a meal, an interruption. Awake to grace, I’m grateful for all the graces that are given and forgive all the graces that are needed.
(For more on grace, I recommend these two excellent articles: The Enabling Power of the Atonement and His Grace Is Sufficient.)
Mr. Miller uses his background in philosophy and logical reasoning to argue that God’s grace begins before the earth was and continues through eternity. He explains how what he calls “original grace” is much more logical than the false doctrine of original sin. This means that bad things that happen to you are not a punishment.
Mr. Miller uses a lot of examples from his father’s life to illustrate his points. Some things I had to read several times to fully grasp. But it’s written in a conversational tone. Overall, it’s uplifting and gives the reader hope and a clearer idea of how grace works.
Summary/additional thoughts:
As Latter-day Saints, we hold a very different view of the Fall compared to most Christians. This also means we reject the doctrine of original sin. Mr. Miller argues that we believe in what he calls original grace instead.
Mr. Miller’s other key point is that suffering is a consequence of mortality, not a punishment God is inflicting.
God does not look for the slightest excuse to bar people from heaven. He does not say, “You messed up. I have to punish you.” Instead, he gives us what we need to become better, even if it’s not what we want. The parable of the prodigal son is a great illustration of this. Grace gives suffering a purpose. He can say, “That sucks you lost your job. Let’s see what we can learn from this experience. Let’s see what good can come from it.”
He will never say you deserved suffering. Likewise, we will never deserve grace. We can’t earn our way to salvation; it is freely given. Sin is when we reject grace, when we reject what we need. Sin is when we distance ourselves from God. His will is for us to become the kind of beings who can endure his glory and live with him. The good news is we aren’t doing this alone. Life is not easy, but it’s a lot easier with Christ as a partner.
Clean content
======================
The doctrine of original sin is an explanation for suffering. The story goes like this: we suffer because we’re being punished, we deserve to be punished because we’re sinful, and we’re sinful because we’ve inherited that sinful nature from Adam and Eve. As Calvin puts it, original sin is “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath.” In short, original sin is the idea that suffering is always deserved and that beyond deserving to suffer for own sins, we deserve to suffer for Adam and Eve’s transgression.
In my view, a grace-filled partnership with Christ is the original plan, full stop—not an unfortunate intervention necessitated by my failure to save myself. Further, in view, there aren’t two kinds of perfection. The only kind of perfection is perfection-in-Christ. Perfection results from growing deeper into the grace of a divine partnership so that, as Christ put it, we “all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” And, finally, in my view, sin is not what happens when I fail to save myself. Sin is what happens when I try to save myself. Sin is what happens when I abandon God and reject his original offer of a grace-filled partnership.
While the Christian tradition views our collective fall into mortality—and thus our collective fall into suffering, sickness, and death—as a catastrophic loss and a just punishment, Latter-day Saints view our fall into the troubles of mortality as, ultimately, one of God’s greatest gifts. Our troubled mortal lives aren’t a punishment. Our suffering in mortality isn’t proof that God’s original plan was ruined. As Latter-day Saints tell the story, mortality is God’s original plan.
Does sin cause suffering? Yes. Does God’s justice require suffering as punishment for sin? No. Sin adds to our suffering because “wickedness never was happiness,” not because God insists that we suffer (Alma 41:10). Suffering is a problem, not a punishment.
Does suffering, in general, have a purpose? No. Suffering is just a fact of life. But suffering can, by way of grace, be given a purpose. In addition to being relieved, it can be redeemed. It can teach and strengthen and empower. It can, in God’s hands, be repurposed for growth and progress.
Sin begins from the original assumption of guilt and concludes that suffering is deserved. Grace begins from the original reality of suffering and concludes that redemption is needed. Sin uses God’s law to ask what is deserved. Grace uses God’s law to ask what is needed.
Sin is self-inflicted suffering. As a result, sinful actions always result in unnecessary suffering. In other words, our moral choices always have natural consequences in the material order of things. But, I’m arguing, these natural consequences are dictated by the material order of things, not by the moral order of things. The suffering that follows from sin is a material fact, not a moral imperative. In this respect, a kind of “punishment” for sins is naturally built into the material order such that there’s always a “punishment that is affixed … in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer that opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement” (2 Nephi 2:10). But, again, this suffering is a natural, self-inflicted consequence of sin, not a moral obligation, required by justice. The moral order never demands punishment as required by justice. The moral order never demands punishment as an ethical obligation to return evil for evil. The obligation imposed by the moral order—by the logic of justice—is to respond to all suffering, whatever its cause, with whatever good is needed.
Is there, then, no part for punishment to play in the execution of justice? If punishment is a moral imperative to return evil for evil, the answer is no. There’s no such thing as a moral imperative to do evil. But if punishment is instead a moral imperative to return good for evil by helping people to learn discipline and take responsibility for the natural consequences of their actions, then the answer is yes. In this latter case, “punishment” is clearly a good that is needed—a grace that is required regardless of what someone deserves—not an evil to be imposed.
This, then, is my hypothesis: It is never morally legitimate to use God’s law to judge what someone deserves. Rather, God’s law can only be used to judge what good someone needs.
If suffering cannot be deserved, then there’s no need for Christ to vicariously suffer that punishment for us. Against the backdrop of original grace, Christ doesn’t suffer in our place to meet the law’s demand for punishment. Rather, Christ suffers with us to meet the law’s demand for compassion and grace. In both cases, Christ’s vicarious suffering fulfills the demands of the law. But whereas in the first case justice demands the evil we deserve, in the second case justice demands the good we need. … Christ fulfills God’s law by suffering with us in order to heal our wounds and redeem our suffering. … Instead of suffering punishment to reconcile God’s justice with God’s grace, Christ’s vicarious suffering now works to reconcile us to the root logic shared by both God’s justice and God’s grace. Christ’s atonement directly addresses a problem internal to my own nature as a sinner, not a problem internal to God’s nature. He bridges a gap caused by my rebellion against justice and grace, not a gap between God’s justice and God’s grace.
By liberating me from the logic of original sin, Christ not only relieves my suffering, he also redeems my suffering. He relieves my suffering by sharing the yoke of that suffering with me, by vicariously suffering whatever I may be suffering, be it pain or sickness or sin or death. In Christ, I’m never alone. In Christ, I’m never abandoned.
But more than this, by liberating me from the logic of original sin, Christ also redeems my suffering by changing the quality of that suffering. In addition to no longer suffering alone, I no longer experience my suffering as an accusation. I no longer experience my suffering as an evil I deserve—an evil required, in the name of justice, by God’s own law. I no longer experience my suffering as plain and painful evidence, in addition to the suffering itself, of God’s judgment and rejection.
Sin is my rejection of God’s original offer of grace and partnership. It’s my refusal to love what God has created. It’s me running from my nothingness and hiding from the impossibility of ever deserving anything. It’s me trying desperately to cobble together, through any means necessary—idolatry, vanity, theft, adultery, violence, deceit—some bundle of good things that more closely matches what I wanted than what God gave. It’s me wanting to win more than to love. It’s me choosing the hollow isolation of fantasies over the shared difficulty of God’s reality.
This … is how the logic of sin works: regardless of how you answer, it divides you from God. According to the logic of sin, if you an save yourself without God’s grace, you’ve proven you don’t need God. But if you can’t save yourself with your own works, you’ve proven you don’t deserve God. Either way, you’ve been separated from God. Trapped inside this logic, a covenant partnership with Christ will always look like a crutch that must be outgrown in order to achieve “real” perfection.
More than a logic, this is what grace literally feels like: to be empowered in the present, to be endowed with freedom, to greet all suffering with succor.
In the context of original grace, my goal in life is not to prove that I will eventually deserve some future grace or salvation that God is currently withholding. Rather, my single Christian obligation is to stop rejecting the grace and redemption that God is already and continually willing into being.
There is no secret to grace. It can be resisted or embraced. If I resist grace, I cut myself off from it. This is sin. If I embrace grace, I’ll find myself giving it. This is the strait path, the direct route that leads immediately to salvation: “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37).
Gratitude and succor are modes of forgiveness. Gratitude is the work of forgiving things for being whatever good they are, rather than what I want them to be. Succor, in turn, is the work of forgiving things for needing from me the good that I am. It’s the work of accepting the often-taxing claims that things in my world—my body, my wife, my children, my church, my job, my community—continually make on me.
Awake to grace, I become aware of and grateful for even the smallest and most ordinary things: breath, eyes, hands, lungs, lights, trees, water. Awake to grace, I become aware of and responsive to even the smallest and most ordinary needs: a smile, a thank-you, a call, a compliment, a meal, an interruption. Awake to grace, I’m grateful for all the graces that are given and forgive all the graces that are needed.
September 17, 2022
This is Nonfiction/Religion. I was listening to a podcast with this author as the guest. I was intrigued by his message and went out in search of his book. Most Christians have heard the phrase "original sin" and the author brings us to what he calls "original grace" which is the title.
I found that intriguing. He starts the book by saying that this might be a little different than what most people believe or even what they have been taught to believe. So I went into this one preparing to get my hackles up. Thankfully that never happened. And I think that was because he came across as very sincere and genuine as he talked about grace, sin, atonement, punishment, change and love. And the stories about his dad were so heart felt.
Two things stand out the most. First, setting the topic aside, this was a beautifully written book. The author had a way with words that was always in motion, painting a thoughtful picture. The second thing was the message itself. Plenty of ideas to ponder. And not only to ponder but some of this felt like puzzle pieces that needed to be arranged in one's own life. So 5 stars because I need to read this one again...so much to glean.
I found that intriguing. He starts the book by saying that this might be a little different than what most people believe or even what they have been taught to believe. So I went into this one preparing to get my hackles up. Thankfully that never happened. And I think that was because he came across as very sincere and genuine as he talked about grace, sin, atonement, punishment, change and love. And the stories about his dad were so heart felt.
Two things stand out the most. First, setting the topic aside, this was a beautifully written book. The author had a way with words that was always in motion, painting a thoughtful picture. The second thing was the message itself. Plenty of ideas to ponder. And not only to ponder but some of this felt like puzzle pieces that needed to be arranged in one's own life. So 5 stars because I need to read this one again...so much to glean.
January 21, 2025
Love it. Life changing in the fact that it changed my understanding, approach, perspective to the vital principle of grace. It will take my life to truly understand and apply grace as the Lord intended. This is one step in that journey. I will be referencing and returning to this again.
February 14, 2023
Life changing.
More importantly, faith changing.
So much of this was thoughts I've had, but Miller fully formed and expanded on those thoughts to help them make sense.
My biggest takeaway: "God's work is to relieve and redeem that suffering. He suffered for my sins so that I wouldn't have to. If I still suffer because of sin, this is because i insisto on suffering. I insist on refusing God's grace. I refuse to repent."
The law shows us how NOT to suffer. If wickedness never was happiness, the law shows us what is happiness. Happiness is not lying. Happiness is keeping the word of wisdom. Happiness is loving God and others.
More importantly, faith changing.
So much of this was thoughts I've had, but Miller fully formed and expanded on those thoughts to help them make sense.
My biggest takeaway: "God's work is to relieve and redeem that suffering. He suffered for my sins so that I wouldn't have to. If I still suffer because of sin, this is because i insisto on suffering. I insist on refusing God's grace. I refuse to repent."
The law shows us how NOT to suffer. If wickedness never was happiness, the law shows us what is happiness. Happiness is not lying. Happiness is keeping the word of wisdom. Happiness is loving God and others.
November 1, 2022
another hit for me. miller’s thesis that justice and grace are the same thing is brilliant. what justice needs is for something to become more just. therefore, we must return good for good and good for evil, because returning evil for evil will only result in more evil. true justice demands we ask what is needed (which is always good) rather than what is deserved.
February 28, 2023
Adam Miller has been thinking about grace for a long time. I remember finding an article by him about grace early on in his scholarly endeavors. Then reading about grace in his subsequent books, Future Mormon and Early Resurrection (and traces of the topic are found in his other works). When someone has spent that kind of time struggling through a topic, I believe I have a responsibility to read and ponder thoughtfully. I will be thinking Miller’s perspective for some time.
Others have summarized this book so I won’t spend too much time on that. Grace is meeting good with good but also meeting evil with good. Grace is Justice. This is a radical idea. It responds to others with what God feels they need rather than responding with someone’s idea of human fairness or justice. It’s a beautiful idea. It can also feel painful and unfair. And it requires a Divine wisdom and strength to put into practice.
Consider the Ukrainian refugee who has lost their home and their family to the ravages of war. Or the spouse or child that has been emotionally and physically abused for years. While it is possible for these victims to find forgiveness for their abusers in this life, that forgiveness is often offered with the understanding the God will deliver ultimate justice. Forgiveness becomes nearly impossible if we believe God will respond to abusers with good. Miller is not suggesting such people won’t be held accountable (though, you have to read with that question in mind to see the two paragraphs where Miller explains that). Miller, instead, suggests that God will only require such accountability as will ultimately be for the good of the abuser. Again, it’s a beautiful and powerful manifestation of God’s love. But such an assertion may be hard for victims to hear. Then again, such grace also assumes that victims would similarly receive the good they need to be made whole.
I’m generally persuaded by Miller’s “experimentation on Restoration thinking” found in Original Grace. The one area I’d love to discuss more with Miller is his approach to the atonement. I’ve long felt that the various threads of atonement theory are lacking. Miller suggests a different approach. One that focuses on Christ suffering WITH us rather than suffering FOR us. Again, it’s a beautiful approach. But it still feels that he, like others, are shoehorning the need for the atonement into this new theological approach. Regardless, it is an additive and appreciated approach to the topic.
I’m grateful for people like Miller who take their faith seriously. And I’m grateful for all the struggle and effort he has engaged in for decades to write this book.
Others have summarized this book so I won’t spend too much time on that. Grace is meeting good with good but also meeting evil with good. Grace is Justice. This is a radical idea. It responds to others with what God feels they need rather than responding with someone’s idea of human fairness or justice. It’s a beautiful idea. It can also feel painful and unfair. And it requires a Divine wisdom and strength to put into practice.
Consider the Ukrainian refugee who has lost their home and their family to the ravages of war. Or the spouse or child that has been emotionally and physically abused for years. While it is possible for these victims to find forgiveness for their abusers in this life, that forgiveness is often offered with the understanding the God will deliver ultimate justice. Forgiveness becomes nearly impossible if we believe God will respond to abusers with good. Miller is not suggesting such people won’t be held accountable (though, you have to read with that question in mind to see the two paragraphs where Miller explains that). Miller, instead, suggests that God will only require such accountability as will ultimately be for the good of the abuser. Again, it’s a beautiful and powerful manifestation of God’s love. But such an assertion may be hard for victims to hear. Then again, such grace also assumes that victims would similarly receive the good they need to be made whole.
I’m generally persuaded by Miller’s “experimentation on Restoration thinking” found in Original Grace. The one area I’d love to discuss more with Miller is his approach to the atonement. I’ve long felt that the various threads of atonement theory are lacking. Miller suggests a different approach. One that focuses on Christ suffering WITH us rather than suffering FOR us. Again, it’s a beautiful approach. But it still feels that he, like others, are shoehorning the need for the atonement into this new theological approach. Regardless, it is an additive and appreciated approach to the topic.
I’m grateful for people like Miller who take their faith seriously. And I’m grateful for all the struggle and effort he has engaged in for decades to write this book.
April 29, 2023
April 2023: I'll need to revisit this one. Many profound insights; many insights that weren't as new to me as I've already been thinking of the gospel along those lines but might be profound to others; some insights I'm not fully on board with or don't understand yet. That said, this book is a fantastic starting point for further discussion of these ideas and is one that can really challenge your thinking of justice and mercy and grace. It's not a book meant for a one-and-done thinking exercise - it requires some back and forth with others just to process some of his ideas - at least it did for me. Definitely worth looking into for every Latter-day Saint.
For those interested, the main premise is that while Latter-day Saints profess to reject the doctrine of original sin, our beliefs and actions often suggest we still adhere to it. Miller explores what it might look like to fully reject that notion.
I was surprised to learn this was published by Deseret Book which means it did pass a review process from church leaders - actually a bit surprising to me but cool that it is able to reach more of an audience that way.
March 2023: I'm going to wait to rate/review this until I've had more time to ponder and discuss it with others. But regardless I'll likely give it 5 stars just for the discussion it inspires if nothing else. Very interesting.
For those interested, the main premise is that while Latter-day Saints profess to reject the doctrine of original sin, our beliefs and actions often suggest we still adhere to it. Miller explores what it might look like to fully reject that notion.
I was surprised to learn this was published by Deseret Book which means it did pass a review process from church leaders - actually a bit surprising to me but cool that it is able to reach more of an audience that way.
March 2023: I'm going to wait to rate/review this until I've had more time to ponder and discuss it with others. But regardless I'll likely give it 5 stars just for the discussion it inspires if nothing else. Very interesting.
October 6, 2023
For many who have grown up in Christianity, we've believed that Jesus Christ saves us from the punishments from a Heavenly Father. Our Father is bound by justice, and as we have all sinned, we can only be saved by the grace and mercy of God. We are grateful for Christ's atoning sacrifice, and we are grateful for Heavenly Parents who sent their Son to die for us. But it seems a little strange that, in this view, God is saving us from a punishment He inflicts.
In this book, LDS theologian Adam Miller explores the idea that Christ's Atonement is not to save us from sin but to restore us to what is needed: healing. Building off the landmark book Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson, Miller suggests that mercy and justice are not at odds with each other but two sides of the same coin.
This is a quick read -- only about a hundred pages, and divided into short chapters -- and broken up with personal stories. This book went well with the book All Things New by Fiona and Terryl Givens.
I'll try to remember to come back to this review with quotes!
In this book, LDS theologian Adam Miller explores the idea that Christ's Atonement is not to save us from sin but to restore us to what is needed: healing. Building off the landmark book Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson, Miller suggests that mercy and justice are not at odds with each other but two sides of the same coin.
This is a quick read -- only about a hundred pages, and divided into short chapters -- and broken up with personal stories. This book went well with the book All Things New by Fiona and Terryl Givens.
I'll try to remember to come back to this review with quotes!
June 16, 2022
What a deep thinking book. A different approach to grace. There are many thoughts to ponder, that were brought up by the author.
February 13, 2023
He’s always been gracefully provocative as a theologian but when you combine that with more personal reflections, as he does here, it packs even more punch. I love his mind and his heart.
August 13, 2024
Adam Miller brilliantly and logically lays out the system and consequences of a universe founded on grace as opposed to one founded on sin. While it is heavy in theology and philosophy it is not without feeling nor practicality. Let us stop worrying ourselves over deserving or earning love and forgiveness, but instead do the loving and forgiving ourselves.
January 25, 2023
I'm not sure I understood even half of what he's proposing, but I loved his discussion of grace and the
Atonement and Christ's role in our lives.
Atonement and Christ's role in our lives.
January 29, 2023
Wow. I had to re-read a few passages many times because the author has laid out some very complex thoughts, but that aside, this was the most comforting and thought-provoking book. This is not a common view of how grace works, and it is refreshing. Adam Miller discusses and compares original sin to original grace, suggesting that grace came first. I love this. Rather than thinking about grace as an afterthought, it becomes the central plan, having been there from the beginning of the creation. He then suggests that justice and grace are equal, that God's grace is just, giving good for good, and good for evil rather than good for good and evil for evil, which would only perpetuate evil and extinguish the good. I should probably stop there, but do yourself a favor and read it. You will never look at God, the creation, grace, justice, and Christ's Atonement in the same way again.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 30, 2022
Adam Miller is my favorite LDS philosopher. I worry about sounding dramatic when I say that this book, hands down, is my favorite book on LDS theology. I wish everyone would read it. I read chapter 7 on Atonement four different times and I still feel like I need to read it every few months. Just beautiful and life changing.
May 25, 2023
DNF. I know I probably shouldn’t give a star rating to a book I didn’t finish, but I liked it—I did—I just couldn’t get through it! I don’t know if it’s the place I’m in my life that I never have enough sleep that or my relationship with religion is on the rocks, but my eyes glazed over instantly every time I picked this up. If I took the time to read sections slowly and carefully, there was good stuff in there, and my book club discussion was fire. I think it also wasn’t super impactful like it is for some people because the premise of original Grace wasn’t so groundbreaking for me. I’ve always believed in a God (when I do believe in one! Haha) that loves and wants the best for mankind. The hellfire/brimstone God has never resonated with me. BUT I do know I’m unique in this sentiment and I’m so glad he wrote this book because obviously by the reviews, it’s been so so helpful to people. I also gifted the book—I wouldn’t have done that if I thought it wasn’t worth it! Just not for me at this particular point in my life.
January 29, 2024
This is one of the best books I have ever read. I took my time and thought about each chapter. Each chapter had something worth pondering. Miller's thoughts on grace ring true deep down in my soul. The idea of returning good for good as well as good for evil is my heart's aspiration.
Miller mentions Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ as a foundation for his thinking on grace. I distinctly remember buying Robinson's book in my early twenties. I was in a used bookstore in downtown Salt Lake City- Sam Weller's I believe- with my mom and two of my aunts who were in town for the local university's religious education week. I found a well loved copy of Believing Christ on the shelf and held it up for my aunts and mom to see. They all sighed an "Aaahhh" in unison, "that's a good one." I didn't know anything about it and bought it solely based on their reaction. My aunts and mom were right- it was a great book and one I've read several times. Miller's additional thoughts on grace build on (and clarify) Robinson's and it's a subject that is worth studying and revisiting often.
I wanted to share some of my favorite lines from the book but the context gives them so much more beauty than when the sentences stand alone. Just read it. You'll be filled with light and hope and a deeper understanding of God's grace for you. And when you feel God's grace personally, you cannot help but treat others with grace as well.
Miller mentions Stephen Robinson's Believing Christ as a foundation for his thinking on grace. I distinctly remember buying Robinson's book in my early twenties. I was in a used bookstore in downtown Salt Lake City- Sam Weller's I believe- with my mom and two of my aunts who were in town for the local university's religious education week. I found a well loved copy of Believing Christ on the shelf and held it up for my aunts and mom to see. They all sighed an "Aaahhh" in unison, "that's a good one." I didn't know anything about it and bought it solely based on their reaction. My aunts and mom were right- it was a great book and one I've read several times. Miller's additional thoughts on grace build on (and clarify) Robinson's and it's a subject that is worth studying and revisiting often.
I wanted to share some of my favorite lines from the book but the context gives them so much more beauty than when the sentences stand alone. Just read it. You'll be filled with light and hope and a deeper understanding of God's grace for you. And when you feel God's grace personally, you cannot help but treat others with grace as well.
January 28, 2023
This book. It upended my whole understanding, and, more importantly, LIVING of the doctrine of Grace. This book sincerely saved one of our children - we were reading and discussing it in depth when this child ended up with some enormously painful consequences for an enormously poor choice. And as it all came to light, my husband and I looked at each other in awe- “what love is needed?” A question that changed everything everything everything. That is not hyperbole. This child is where they currently are almost entirely because this book taught us what it looks like to love. It’s painful. It’s gutting. It’s Godly.
May 15, 2023
Wow. This book may be life changing for me if I can remember and live what I’ve learned from it. Miller teaches about justice, mercy, grace, perfectionism, the Atonement, and even indirectly, parenting, in ways I’ve never heard or thought of before. I need to study this book further. So many concepts I want to remember.
Return good for good and good for evil.
Return good for good and good for evil.
January 6, 2023
Powerful. And read the postscript.
December 10, 2022
A great book with so many thought provoking truths to consider and reflect on.
March 24, 2023
This book is a MUST READ. I marked at least 90% of it. Thank you, Adam S. Miller for helping us to see the truth of what Grace really is and what it really means. It’s not about what is deserved, it’s about what good is needed. I can’t say enough about it. So enlightening!!!
April 25, 2025
I read this slowly and enjoyed really thinking about his ideas on grace. It made me rethink how I consider the Grace of God in my life and how I give grace to others. I really enjoyed his father's texts to his family and how he shared them throughout the book. Really good thoughts here.
December 22, 2025
This definitely challenged some of my doctrinal understanding. Do I agree with 100% of what he said? Probably not. Did I enjoy thinking about grace on a new and deeper level? Of course.
May 7, 2023
Mormonism, as a whole, has not done a good job of emphasizing grace so this book was a breath a fresh air. And I think raised very worthwhile and important points. Miller's premise is that as one of the only Christian religions to not believe in original sin (the only one I know of), we should be in a unique position to move away from the idea that suffering is deserved and towards the healing power of grace. Unfortunately, so far, Mormonism has fallen short. This book is his attempt to bridge that deficit. And it is wonderful and inspiring to read.
The book lost a star from me though because half the book seemed out of place. It felt like the author just wanted to include a tribute to his recently departed father. The author has that right, of course. But those parts did nothing to support his arguments and didn't add anything for me.
Update: Because of Miller's description of how Socrates defined justice, I was inspired to read the Republic. And now, having suffered through all of it, I can tell you that while Miller did correctly quote Socrates, I feel that the quote was taken out of context and used unfairly to add gravitas to what are essentially just the thoughts of the author. Yes, at the beginning of the Republic Socrates says that "to injure a friend or anyone else, is not the act of a just man but of the opposite". However, that is nowhere near his final definition. In fact, it seems to me that Plato must have a different definition of a just man versus a just god. Because to Plato, a just man minds his own business and makes sure his soul is virtuous. But a just God, punishes the unjust and rewards the just as demonstrated by depiction of the afterlife at the end of the Republic. And that definitely undermines Miller's main argument, especially because he is talking only about God's justice. I am open to the possiblity that I could have misinterpreted things. The republic was dense and I will be the first to admit I didn't understand everything.
The book lost a star from me though because half the book seemed out of place. It felt like the author just wanted to include a tribute to his recently departed father. The author has that right, of course. But those parts did nothing to support his arguments and didn't add anything for me.
Update: Because of Miller's description of how Socrates defined justice, I was inspired to read the Republic. And now, having suffered through all of it, I can tell you that while Miller did correctly quote Socrates, I feel that the quote was taken out of context and used unfairly to add gravitas to what are essentially just the thoughts of the author. Yes, at the beginning of the Republic Socrates says that "to injure a friend or anyone else, is not the act of a just man but of the opposite". However, that is nowhere near his final definition. In fact, it seems to me that Plato must have a different definition of a just man versus a just god. Because to Plato, a just man minds his own business and makes sure his soul is virtuous. But a just God, punishes the unjust and rewards the just as demonstrated by depiction of the afterlife at the end of the Republic. And that definitely undermines Miller's main argument, especially because he is talking only about God's justice. I am open to the possiblity that I could have misinterpreted things. The republic was dense and I will be the first to admit I didn't understand everything.
July 19, 2022
Just Read it!
Adam shares a powerful testimony of Grace. I hope he can finally rid our faith of our belief in the penal substitution model.
Adam shares a powerful testimony of Grace. I hope he can finally rid our faith of our belief in the penal substitution model.
October 3, 2024
It’s wild to me how much we (we being Christians, people who in love and good faith organize their lives around following Christ) so often completely fail to hear Christ’s most essential messages. How we so totally miss the point.
This book points out one of those areas.
Grace is not the opposite of justice. In God’s law, grace is what creates justice, through gratitude for whatever good exists and offering good to rectify whatever bad exists.
This book points out one of those areas.
Grace is not the opposite of justice. In God’s law, grace is what creates justice, through gratitude for whatever good exists and offering good to rectify whatever bad exists.
April 2, 2023
Short and to the point. This is a life-changing book.
April 4, 2023
This book entirely changed the way I think about grace. I have gone from thinking of grace as something that fills in the gaps when I go wrong, to realizing that grace has existed from the beginning. My Heavenly Parents wrote grace into the plan—grace is the entire plan—for me to return back to Them. Instead of believing that sin came first, and grace makes up for it, Adam Miller writes that we should think of greave as coming first. Grace came when our Heavenly Parents created the world, created us, and created the plan of salvation. This is the type of book I will need to read again and again to really get it.
Read
December 3, 2022I’ve read another book by Adam S. Miller and have watched/listened to an interview or two with him, and while I don’t agree with every last thing he says or think every last theological turn he makes is sound, I am very much behind what seems to be his “big picture” project, both here and elsewhere: helping members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“The Mormons”) let go of perfectionism and fully embrace and partake in the grace of Jesus Christ. As a believing and practicing member of the Church, I feel keenly the need to be reminded of and deepen our understanding on this issue, both for myself as an individual and as applied to the culture of members of the Church as a whole.
I’m going to come up short in my attempts to re-articulate his arguments in this “review,” but I'm going to try a little bit anyway. This go-round, Miller zeroes in on the concept of original sin, which we officially don’t believe in. However, Miller argues, culturally speaking, we essentially do believe in original sin, or at least act like it, though our attitude towards sin and keeping the commandments. I’m paraphrasing here (hopefully not too inaccurately), but he essentially says we tend to look pessimistically at the Law/the commandments and our inevitable failure to live them completely and this makes us want to invite what we see as justified divine punishment on our own heads. We look at the Law as an accusation; he wants us to see it as an invitation.
Our own doctrine backs him up. This is one thing I like about Miller as a (LDS/Mormon) cultural critic: he usually does a good job of emphasizing that it is our own failure to understand our own doctrine—both on an individual and broad cultural level—that causes the big problems.
For Miller, one of the keys to cure this broken vision of the Law as an “accusation” is seeing our very creation as an act of divine grace, a gift of opportunity from a loving God to his spiritual children. The Law, then, is given to help our growth as the offspring of God, a chance to begin to take on his characteristics and qualities. Miller also wants to emphasize the continuity of this “creation as grace” with the grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which is where he takes issue with the previous LDS poster boy for grace, Steven E. Robinson.
I don’t remember this from my experiences reading Robinson's now-classic Believing Christ, but Miller notes how that book implies and eventually pretty much comes right out as says that Christ and his atonement for human sin only became necessity after the fall of Adam and Eve in general terms and after our own failure to live up to the law in individual terms. An emergency measure of sorts in response to a mishap. Even if you are only familiar with the titles of Miller’s work, you’ll know he’s not having any of that. Because, ahem, Grace Is Not God’s Back Up Plan. I think he’s right about this, and honestly, I privately don’t think Robinson really, truly believed what he wrote back in the ‘80s on this point. He was just working with the limited theological tools he had (derived in large part from his training in Southern, Protestant-tradition theology schools) to try to come close to explaining something those tools really couldn’t explain.
And Miller doesn’t fault Robinson too much or really lay into him too bad, either. Rather, he holds Robinson’s book up as initiating a re-emphasis on a vitally important idea that had maybe kind of gotten lost in the shuffle in LDS culture a bit. Miller then situates his own book as standing on those giants’ shoulders and maybe refining some of the thinking a bit. Very classy, Brother Miller. Classy and accurate.
Perhaps the most intriguing idea in this book, both philosophically and theologically, is the way Miller talks about suffering. He emphasizes suffering as an unavoidable fact of living in a fallen world rather than the view of suffering as deserved punishment/consequence for sins or mistakes. By suffering with us and empathizing with us, Christ can transform us from people trying to “win at life” and avoid suffering to people who try to follow his empathetic example to endure and overcome suffering together. Something like that. I’m not sure I follow all he argues along this line of thinking, but I can tell there is definitely something there. I’ve had similar thoughts about suffering myself.
Having offered that praise, let me now offer a few small critiques. The first is less a criticism of Miller and his book specifically and more of an expression of disappointment in the way Original Grace is in some ways another iteration of a trend within the LDS intelligencia and young(ish) adults that I don’t love. In this book Miller talks about his own personal struggles with misunderstanding the Law, not appreciating grace, getting stifled by perfectionism, etc. as an adolescent and young man growing up in the Church. His comments echo the rhetoric of other Gen-X-ers and Millennials, some of whom are a bit more caustic or whiny than Miller about how parents and youth leaders failed them. I don’t doubt Miller or anybody else’s experience, but at the same time, part of me reads about his youthful attitude and wants to say, “were you just not paying attention?”
I’m about Miller’s age and must have had at least a somewhat similar church-going experience. And yes, I struggled and still struggle with perfectionism, and yes, there are certain tendencies within the culture of the Church that can stoke and exacerbate this, but I feel like the major contributor to this problem with perfectionism is my own mental hang ups and personality-derived thinking pattern issues. And what’s more, the Church has always offered the antidote to these perfectionist tendencies. That strain of grace and love from a compassionate Father in Heaven that Miller elucidates in Original Grace was always there. It always has been from very the beginning.
Were my parents just way better than everyone else’s? There may be some truth to that, actually. But I also think were going through a cultural moment where we take an excessively negative view of the past, perhaps particularly the legacy of our parental units, and take an excessively optimistic view on how we're now just doing an awesome job at fixing things and righting all those past wrongs. Maybe when all the Millennials turn forty and recognize that their parents did the best they could, and on the whole, really did a pretty good job, we’ll get beyond this. In the meantime, I’ll just continue to be a grumpy old man. Kids these days.
I’ll spare you the angst and detail of my second complaint, but the gist is that at a certain point Miller offers what I think of as a pretty poor reading of Alma 40 and 41. And because this reading doesn’t fit in with what Miller is arguing in Original Grace, he essentially dismisses Alma’s comment as being sort of “outdated,” using a collective-understanding-of-truth-is-increasing-line-upon-line argument to say we’re smarted now and moved beyond that kind of thinking. We can’t just do that to scripture! Perhaps particularly the Book of Mormon. This is a different essay for a different day, but I think Alma’s comment might provide a healthy counterpoint to Miller’s argument in Original Grace, a side of things that perhaps his son Corianton needed to hear in that moment. Mostly, I just think Miller’s misreading or mis-applying those verses.
Okay, this is probably more than long enough and I should really close up shop, but I’d recommend this book to most members of the Church and also to most Christians open to entertaining a Latter-Day-Saint perspective on Christ and grace. Miller’s a philosopher, so his ideas can get a bit challenging at times, but in this book he really made an effort to write for lay readers and convey his ideas in understandable but still meaningful ways. And I think he largely succeeded.
I’m going to come up short in my attempts to re-articulate his arguments in this “review,” but I'm going to try a little bit anyway. This go-round, Miller zeroes in on the concept of original sin, which we officially don’t believe in. However, Miller argues, culturally speaking, we essentially do believe in original sin, or at least act like it, though our attitude towards sin and keeping the commandments. I’m paraphrasing here (hopefully not too inaccurately), but he essentially says we tend to look pessimistically at the Law/the commandments and our inevitable failure to live them completely and this makes us want to invite what we see as justified divine punishment on our own heads. We look at the Law as an accusation; he wants us to see it as an invitation.
Our own doctrine backs him up. This is one thing I like about Miller as a (LDS/Mormon) cultural critic: he usually does a good job of emphasizing that it is our own failure to understand our own doctrine—both on an individual and broad cultural level—that causes the big problems.
For Miller, one of the keys to cure this broken vision of the Law as an “accusation” is seeing our very creation as an act of divine grace, a gift of opportunity from a loving God to his spiritual children. The Law, then, is given to help our growth as the offspring of God, a chance to begin to take on his characteristics and qualities. Miller also wants to emphasize the continuity of this “creation as grace” with the grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, which is where he takes issue with the previous LDS poster boy for grace, Steven E. Robinson.
I don’t remember this from my experiences reading Robinson's now-classic Believing Christ, but Miller notes how that book implies and eventually pretty much comes right out as says that Christ and his atonement for human sin only became necessity after the fall of Adam and Eve in general terms and after our own failure to live up to the law in individual terms. An emergency measure of sorts in response to a mishap. Even if you are only familiar with the titles of Miller’s work, you’ll know he’s not having any of that. Because, ahem, Grace Is Not God’s Back Up Plan. I think he’s right about this, and honestly, I privately don’t think Robinson really, truly believed what he wrote back in the ‘80s on this point. He was just working with the limited theological tools he had (derived in large part from his training in Southern, Protestant-tradition theology schools) to try to come close to explaining something those tools really couldn’t explain.
And Miller doesn’t fault Robinson too much or really lay into him too bad, either. Rather, he holds Robinson’s book up as initiating a re-emphasis on a vitally important idea that had maybe kind of gotten lost in the shuffle in LDS culture a bit. Miller then situates his own book as standing on those giants’ shoulders and maybe refining some of the thinking a bit. Very classy, Brother Miller. Classy and accurate.
Perhaps the most intriguing idea in this book, both philosophically and theologically, is the way Miller talks about suffering. He emphasizes suffering as an unavoidable fact of living in a fallen world rather than the view of suffering as deserved punishment/consequence for sins or mistakes. By suffering with us and empathizing with us, Christ can transform us from people trying to “win at life” and avoid suffering to people who try to follow his empathetic example to endure and overcome suffering together. Something like that. I’m not sure I follow all he argues along this line of thinking, but I can tell there is definitely something there. I’ve had similar thoughts about suffering myself.
Having offered that praise, let me now offer a few small critiques. The first is less a criticism of Miller and his book specifically and more of an expression of disappointment in the way Original Grace is in some ways another iteration of a trend within the LDS intelligencia and young(ish) adults that I don’t love. In this book Miller talks about his own personal struggles with misunderstanding the Law, not appreciating grace, getting stifled by perfectionism, etc. as an adolescent and young man growing up in the Church. His comments echo the rhetoric of other Gen-X-ers and Millennials, some of whom are a bit more caustic or whiny than Miller about how parents and youth leaders failed them. I don’t doubt Miller or anybody else’s experience, but at the same time, part of me reads about his youthful attitude and wants to say, “were you just not paying attention?”
I’m about Miller’s age and must have had at least a somewhat similar church-going experience. And yes, I struggled and still struggle with perfectionism, and yes, there are certain tendencies within the culture of the Church that can stoke and exacerbate this, but I feel like the major contributor to this problem with perfectionism is my own mental hang ups and personality-derived thinking pattern issues. And what’s more, the Church has always offered the antidote to these perfectionist tendencies. That strain of grace and love from a compassionate Father in Heaven that Miller elucidates in Original Grace was always there. It always has been from very the beginning.
Were my parents just way better than everyone else’s? There may be some truth to that, actually. But I also think were going through a cultural moment where we take an excessively negative view of the past, perhaps particularly the legacy of our parental units, and take an excessively optimistic view on how we're now just doing an awesome job at fixing things and righting all those past wrongs. Maybe when all the Millennials turn forty and recognize that their parents did the best they could, and on the whole, really did a pretty good job, we’ll get beyond this. In the meantime, I’ll just continue to be a grumpy old man. Kids these days.
I’ll spare you the angst and detail of my second complaint, but the gist is that at a certain point Miller offers what I think of as a pretty poor reading of Alma 40 and 41. And because this reading doesn’t fit in with what Miller is arguing in Original Grace, he essentially dismisses Alma’s comment as being sort of “outdated,” using a collective-understanding-of-truth-is-increasing-line-upon-line argument to say we’re smarted now and moved beyond that kind of thinking. We can’t just do that to scripture! Perhaps particularly the Book of Mormon. This is a different essay for a different day, but I think Alma’s comment might provide a healthy counterpoint to Miller’s argument in Original Grace, a side of things that perhaps his son Corianton needed to hear in that moment. Mostly, I just think Miller’s misreading or mis-applying those verses.
Okay, this is probably more than long enough and I should really close up shop, but I’d recommend this book to most members of the Church and also to most Christians open to entertaining a Latter-Day-Saint perspective on Christ and grace. Miller’s a philosopher, so his ideas can get a bit challenging at times, but in this book he really made an effort to write for lay readers and convey his ideas in understandable but still meaningful ways. And I think he largely succeeded.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 322 reviews