WARNING: You all know how I believe, you all know that I don’t think you’re bad people if I disagree with you and rant against something that you love and enjoy. These are my impressions and thoughts, feel free to disagree with them (and I’d love it if those disagreements are substantiated).
I’ve heard a lot about the book, and a lot about Don Miller, and I think I would just get frustrated by what he says. I don’t want to be critical of something that has so apparently encouraged other people, but I also cannot stomach what I perceive as his lackadaisical (mis?)treatment of sola scriptura. I’ve read too many people (none of you; various blogs on the internet of people I don’t know) repeating themes like “love over truth”, and how they’ve been brought forth into a new, enlightened post-modern church (read: a new, enlightened post-modern gospel) that is more concerned with cultural trends than scriptural ones. This is just my perception, and if I’m wrong, tell me, but I won’t read the book. It’ll tick me off no matter what because I’ll still imagine he’s talking about these things even if he’s not.
My main issue with this trend is that it emphasizes human experience and human emotion (read: depraved, natural things) over Ultimate Reality and the Truth that is unchanging and exclusive. To me, it comes across as a desire to be accepted and respected by the world by relating to them on their (depraved, natural) level instead of pointing out their utter depravity and incapability of finding God on their own (which is, of course, absolute truth and is the message of the gospel). I don’t dispute that Don Miller believes in the absolute truth and exclusivity of salvation, but I don’t think I like his nebulous methods of conveying it to those who need to hear it most. I don’t dispute his position that love is the greatest of God’s blessings to us (1 Cor. 13), but I do dispute that Truth is somehow secondary (whether or not he says/infers this or just some people who like him, I don’t know). It doesn’t matter how much acceptance and love I show to Melvin the homosexual hippie, if he doesn’t realize that he is utterly lost and damned without the saving grace of God, then he will still be consumed by the fires of gehenna.
I do agree with (what I perceive to be) Miller’s dissatisfaction with the modern church, but probably for different reasons. I strongly believe we need another reformation and a return to societal morality, while he seems (at least I perceive as much) to want to redefine what societal morality is.
It all comes down to what the church really is, which is the body of believers in the death, resurrection and salvation of Jesus Christ, who is the perfect Son of God. Therefore, should the church have its arms open to nonbelievers, or should it be like an “exclusive club” (that many post-modern Christians claim it to be)? I don’t think it should be either; the way into the church is through Christ and Christ alone, no matter how much we welcome non-Christians into our fellowship, they can never really have fellowship with us until God saves them. The more we try to make Christianity acceptable to non-believers, the more we have to water it down. It is inherently unacceptable to them; that’s the point. We, in ourselves, are completely incapable of understanding our plight without the revelation of God, so the saving action is therefore up to God…
Please note, I’m not calling Don Miller a heretic/unbeliever/wrong; indeed, if anything is to be said about him, it is that he is genuine. That is very good, and I respect that and desire that same genuineness for myself. It’s not the man, it’s his methods. I’ve read too many non-Christians (Buddhists, Unitarians, etc.) saying they love the book because it’s not “exclusive” and it’s not “bigoted” for me to even feel comfortable approaching it. The piercing Truth of the gospel should inspire fear, not “respect”, because we’re either all dead wrong, crazy or right. Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with everything else (and I’m aware, or at least I think I am, that Miller doesn’t really like to use the term Christianity, but seems to prefer “Christian Spirituality”, which also makes me quite uncomfortable).
For me, I struggle with the balance of wanting my faith to appeal to the lost and loving them as I am commanded, but also not watering down the message of the gospel out of fear that it will be unacceptable to unbelievers. Maybe that’s what Don Miller writes about too, I guess I don’t really know, but from everything else I’ve read, it sounds like he made up his mind that it’s better to get along with everyone than to stand staunchly for something that the rest of the world will hate you for.
There is something good here to say though: I do like what I’ve heard about his idea of sharing our own sinfulness and being open about ourselves to non-Christians. I think that is a fantastic idea that I’d not really consciously thought of before but goes in perfect accordance with my own Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. We’d all be in the same boat if not for the grace of God alone to save us out of our state, so we can’t claim any kind of superiority to non-Christians. I like that.
Anyway, that’s probably quite enough of that. Everyone knows what I think, and that I speak in total ignorance (boldly proclaiming as much), but I will not read that book unless I can be assured it won’t raise my blood pressure. If anyone cares to enlighten me otherwise, please do so. I honestly don’t think “Blue Like Jazz” is a bad thing; I don’t really know… I don’t “feel” like it would be good for me to read (and here I am accusing him of postmodern subjectivity).
EDIT:
I have since read a few chapters of this book, and it did make me feel ill.
