Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 2

Last night, I read the first few chapters of Blue Like Jazz--chapters 1-4. I must say that it has been an interesting read insofar.

On the positive, it enlightens the reasons that many Christians feel disenfranchised from rank-n-file evangelicalism. He discusses the tendency of evangelicals to avoid intellectual engagement of theology and the reading of Scripture, and the tendency of us evangelicals to ignore serious social problems that face both our nation and world. Politically, Donald Miller is obviously liberal, with an apparent disdain for the Republican party (see pages 18-19, 43, 46), and that perspective must be taken into account since most evangelicals tend to be politically conservative (which seems to bother Miller). It certainly correlates to the disconnect Don felt with church and his tainted concept of a typical evangelical Christian.

The image of the typical Christian that Don has portrayed so far (as of the end of chapter 4) is not very positive. In fact, it is rather stereotypical--along the lines of the world's portrayal of Christians. Much of it is deserved (the hypocrisy), much of it is not (the pigeonholing).

Chapter 2

In this chapter, Miller discusses his realization of mankind being "flawed." He recounts the way he felt when he heard of the mass genocides taking place in Africa, and he also recounts a few conversations he had with friends--conversations about the necessity of cops and having to teach children to be good (but not to be bad). He then remembers the realization of his own "self-addiction." Miller is on to the truth here. However, his formulation of "flawed" humanity is completely from personal observation. His explanation is only in terms of observed evil, not from the revelation of Scripture. Because of this, Miller stops short of the complete, biblical truth of human depravity.

The most common form used to describe the human condition is flawed. Twice in chapter 2 he uses the term depravity, and once perverse. He doesn't use the word rebellion until chapter 3. However, Millers usage of the stronger terms--and even the term sin--is weakened by the context of their usage. He recalls a conversation with "Tony the deat poet":

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."

Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."

"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe." [Page 17, emphasis mine]

In this book, Donald Miller is documenting a spiritual journey, and in the context of this excerpt, he is at the beginning of his realization of the "flaw" in humankind. The bolded sentence does not reflect the biblical teaching of the sin nature in Scripture--and I hope that Miller moves from this position on the sin nature of man later in this documented journey. Here, humankind is presented as a little broken, flawed, perhaps a little perverse and depraved--but there is still good in him. A theology of man that is grounded in a view as this can only lead to a salvation based on human attribute, effort, or merit.

Biblically, we aren't just broken and flawed, but we are in outright rebellion against God, self-seeking, dead in our trespasses and sins, enemies of God, and deserving of the dreaded word (*gasp*) judgment. We have no desire to please or know God--he is our enemy and we are his. Understanding any spiritual truth (including the gospel) is outside of our spiritual capacity, for we are slaves to sin. This is the scriptural presentation of the human condition--we aren't broken, we are dead. (Isaiah 53:6a; Psalm 14, 53; John 8:34, 12:37-40; Romans 1:18-3:23, 5:10 (enemies of God), 6:20-23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-18; Colossian 1:21; many others)

...It is hard for us to admit that we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished...It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.

People all over the world, regardless of who governs them, innately cannot admit to their true sinful state, not because of checks and balances, but because of their own self-deceit. That the point in Romans 1:18ff: mankind willfully suppresses the knowledge of God and his statutes and makes for himself gods that are more like him. This is what we do by nature. The founders of the U.S., both Christians and theists--many of whom were Reformed--did understand that man's soul is depraved. They documented it: "There is no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," said John Adams. Moreover, this depravity exists in all men, even when being watched. Depravity is not based on action and works--it is the condition of the human heart, watched or unwatched.

At the end of chapter 2, this little sentence intrigued me: "I think every well-adjusted human being has dealt squarely with his or her own depravity." I have no idea of what Miller means by this. What defines a "well-adjusted human being"? What does he mean in saying that they have dealt squarely with their own depravity? The Scripture tells us that the unbelievers have not dealt squarely (which I assume to mean addressed) with the depravity within, but have swept it under the rug and ignored it. The have filed it into the darkest area of their mind so that it no longer bothers them.

The average unbeliever has no problem admitting to not being perfect, or perhaps being a little flawed. The offence of the unbeliever comes when the gospel of Christ tells him that he is totally unworthy of God's love and that he will face judgment apart from Christ. Moreover, this offence is compounded when the unbeliever is told that Jesus is the only way. Insofar, this has been absent in Miller's explanation of the "PROBLEMS" of humanity. Miller seems to want to bring discomfort, but not offence. I hope my further reading persuades me otherwise.