Blue Like Jazz

Note: Click links to view more recent reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5.

Over the last year, I've heard the mention of a book Blue Like Jazz on several occasions. I was invited via email once to a study on it, and several other times, I've heard the mention or recommendation of it. It's author is Donald Miller, from Portland OR, and he is associated with a growing (actually, it's now a rather large) movement called "emergent." In fact, when you look up the book onBarnes and Noble, the other books associated to the purchase of this book are all by emergent/emerging church authors of the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell (who is a favorite among emergents, but to my knowledge has not publicly associated himself with the emergent movement).

It's not hard to find criticism of these emergent authors. Slice of Laodicea and Apprising Ministries are two Internet blogs that are often critical of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. What is frustrating about these sites is that it is difficult for me to know how honest the criticism is. It some cases the information is obviously third-hand. The writer at Apprising Ministries cites excepts of the authors, or random quotes, and critiques them, but it's hard for me to see that the citations are truly heresy or a poorly formed explanation--which all ministers have been guilty of doing at some point. I know I've poorly worded explanations in my writings and sermons, and they were understood to mean something that I did not mean.

I now intend on getting the book Blue Like Jazz, to both analyze it and critique it--simply because this book is the most read of the emergent books among the evangelical churches here in Baton Rouge.

I did find an article by asecular [Warning: there are a couple of cuss word in this link] writer local to the Portland area who interviewed Donald Miller. There were two sections of the article that interested me:

Some of Miller's critics go after him for theological reasons. Vince Bissey, the Missouri Presbyterian who vehemently criticized Blue Like Jazz, believes Miller gets the Bible dead wrong when he writes, for example, that "something inside me…caused Him to love me." Bissey, who's entering seminary training next year, believes God loves humanity despite humanity's total lack of worthiness. "I really believe there can only be one correct view," he says.

And later:

As different as Miller is from the stereotypical evangelical, make no mistake: Miller's no poseur.

At Starbucks, after I close my notebook, Miller looks at me. "So you've been talking to people, working on your stories," he says. "Has anyone explained to you what the Gospel is?"

I say, no, not in so many words.

"I could give you the sales pitch," he says. "Because maybe, who knows, 10 years down the road…"

Then Miller proceeds, in the most low-key and friendly way, to explain that God loves me, wants to have a relationship with me-and, for that matter, everyone. The relationship was damaged in the Garden, but Christ came to earth to fix it. The invitation, Miller says, is always open.

If Miller does say in Blue Like Jazz, "Something inside of me...caused [God] to love me," then He is treading dangerous waters. From a biblical standpoint, there is no basis to say such a thing in any context, save the context of arguing against it. To say that God loves me because of something about/inside me is to say that God's love is based on human merit or attribute. Biblically, God's love is rooted in God's character, not my attributes. God loves his people because God is love, not because man is worth loving.

Miller's gospel presentation to Zach Dundas [the Portland journalist] is indicative of a watered down, human-centered, theology that is rampant in evangelical Christianity. Read that second excerpt again. I've made gospel presentations almost identical to this before I really began to study the Scriptures. Now, my convictions do not permit me to tell an unbeliever that "God loves you." Moreover, it is clear in Miller's presentation that the center of God's affections in his theology is man. The Fall was not in God's purposes, so He sent Christ to "fix" the mess that man made. In essence, Christ is no more than a bandaid to help heal creation's wounds--to mitigate the damage of the Fall. He was not God's primary and eternal purpose in creation. The atonement was a God's reaction to the Fall, not God's predetermined purpose in revealing the glory of His nature to His people.

Be careful, because such a theology distorts true nature of God's sovereignty and devalues to Work of Christ to one of mere damage control. The distortion of God's sovereignty is not explicit in Miller's gospel presentation, but it is accessible. Think about these theological expression: "God wants a relationship with everyone, and the gospel invitation is always open." Who is ultimate control in this picture? If God has the power to do anything that pleases him, and if it pleases God to have a relationship with all men, then why isn't every man in a relationship with God? The god of this theology is a passive and waiting god, hoping that man will come around to realize the truth. The God of the Bible is a God who pursues and conquers the hearts of the men and women he desires to possess. This may seem distasteful to the likes of many evangelicals, but it is the portrait painted by the words of Scripture.

More on Blue Like Jazz to come when I get a chance to start reading it.