So, I say that to explain a bit about why I've just now read the bestselling book by Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz (published 2003). Some of you, most of you, probably, have read this book by now, perhaps multiple times. I've been saying for some time now that I needed to get around to reading it. As I spend more time teaching in my church, the more I realize I need to be up to speed with what folks are reading. So, consider this a late book review, only it's not really a book review.
You see, the thought that kept coming to my mind as I read this was "why was this book such a big deal?" When I finished the book (which didn't take long, it's a very easy read), I found myself asking the same question.
But I mean that in 2 different ways. I wonder why some folks loved this book so much. Hearing from some made me think this book could be the best thing to happen to American Christianity in recent years. After reading it, I can't help but wonder if that is a tremendous overstatement. But, to talk to some other folks, you'd think this is a dangerous book, one that is fraught with awful theology and destined to lead some to heresy. Got to be honest- don't see that either. Not even close.
Let me say it this way: I found 25% of the book annoying, 25% really insightful, 50% just fine. One minor annoyance was his writing style- I wasn't sure if it was cool or childish. For instance, if he were writing about me, he might write something like this:
One of my friends, Danny the Red Sox Fan, is a good guy. He married this girl, Lisa. Lisa is way out of his league. Danny is obsessive about the Red Sox. Danny also has this blog that no one reads. He writes anyway, maybe because he's bored. I like Danny.
Miller is, at points, very insightful. He'll have an interesting way to look at things, especially on loving the broken and downtrodden. And contrary to what you might think from talking to his detractors, he does in fact believe people need to acknowledge their sin and repent. It seems to me that he emphasizes the need to love people before they get "fixed", not just after. I'd consider that a pretty good idea.
To be sure, there are things I don't like. It'd be easy to walk away from this book thinking that only Christians who cuss, don't like Republicans (or churches that do) and call everything "beautiful" are really cool. I'm not saying that was Miller's intention, but I could see how people might walk away from this book thinking that.
Anyway, I'd thought I'd throw out some thoughts on the complaints I've heard over the last couple years and my thoughts on them. First, is the claim he's simply anti-Republican. Yeah, that's pretty much true, and he has a major problem with churches that "toe the party line." I certainly think he's right that there's a problem when so many Christians are blindly Republican. But I personally find the blindly Democrat just as annoying (perhaps even moreso, since they make the same errors they speak against). But hey, it's his book, he can write what he wants.
Second, some say he doesn't have enough of a developed theology. Again, this is true, though there are some "theological" moments in the book- he just goes about them differently (his section on tithing, for example). For instance, Miller is a firm believer that all people have an inherent "sin nature" (his favorite term). He doesn't go about defending it through Scripture or theological reflections on total depravity. He reiterates the need to repent before God, though doesn't show how one goes from being sinful to being repentant (the regeneration/election of the Calvinist system, or the prevenient grace of Wesley). But again, he isn't pretending to be a theologian, and for some who aren't well-versed in Scripture, especially a non-Christian, he might present the idea better than most of us. No, he's not on the level of C S Lewis, but why should we expect him to be?
Third, some argue that he is too hard on the church. Again, I'll agree with this to an extent. I'm a huge believer in the local church. If I were to write a book of this sorts, I'd have tons to say about how much I love my church, warts and all. But Miller isn't anti-church, he's anti-some-churches. I think he's overly critical. If someone already struggles with anger against the church, this book could feed that.
But, I'd also point out two things. One, as critical as he is of others (and he admits as much), he's just as critical of himself throughout the book. Two, he does find himself a church he loves and is challenged by, and he spends a decent amount of time talking about it. I would have preferred he tempered himself a bit more, though. I guess I just think it's too easy to pick on the church, and a bit too trendy for my tastes. I will say, many who pick on churches will end up saying (in attitude as much as in their words) to non-Christians "but hey, we're not like that, we love Jesus and what we're doing is even better than what they're doing." To his credit, I don't think Miller ever goes that far.
Lastly, I found one part amusing, given the successful nature of the book:
Imago, our church, is made up of mostly artists and fruit nuts and none of us have any money, so Rick [his pastor] said if I was going to be a writer, I needed to write a bestseller so that the church could have some money.
In the end, it's what you would expect out of an autobiographical look on the Christian life (not properly an autobiography). At times I wondered how some of it ever got published. At times I was annoyed by his idiosyncratic outlook. At times I found his take on a subject uniquely refreshing. So read it (I'm sure you can borrow it from someone). Enjoy it. But don't believe the hype- either side of it.
2 comments:
I think you may have answered that question of "why all the hype" in the first paragraph. The book was written in 2003, toward the beginnings of relativist, and emerging. The book was significant at the time. And I would argue it was in fact his "idiosyncratic" personality and writing of a faith journey that made it compelling to the average young adult. Maybe you’re just too old? He was likable, flawed, self deprecating and very relatable, but in the end he found Jesus. People were excited because there was finally a book with a central character that lots of people could relate to and connect with that in the end finds Jesus. You may remember around the same time another book called "Girl meets God" was also popular. Trends create their own hype.
Yeah, I totally understand that timing had much (almost everything?) to do with it. Of course, that begs the question: why all the hype? I mean, if in 5 years a book doesn't deserve the hype (subjective statement, I realize), then maybe it never should have deserved it.
And I completely agree with your assessment of why it was compelling. And I can see why. Miller is undoubtedly a personal writer with an "everyman's" style to him, which I liked for the most part.
Perhaps I am too old, but notice that the negative aspects I saw had nothing to do with him writing about his "faith journey." I appreciated that about him. If noting his idiosyncratic style makes me old, well, get my cane and bifocals. =)
Post a Comment