A Blue Review
Wow, that was a quick read. I’m done with Blue Like Jazz - Nonreligious Thoughts On Christian Spirituality in three days. I love Miller’s writing style. It’s open and honest with a bit of sarcasm, never taking itself too seriously — kind of like a good blog. I had read a pretty harsh review of the book on Amazon but I think it was unfair. The author is just writing from an Arminian point of view, that’s all. There are certain things I don’t agree with, but nothing to dismiss the entire writing over. I will warn you, there are some places where some red flags will start to wave but keep reading … that’s where it gets good. I think it has a lot to offer if you are willing to look at things from a different perspective — always encouraged by me.
Over the past year or so I’ve been becoming re-educated in the foundations of the faith. Not just assuming things because I’ve been a believer for so long, but being able to articulate what faith in Christ really means. The potential for error here is to become so focused on getting things right in your head that you forget how to live that faith in your heart. This book is coming from the introspection of a redeemed heart. Without discounting the importance of sound theology, Miller offers these words about the idea of worship:
“At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know the chances of any of our theology being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay. And wonder is that feeling we get when we let go of our silly answers, our mapped out rules that we want God to follow. I don’t think there is any better worship than wonder.”
So if you’re feeling a bit crusty and curmudgeonly — maybe even distant, I recommend this book as a good dose of balance that may help your faith be a little less theory and a bit more practice — without hiding your head in the sands of Christian culture. In the mean time, my life is so tame, I need to go find me some crazy friends. (No offense tame friends.)
July 28th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I haven’t read the book, but your review seems to imply that seeking to be sound in our theology is opposed to seeking to live it out. Do they really have to be opposed to each other? Does one need to be more loose or sloppy in his theology (i.e. let go of our silly answers) to live in wild abandon to God? Or maybe that’s not what you are saying.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Hey Eric, fancy meeting you here.
No, I’m just saying that it is a potential pitfall to become so interested in being right about what we believe that we neglect what we are actually living ‚Äî and then think to ourselves at least we aren’t as bad as those that aren’t pursuing theology or that have drawn a different conclusion on a non-essential to the faith. (See recent post about Pendulum of Error.)
The reference to “silly answers” is in regards to those that try to “chart God on a grid” or “reduce Christian spirituality down to a formula” (i.e. explain the logic of the trinity or if you behave a certain way then God will react a certain way) ‚Äî not those being able to define what they believe and making sure it lines up with Scripture.
Our head and heart should not oppose each other but be in balance. To those that seem to have trouble understanding what they say they believe in when they really start examining it, I recommend a good dose of Lewis.
July 28th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Sorry Dave… yuck.
First of all, a million to one seems too generous.
Second, God doesn’t have things “figured out;” he made them the way they are. That’s like saying a murderer “figured out” how his crime was committed.
Third, if your math is wrong you might be the farthest thing from “okay.” Your math is wrong on how Christ will return? No problem. Your math is wrong on how he will judge you when he returns? Big problem.
He says wonder is a feeling, and that wonder is the best worship. Does that mean worship is a feeling — that worship is subjective? I hold that worship is an objective exercise (the object of worship is God; the subject is the worshipper)… there are subjective elements, but they are peripheral.
Worship - true, practical, real-life, everyday worship - follows from revealed truth. You cannot worship what you merely wonder about.
Of course, you can be “filled with wonder,” as in, “the more you know, the more you realize what you don’t know.”
This just seems to be talking about “wonder,” as in, Jessica Simpson-Paris Hilton-”Omigosh, I don’t, like, gettit, I mean, this is, like, hard ‘n stuff… but Jesus loves you!”
C’mon. God calls us to a higher standard than that.
July 28th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I’m beginning to think this was a poor choice of quotes to use because there is no context to it. You need the context of the chapter and probably every chapter in front of it.
Regarding the math, I can’t help but think he was talking about the non-essentials. You also learn quickly that this guy isn’t some sentimental sap that is writing fluff for the Christian publishing machine so I am more inclined to think he is coming from the “more you know…” perspective in regards to wonder.
I agree with you that this is hardly a complete definition of worship but more about a certain part of it (I assume his favorite part) that he wants to emphasize — a part that is often lost to routine and assumption.
Linking to my own blog — I like it!
July 28th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
dave, you hit it right on the nail when you said, “there is no context to it”. you definitely need the entire picture; i would suggest reading the entire book. and before reading, get a glimpse of miller’s mug. not as weird looking as david crowder, but weird looking (of course, i’m beautiful).
i wonder how many political issues miller and i might differ on? hmmmm. but personally, i liked this book a lot and two months after reading it, i still find myself thinking of the content and making applicable changes where needed.
finally, you gotta love the confession booth on the college campus!
July 29th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Sorry, one more thought on worshiping and wonder. I said earlier that worship derives from revealed truth, not mystery. Paul put it this way in the Areopagus:
“For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‚ÄòTo the unknown god.‚Äô What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)
God isn’t coy. He promises us that if we seek him, we shall find him; and he desires to be worshiped for who he is - not who we think he might be if we ever decided to put forth the effort to take him seriously.
July 29th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Good thought but irrelevant to what Miller is talking about.
As soon as you ask Him to reveal how He can be three in/and one to you and He delivers, you let me know. I would love to have that be released on guiroo.com first.
July 29th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Davie-fresh - much love from this side of the room.
Though I am wondering….. if the odds of our theology being exactly right are a million to one, what are the odds of it being “right enough”? I mean, how much error will the Holy Spirit allow in a regenerated heart? (props to Eric).
July 29th, 2005 at 9:35 am
That’s a question that I often wonder about. We spend hours discussing the intricacies of the faith ‚Äî as we should move past the milk and dig into the meat ‚Äî but the thief on the cross and the parable contrasting the prayers of the tax collector and the Pharisee tend to make me think that the most basic of milk is much more simple than “the ‘good’ son” would want it to be.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:16 am
That’s a worthy challenge - paraphrasing now - how do you reconcile the great mysteries of God (the nature of the Trinity is a great example) with the idea that worship should flow from revealed truth? Does that mean we can only worship God insofar as our cognitive abilities allow?
Here’s my take.
God’s revelation is the Scripture. The Scriptures reveal two things about the Trinity: God is three, and God is one. Sadly, he hasn’t revealed how that works, and anyone who claims to have the inside scoop on that one ought to be thoroughly tried and tested over so great a matter.
So I think it is fair to conclude that we need not worship God for the mechanics of the Trinity - any attempt would be speculative - but we ought to worship God for the fact of the Trinity.
But your question reveals an attitude that is entirely different from the one I get concerned about when I read quotes like Miller’s. When you take on a question about the nature of God as if there is an objective, knowable answer, you are taking God seriously.
When you dismiss a question about the nature of God as if there is no objective, knowable truth there, that is a flippant and cavalier attitude toward the Almighty — and that’s foolish at best; at worst, blasphemous.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:52 am
I’m a bit of a word freak. Sometimes etymology (no, that is not the study of insects) simply reveals interesting curiosities, but sometime more. I find it interesting that our word ‘worship’ came from the English words ‘worth ship.’ That is to say that worship is ascribing worth to God. I find this simple, original definition very helpful.
I think we ascribe worth to God in what we know about Him and what we come to know that we cannot know about Him (i.e., the mystery of God). I agree that ‘pat’ answers (no offence to my friend Pat) to deep questions are not giving God our best. But throwing up our hands and saying that true worship is abandoning the search to know objective truth about God on an ever deeper level is just as much of a problem.
I once heard someone talking about a pendulum or something‚Ķ Now what was that again…
July 29th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Exactly … and that is what I took away from the book and what I take away from this lovely Nicole Nordeman song. Sorry Jeffrey, I couldn’t find the lyrics on her site to link to.
Who You Are
I was certain that I knew You
At the tender age of twelve
You’d so often been described by those
Who said they knew You well
Dark and rugged in Your thirties
With a smile as bright as Your robe
Every teacher, every preacher
With the very best intent
Found new ways to hide the mystery
Replaced by common sense
And to know You was to keep You in my pocket
So easy to hold
Chorus
I know I can’t explain You
I would not even try to
And yet it’s clear that You are here beside me
I marvel and I wonder
So near and somehow still so far
What makes You who You are?
It is easy to insist
On what is packaged and precise
And dismiss the clear suspicion
That You’re bigger than we’d like
It is tempting to regard You as familiar
In so many ways
I’ve tried to draw these lines around You
A definition or an absolute
But I could not be satisfied with black or white
There is so much more
There is so much You
July 31st, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Ouch! Now I’m a citation Nazi, apparently…
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:46 am
Great Song! Perhaps Miller is saying at the end of the day, knowing all human effort will not lead to all the answers about God, i.e. putting Him in a tidy box like Nicole’s song describes, and in that he is drawn to worship the uncreated One who we can never completely known on either side of the Jordan, if you will.
But I could be wrong, as I usually am.