Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller

If you want to know my opinion of this book, you need merely to look at my copy of it. I bent the pages down at the corner to remind me of the places in the book where I wanted to dissect Miller's personal opinion of the "Christian" walk (his quote marks, really . . . not mine). You'll also find my copy of the book in the recycle bin after I'm done with this review. (It'd be in the trash but I'm trying to do something nice for the environment.) While I'm typing this review, I'm using the book as a coaster for my sweating water glass. I never intentionally mark up books with pens or crease marks. But this one is pretty marred. I also realize that a great many people will not understand my opinion. I will try to make it as clear as I possibly can.

My disclaimer is as follows:

Yes, I do realize this is his personal opinion and "nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality." It is not gospel truth. He didn't even try to argue that it was. If he had been trying to argue that, I assume he would have used scriptures to back up his thoughts and arguments. Since scriptures are nowhere to be found within these pages, I can conclude that this is merely his opinion and that I simply do not agree with it.

Now, may I proceed?

First I want to reference the following verse:

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5

I'd also like to state that I'm going to use the term "Christian" to define a follower of Jesus Christ, the one true Son of God, in this post. As Miller suggests, he'd like to ditch that term because if you ask 10 people on the street how they would define "Christian" you'd get 10 different answers. Well, now you know my definition (for purposes of this post) and further translation should be easy.

I primarily dislike this book because from all I've heard about it in person and from most of everything I've seen online, it is being heralded as a fresh new approach to Christianity and is sparking a revolution, of sorts, within the church. (In fact, I heard so much about this book that I chalked it up to being the next Purpose Driven Life and thus waited until this last week to finally read BLJ. It struck me as a fad book.) Unfortunately, I think it is a fad book and a destructive one at that.

Granted, this is Miller's own opinion of the world and, I remind you, he did not back up his thoughts with scripture or even try to defend them. He merely stated who he was and how he thought. The problem is that his "diary" was published and people latched on to it and indentified with it. But when you indentify with something you typically start to change behaviors/thoughts/feelings to engage with the familiar. Which is a problem when someone's thoughts are a bit screwy and not exactly on target. Suddenly their emotions are driving yours but there's no clearly defined path to explain where either of you are going.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight." Prov. 3:5-6 (emphasis mine)

I have a problem with Miller's opinion driving Christian culture because he makes the particular statement:

"My friend Julie from Seattle says the key to everything rest in the ability to receive love, and what she says is right because my experience tells me so." (emphasis mine)

(Page 226)

Compare that to the verse above. Miller states here that he knows something is right or wrong based on his experience. Life experience? Spiritual experience? Relationship experience? The way he has always brushed his teeth experience? I really don't know. But I do know what he said (i.e., his experience tells him so). I find this frightening in life of the fact that we are told that we cannot trust our own understanding and should not trust our own understanding. However, if we put our trust and understanding in God, He will direct our paths and lead us in the ways of wisdom and perfect understanding. (Forgive my overuse of the word "understanding.") Somehow God's ability to understand and impart wisdom seems more solid than Miller's. But that's just my opinion.

Quite frankly I almost stopped reading this book so many times. However, Miller's writing style is intriguingly different than most, plus I had hopes that he was going to conclude his life's wanderings into some solid truths. Which, btw, never happened. I wouldn't want you to suffer through this book waiting for conclusion. You'll just be frusterated.

I think you would probably like this book if you feel like you are an outcast in Christian society. Are you a little different than everyone else? Hmm. I don't really care. Why? Because we're all different and anyone who has to set themselves out and make a huge deal out of being different has a unique personality that I really just don't understand. I'm different than you. You are different from me. That's a fact and I don't even have to ask you any personal questions to know that we are, in fact, quite different. That's how God made us and He said so (in 1 Corinthians 12) . . . point made. By God. I object to people feeling the need to cram the difference down my throat and fly banners overhead to remind me that they are different. I always wonder what the point of that is. It certainly doesn't build unity but they haven't really noticed that. The only point that I think they are making is that they want to try to convince me that they are somehow better, more enlightened and an improved human. The interesting thing is that while they are out there doing it, they are arguing against the very cause they are supporting: unity. If you hold yourself out and say, "Well, you do not understand me so how could you possible know about such and such. I accept you, so why can't you just shut up and accept me for who I am?" Because, you see, you painted me into a corner. If I say I do accept you then I reject myself. If I say I do not accept your argument than you assume I do not accept you. And that's bogus. (Sometimes.)

I can sit here and type to you that I do like some of what Miller had to say. I think he is right that Christianity has done a good job at ignoring the poor and refusing the feed the hungry. However, if you make a blanket statement that that is and has always been the case and that we need a "new" church in order to promote these endeavors, then I think you've got things a bit wrong. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The church has been very effective in providing for the poor and caring for widows and orphans on many fronts. Maybe Miller just didn't see that happening when he was living out in the woods with the hippies. (Seriousy. He lived out in the woods with the hippies. He said so. He didn't shave for a long time.)

In his efforts to embrace diversity he also made some pretty hefty points against Christians who are against cussing (pgs 133-134). This really bothers me. I think it's very arrogant to go around trying to convince people that using foul language is an acceptible means of communication. Grant it, everyone has their levels of comfort in this area and some are more accepting of certain words than others. I have to hold myself up to the light of scripture, just like anyone, and this is what I see:

"Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips." Proverbs 4:24

When a person becomes a Christian they are to be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2). We're not to be filled up with the corrupt attitude, thoughts, behaviors and even language of the world. All of scripture discusses how holy things (and we are made holy by the blood of Jesus Christ) are to be set apart. Distinctly differently. Beautifully gifted in clean language! (Ok, the last statement was my own, I confess.)

God didn't seperate us and make us holy so that we could dribble out dirt like our counterparts. Everything we do should be done to and for His glory - including the way that we speak. To try and belittle those who are offended by foul mouths and put down those whose ears are offended by offendable words displays an attitude of immaturity. Miller is essentially saying, "It's too hard for me to try to remember not to use the F-word. This is just who I am and you guys in the ironed, neat clothes need to just learn to accept this. I do and it makes it easier for me to identify with the lowly."

For the record, I don't think we should intentionally go about trying to identify with sin. I really shouldn't have to defend that statement and I think I shall refuse to. It's a pretty basic idea.

Do I think it is important to communicate the gospel to the unsaved? Yes. Not only do I think it is important, I think Jesus commanded it of us. But it's not a pretty gospel that should be made more attractive so that people can "accept it." Jesus clearly stated (John 14:6) that He is the way, the truth and the life and that we cannot come to the Father except through Him. And do you know what we have to walk through in order to get to the Father? A bloody mess. It's not attractive, really, if you stop and think about it. It involves the most perverse sin and the hardest of hearts. But God gives the grace to get through it. He grants life and life everlasting. That's what makes it AMAZING and makes a person willing to walk into the fire.

Miller says, "I think Christian music is like jazz music. I think loving Jesus is something that you feel." (page 239 - his concluding remarks)

Ironically he spends most of the book arguing that he really doesn't want to get married because he's sure that either he or his wife will wake up one day and discover that they no longer feel love for the other. (This book uses the word "feel" quite a bit, actually, which also makes me distrust him and the influence he is beginning to wield in Christian circles if you remember my first point of dislike for this book.)

If any person is relying on the way that they feel to establish a future and a hope, they are lost. Just like if you relied on your ability to feel great love for your spouse every single second of every single day for every single year of your marriage, that your marriage will be able to stand the strains you are forcing on it.

God says it simply:

"Let your eyes look straight ahead,
fix your gaze directly before you.
Make level paths for your feet
and take only the ways that are firm.
Do not swerve to the right or the left;
keep your foot from evil."
Proverbs 4:25-27

God can handle the heavy work; He can take on the tough cases. We don't need to worry about feelings fading in or fading out. Our responsibility is to look unto Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He will keep us on the straight paths. He will lead us to the way everlasting. He will give us a future and a hope whether our feelings dictate that we're in the clear or not. He makes us sure in Him. And thankfully -- Donald Miller's opinion really doesn't matter.

Old Mother West Wind, by Thornton W. Burgess

I confess that I avoided picking up a copy of this book (published 1910) on quite a few occasions. It just looked like something that was going to be cheesy and not quite as endearing as Wind in the Willows(published 1908), but a desperate attempt to be so. However, when presented with a copy at the library book sale for $1, well, how could I pass that up? I was correct, by the way, in assuming that it wouldn't be quite so cute as Wind in the Willows. But that'd be hard to touch.

Old Mother West Wind, one of Burgess' numerous animal stories involving characters like Jimmy Skunk, Johnny Chuck and even Peter Rabbit, doesn't really come close to Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit either. All the same, I did enjoy this book and am glad I picked up a copy. I imagine that it'll be a fun read-aloud book when the kids are around the ages of 6-9. It's cute, it's clean and it's about animals. What's not to like (on the surface)?

Still, it seems like a rip off of Potter. Potter's Peter Rabbit made his debut appearance in 1902 and Burgess' version didn't appear on the scene until 1910. I could not find one online source that would discuss the differences between the two rabbits, although I do find the situation curious. Both Potter and Burgess created their tales because of an inner love of nature. Burgess developed his animals through a series of bedtime tales that he told to his son. Having grown up loving the outdoors, he wanted to pass along that love to others and eventually landed a syndicated newspaper column titled "Bedtime Stories" in which his characters lived.

I don't know. I think Potter's stories are more classic and charming. At the same time, I enjoyed Burgess for his moral tales. There's a lesson to be learned in almost every story. That aside, I think he stole from Aesop a time or two and I find even that disturbing. I don't find myself able to get behind Burgess and support his stories in the same way I do Aesop or Potter. It just feels like these stories have been told.

I did like the book superficially and I think it's a perfectly fine and good story to share with the children and I plan on doing so myself. It's a cute book and charming but not necessarily "in its own way." It feels borrowed somehow. The American-ized Peter Rabbit. Which I just don't really like.

If anyone has anymore information on the comparison between Potter and Burgess, I'd be really interested in hearing it. Do share! I'm curious.

I'm not saying "don't bother with this book." I think it's worthy of consideration although I do wish there was more information available critiquing Burgess. Something just feels wrong and I can't say why just yet. So for now I'm saying, "If you are looking for something to read to your tykes - don't be afraid to grab this! It's cute." And that's all I can say.

If I Gained the World, by Linda Nichols

I had to read another Linda Nichols book after having read In Search of Eden last year. I really enjoyed the way that Mrs. Nichols weaves her story together using both past and present situations. It keeps you guessing and reading (voraciously) trying to see how she's going to tie it all together and conclude the tale. Her style keeps me intrigued. If not for that style though, I can't say I'd particularly enjoy her work.

It is predictable. She uses a lot of cliches. Frequently conversations are unbelievable.

BUT!

I really like her books. Well, I really like the two books that I've read. In this particular one we spend our time with Lenore. Lenore is hooked up with Daniel Monroe, an up 'n comin' Hollywood actor who cares more for his career than for her. He refuses to marry her and she knows that she can't stay with him any longer and so leaves him in CA and travels up to Seattle to start life over without him. Their relationship is predictable and Anne-and-Gilbert-ish in nature. Still, I'd say it's a really FUN one time read! It made me laugh AND cry, which, of course, I think is the mark of an involved book. (My husband can attest to this because the last two nights he's asked if I wanted to spend some time together and I responded that I'd rather read, but thanks! He'll be glad to know that I finished the book this morning.)

Since I don't think I'll be reading it again, I'm happy to pass my copy off to whoever thinks that they would a.) really read it (eventually) and b.) would enjoy it. The message of the book is solid, it's a clean romance/relationship suspense book. It's not a waste of time. Like I said, it's just fun. If you want the fun, be the first one to leave a comment telling me so and I'll get it to you!

Cheers!

You Are a Comma

You are open minded and extremely optimistic. You enjoy almost all facets of life. You can find the good in almost anything. You keep yourself busy with tons of friends, activities, and interests. You find it hard to turn down an opportunity, even if you are pressed for time. Your friends find you fascinating, charming, and easy to talk to. (But with so many competing interests, you friends do feel like you hardly have time for them.) You excel in: Inspiring people You get along best with: The Question Mark

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

Well. I don't consider myself very open minded, actually. But the rest of it fits, mostly. =)

The Cricket in Times Square, by George Selden

I have a vague recollection of watching a cartoon adaptation of this book when I was younger because the story was somewhat familiar. Maybe my mom read it to me. At any rate, I don't remember ever having read it and so I grabbed up a copy at our recent Friends of the Library book sale. I'm so glad I did.

The story was cute, endearing and, of course, I enjoyed the familiar work of artist Garth Williams. I particularly liked the portrayal of Mama Bellini and her intense dislike of crickets and critters in general. I like how Selden transformed her character through, essentially, beautiful music. Not only is this a cute little "animal story" but it's a story about how music can move the inner spirit of a person - which I think is very true. The story can strike you on many levels. Mama Bellini starts out hard hearted and cold - dealt a bad hand in life, so it would seem. Then Chester, the "lucky" cricket is adopted and brought in to the family through young Mario Bellini, a hard working youngster. Mama doesn't want to have anything to do with a cricket and wants him disposed of. However, when it is discovered that Chester has perfect pitch and can play any piece of music that he is presented with, her attitude towards Chester changes. Suddenly he's the ultimate stress reliever - both in music and in money (as he has suddenly attracted the attention of the multitudes).

It's cute, it's fun, it's short and enjoyable. I heartily recommend it when you have an hour to spare and want just a little entertainment. It'll likely leave you with a little chirp of your own!

My Life and Hard Times, by James Thurber

This week I wanted to read something lighthearted so I read My Life and Hard Times by James Thurber. I always knew I'd like Thurber because I grew up thinking Danny Kaye's performance in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was a riot! (My family, btw, did not agree and never understood my fascination.) I wasn't disappointed in my expectations. Think American-ized Wodehouse and you're getting awfully close. (I do think Wodehouse does a better job of painting a picture without using actual words than Thurber does though.)

My favorite story in this particular set was "Draft Board Nights" in which Thurber relates how he was never drafted as a soldier due to his bad eyesight. However, apparently his paperwork was never processed correctly and he was called back, time and again, to the draft board for examinations -- eye exam always occurring at the END of the examination. Week after week he was called in for examinations and, of course, he went. He finally started posing as a doctor and was doing examinations himself unnoticed and undetected.

Interestingly enough, in doing a little research on Thurber, it would seem his bad eyesight came about under rather unusual circumstances. When he and his brother, William, were playing a game of William Tell, his brother shot him in the eye with an arrow causing him to lose an eye. Thus, he had poor eyesight and the injury caused almost total blindness when he was older. I find it fascinating that he gives no hint of this occurrence in this book. As a result of his eye injury, he was unable to play sports with most children and developed his imagination instead-- eventually releasing his creativity on paper. Aren't we thankful that happened? I think this book is a powerful testimony to someone taking what could have been viewed as a very bad situation and turning it into a positive - in this case, humor.

Amazon.com reviewers all seem to give a thumbs up to My Life and Hard Times("buy this book and treasure it") and I'll add my thumbs to the crowd. Thurber is more of a subtle humorist than Erma Bombeck, kinda in step with Patrick McManus, in the same time period as Wodehouse and is sure to guarantee at least ONE laugh as he is as all the rest: a humorist. And those people seem to have a knack at tickling everyone's funny bone. Even if just a little.