# Blue Like Jazz?



## toddpedlar (Mar 21, 2008)

Anyone read it? It's big among some folks who we know well, but I'm wondering to what degree it's influencing folks elsewhere? The Westminster East bookstore sells it, which is somewhat disturbing to me, given what I've read about the book. I've not actually read it myself, though, so I want to withhold judgment a little... but the alliancenet.org review seems to be quite down on the book's 'merits'. I'd like to hear some input here, though.. anyone?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 21, 2008)

Me, too.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 21, 2008)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 21, 2008)

I read it a few years ago based on a recommendation from a friend upon whom it had a great impact. Although I'd have to pick it up again if you wanted a more thorough review, I will say that I found it contrived and forced. It struck me that the author was trying too hard to be hip and edgy; even the title bothers me. I also found it to have very little depth. I continue to marvel at its impact on people. I think part of the impact may be that one thinks it should have an impact so it does. Does that make sense?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 21, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> I read it a few years ago based on a recommendation from a friend upon whom it had a great impact. Although I'd have to pick it up again if you wanted a more thorough review, I will say that I found it contrived and forced. It struck me that the author was trying too hard to be hip and edgy; even the title bothers me. I also found it to have very little depth. I continue to marvel at its impact on people. I think part of the impact may be that one thinks it should have an impact so it does. Does that make sense?



I think I know what you mean. It is cool to be impacted by this book. 

During my time at the Seeker Sensitive church in NJ this book was highly recommended by the McLaren followers. I never read it, but know one could really tell me what it was about. They just said read it it will open your mind to new ways of thinking.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 21, 2008)

I've heard it's blasphemous drivel composed by one associated with the Emergent Church. I have never read the book myself, but I steer people away from it because of the reputation it's earned; i.e. espousing Universalism. My Pastor's son read it and threw it away after reading to about Chapter 4. I am continually distrubed by the fact it is sold and bought by many at RUF Conferences.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 21, 2008)

I have been listening to Mark Driscoll's "take" on the emergent movement which he has separated from for doctrinal reasons. He conceptualizes four streams of emergent-friendly groups. One is made up of evangelicals trying to be relevant. Another takes a strongly Calvinist approach. In his mind, three of these streams are "acceptable," albeit even two of those are in error in his judgment. His stream, Reformation emerging, is strongly Calvinist in orientation.

The Blue Like Jazz book he sees as blowing up in the face of its author, a friend of his. You get the impression that Driscoll thought he was trying too hard to be cool and edgy as well. 

Driscoll has NO patience for McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Bell, and gang any more. He recounts dinner meetings with these guys "back in the day" as reminiscent of Genesis 3. "Do we _really_ believe that people actualy go to hell?" "Do we _really_ think that you can't be gay and Christian?" "Do we_ really _think that you have to believe in the virgin birth?" You can almost hear the cadance of the serpent, "Has God _really_ said?" Driscoll complains that they keep asking questions that pastors shouldn't be asking, and they think it is cool to refuse to answer them. Specifically, he names Bell as throwing out the baby with the bath by tossing out the virgin birth as unnecessary baggage.

In his mind, guys like Kimball are evangelicals trying to be relevant. Driscoll would differentiate himself in that he argues in favor of full Calvinism. He also delivered a sermon recently on the RPW. I can't imagine that he approves of it (haven't listened to the MP3 yet), but you've got to hand it to a guy coming from where he does for even addressing it in a morning sermon.

Incidentally, somebody might be using Google alerts to see when their name gets used (including here on PB - word to the wise, don't ever write anything on the web you don't want Googled). Yesterday I received an e-mail from Dan Kimball saying that he head I was asking questions about his theology and graciously offered to answer any questions. In a follow up e-mail, he wrote: 

[I have more or moved away from some of the "emergent" people and] "have become more divided as my interest and passion is still evangelism, not getting into all the revisionist discussions . . . I may push things in terms of methodology . . . - but not straying from Scripture."


----------



## Davidius (Mar 21, 2008)

It's the most popular book among students on my campus.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 21, 2008)

Glad to hear that from Mr. Kimball. 

With the popularity of this book, perhaps I should read it in order to intelligently respond to it. I just hate reading things that aren't evidently fruitful in place of things that are.

Also, what's Driscoll's deal? From some people I hear he's the "swearing pastor" and is the right hand of the Devil, i.e. McClaren, and then others I know of who are fairly solid believers actually go to his church and say he's not a bad pastor at all. I'm quite confused when it comes ot the man and am unsure if he can be trusted, as these Emergents seem to have the funny characteristic of switching meanings, definitions, and beliefs on the fly.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 21, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> (including here on PB - word to the wise, don't ever write anything on the web you don't want Googled).



This is why I will never be elected to public office.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 21, 2008)

Blue Like Jazz is old, I haven't heard much lately about it. Craze now is still Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll stuff.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 21, 2008)

Zenas said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > (including here on PB - word to the wise, don't ever write anything on the web you don't want Googled).
> ...



This is true. My dad actually once found one of my posts through a Google search!


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 21, 2008)

Driscoll has publiclly separated from the emergent village folks. He strongly condemns their abuses of scripture (while affirming that they are all friends of his). After getting rebuked by John MacArthur and others for his vulgarities, he has also cleaned up his act there too. He claims his theological icons as the Reformers, the Puritans, Piper, Grudem, D.A. Carson, et. al. He practices male only leadership (enough to disqualify him with people like McLaren and Bell). 

The MP3 I have been listening to has Driscoll admitting that he does not know Bell but disagrees with much of what he hears.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 21, 2008)

Well, he still is all about the normative worship....


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 21, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> Well, he still is all about the normative worship....



I assume that you are correct. But, it will be interesting to listen to Driscoll's sermon on the subject, one not often tackled by many, certainly not in his circles.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 21, 2008)

He just preached on the Regulative Principle and praised Frame. There is another post on this on the Puritanboard somewhere.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 21, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> The Blue Like Jazz book [Driscoll] sees as blowing up in the face of its author, a friend of his. You get the impression that Driscoll thought he was trying too hard to be cool and edgy as well.



I agree with the fact that the book is blowing up in Miller's face. He wrote that book, along with Searching for God Knows What, as a collection of random thoughts and illustrations of the gospel as he sees it, not as a case of an alternative Jesus or realativism. While his imagery is rather unorthodox, it's not entirely inacurrate. He reitterates the fact that his goal is to relay the gospel outside of the typical church lingo that too many Christians default to. As to whether he's trying to be "cool", I don't know. It seems that anyone these days who tries to share the gospel with contemporary language, regardless of the fact that they maintain the depiction of the Biblical Jesus, is labelled as trying to be "cool".

One of his concerns, especially in Searching for God Knows What, is the fact that churches, as he sees them, have too much emphasis in systematic theology. He makes the case that Abraham wasn't saved through systematic theology but through faith. To some this may not make a whole lot of sense, but as an example: A year ago I talking with a friend of mine from small group. I told him that when I was in high school, I trusted Christ with everything that was going on in my life, but I had never heard of the phrase "justification by faith". He promptly blurted out, "Then you weren't saved!"

That is what Miller is trying to break out of. As to whether the rest of his doctrine is solid, I doubt it. I think he has somewhat of a good idea but lacks the common foundation of most of the Reformed churches to gain any support from them.




DMcFadden said:


> Driscoll has NO patience for McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Bell, and gang any more. He recounts dinner meetings with these guys "back in the day" as reminiscent of Genesis 3. "Do we _really_ believe that people actualy go to hell?" "Do we _really_ think that you can't be gay and Christian?" "Do we_ really _think that you have to believe in the virgin birth?" You can almost hear the cadance of the serpent, "Has God _really_ said?" Driscoll complains that they keep asking questions that pastors shouldn't be asking, and they think it is cool to refuse to answer them. Specifically, he names Bell as throwing out the baby with the bath by tossing out the virgin birth as unnecessary baggage.


----------



## mark (Mar 21, 2008)

Dricoll, in his latest, _Confessions of a Reformission Reverend,_ says he _used_ to be known as the "swearing pastor," but later decided that swearing to be cool for Jesus, wasn't cool for Jesus. 

Of course, swearing is something I still repent of from time to time; more often than I'd like to admit. But, I repent, and God is gracious, and the Holy Spirit continues to sanctify me. Looks like Dricoll is doing the same.


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 21, 2008)

There were things that I remember liking about the book, particularly some of the experiences he related. My critique is not necessarily theological or even methodological, I just don't think the book was well written. He seemed to have an idea of how he was going to write the book, like, "Hey, I'll be kinda random." It just didn't work. It didn't seem natural. Could the style he attempted to employ be effective? Sure. But his attempt, at least in my opinion, failed.


----------



## beej6 (Mar 21, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> I have been listening to Mark Driscoll's "take" on the emergent movement which he has separated from for doctrinal reasons... His stream, Reformation emerging, is strongly Calvinist in orientation.



It will be interesting to see what Driscoll teaches in his new "Doctrine" class beginning later this month. His Mars Hill Church website states that they are updating their doctrinal statement. Absent a full confession (which they may be producing), I'd characterize his church as "Reformed friendly".


----------



## Kevin (Mar 21, 2008)

Dan is right about Miller. He is not "one of us" but he does a fair job of presenting Jesus to people who probably will never hear a word about the Marrow Controversy.

BTW I am listening to Mark Driscoll on my ipod when I found this thread. I agree that he is best described as "reformed friendly".


----------

