Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
I appreciate the explanation Miller gives at the beginning for the Genesis theory: God created humans to ask for identity, He is the only one who can supply it. The original sin began as a question of identity (can I trust God, or will eating this fruit show me who I really am). And as a result of the fall, we try to find identity in everything else, every other covering other than Christ.
On a whole, there were portions of this book where I felt Miller could have done with less grandiose ties and illustrations to support his thoughts... It seemed like he was trying too hard to fill the book. I say this in the most well-meaning tone, because he's one of my favorite authors!
I think A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and Scary Close are profoundly better. It may be that he was still finding a flow, as this was one of his earlier works.
On a whole, there were portions of this book where I felt Miller could have done with less grandiose ties and illustrations to support his thoughts... It seemed like he was trying too hard to fill the book. I say this in the most well-meaning tone, because he's one of my favorite authors!
I think A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and Scary Close are profoundly better. It may be that he was still finding a flow, as this was one of his earlier works.
A gift from long ago. The second Christian book I have ever read and, funnily enough, 3 years after leaving the faith. More Christians should read this book.
I read this book twice. The first time I loved it, it's a narrative sort of work that aims to describe the gospel/Jesus/etc in a relational manner, rather than a series of bullet points. Which is great, frankly. It doesn't try do anything other than 'flesh-out' the very human context of the story of the gospel. Miller pulls from a variety of historical and pop culture anecdotes to support his ideas about the nature of God and Jesus. Some of these have references, and some of these are a stretch, which he admits. I liked it
Then I read a Dawkins book, and decided to go back and read this book again. And, well, the writing, while accessible, reads a little young. The writing probably could have been better. Miller is clearly someone that doesn't have all the answers, but at least he's willing to admit that. 3 stars for some cool narratives, but kind of babylike writing.
Then I read a Dawkins book, and decided to go back and read this book again. And, well, the writing, while accessible, reads a little young. The writing probably could have been better. Miller is clearly someone that doesn't have all the answers, but at least he's willing to admit that. 3 stars for some cool narratives, but kind of babylike writing.
Where do I begin... First, this is the first Donald Miller book I've read. (It seems like every other reviewer has read Blue Like Jazz, so I feel obligated to admit I haven't.) Secondly, I really expected to -- and wanted to -- like this book. And I did like it, but only 3 stars' worth. Here's why.
The first thing is the writing style. I totally get that Miller wanted to be informal and conversational, but he spent so much time meandering around whatever topic was at hand that it drove me nuts. I felt like a plane circling an airport... eventually, we'd come in for a landing, but only after we circled the landing strip a few more times. Also, I could always tell when he was about to hit on something "profound," because he used the same sentence structure over and over again. He'd start a paragraph with, "The thing is..." or "The truth is..." Then, after he made his point, he'd sum up with, "It's _______, really." The thing is, he'd just said it so many times. It's redundant, really. (Why yes, I did do that on purpose.)
Secondly, and more importantly, I didn't feel like he really had anything new or original to say. Now, to be fair, this book was published seven years ago -- maybe it WAS new and original for the year of 2004. But I'd just finished reading two other books by two other disillusioned Evangelical Christians (Introverts in the Church and Mere Churchianity, if you must know), and I found the other two books far more profound. Don't get me wrong, he DOES have a few great ideas. The concept of us getting our self-worth from other people, when we should be getting it from God, is gold. I think that's something we can all relate to. The narrative about the pecking order in middle school was especially interesting to me, because I am a middle school teacher and I unfortunately witness things like that all the time. But honestly, I feel like this book could have been distilled to about 50 pages, as a lot of it just felt like fluff and repetition to me.
All in all, I do feel like it was a decent read, and there are a couple of chapters I would like to read again. Just don't expect anything particularly life-changing from it. :)
The first thing is the writing style. I totally get that Miller wanted to be informal and conversational, but he spent so much time meandering around whatever topic was at hand that it drove me nuts. I felt like a plane circling an airport... eventually, we'd come in for a landing, but only after we circled the landing strip a few more times. Also, I could always tell when he was about to hit on something "profound," because he used the same sentence structure over and over again. He'd start a paragraph with, "The thing is..." or "The truth is..." Then, after he made his point, he'd sum up with, "It's _______, really." The thing is, he'd just said it so many times. It's redundant, really. (Why yes, I did do that on purpose.)
Secondly, and more importantly, I didn't feel like he really had anything new or original to say. Now, to be fair, this book was published seven years ago -- maybe it WAS new and original for the year of 2004. But I'd just finished reading two other books by two other disillusioned Evangelical Christians (Introverts in the Church and Mere Churchianity, if you must know), and I found the other two books far more profound. Don't get me wrong, he DOES have a few great ideas. The concept of us getting our self-worth from other people, when we should be getting it from God, is gold. I think that's something we can all relate to. The narrative about the pecking order in middle school was especially interesting to me, because I am a middle school teacher and I unfortunately witness things like that all the time. But honestly, I feel like this book could have been distilled to about 50 pages, as a lot of it just felt like fluff and repetition to me.
All in all, I do feel like it was a decent read, and there are a couple of chapters I would like to read again. Just don't expect anything particularly life-changing from it. :)
I love Donald Miller's style, but this is probably my least favorite book of his. I had to go back several times and ask myself "now, what is this book supposed to be about? Oh, yeah, redemption!" He clearly is left leaning (and bashes the right while saying it's wrong to bash others for their political or religious leaning.) He talks constantly in circles and takes so long to get to his point that it's beyond frustrating. While I know that his style is conversational, I find it somewhat condescending in this book. And the alien? What the heck! A disappointing read for me from a good author.
This book spoke to my heart and to my Spirit. I have always appreciated Donald Miller's raw truth and writing style, and though he can "tell it like it is," he does so in a way that is creative and inspiring. He does not conform to the trends of Christianity and I find that refreshing... because to me, faith is a relationship, not a religion. I especially liked his chapter: "Free Verse" because it spoke of the poetry of the Bible. "I felt that truth was something living, complex, very large and dynamic and animated. Simple words, lists, or formulas could never describe truth or explain the complex nature of our reality... God wasn't communicating tgo us through cold lists and dead formulas; it meant He wanted to say something to our hearts, like a real person" (56). I agree that language is limited, but I also know the power of the word and how similar ideas expressed in poetry can change the meaning, simply because we add meaning to them. I want to read the Bible "not to become smart, but rather to feel that [I:] am not alone, that somebody understands [me:] and loves [me:] enough to speak to [me:]-- on purpose-- in a way that makes a person feel human" (60). I also liked the last chapter, "The Gospel of Jesus" because it presented the Gospel in comparison to "Romeo and Juliet." Since I teach "Romeo and Juliet," I thought I really understood its imagery and poetry and message... but relating it Christ (especially the balcony scene) was one of the biggest ephiphanies I have had in awhile. "Juliet may be considered the Bard's Christ figure, and Romeo the embodiment of the church, thus present Shakepeare's opinion of a Christian conversion experience" (220). I never focused on the historical happenings of Shakespeare's time, but indeed the feud between the Montagues and Capulets could parallel that of the tension between the Protestants and Catholics. Therefore the balcony scene where they woo and confess their love for each other "is not a sort of negotiation between Juliet and Romeo, but a kind of invitation from Christ to the church, to you and to me, walking us, as it were, on the heart path a person would need to traffic in orderto know Christ and be saved from his broken nature" (223). However, even if we compare Christ to Juliet, there is still trouble between the lovers... their families/names/nature. We have to "deny our father and forget our name" such as dying to oneself is a common call for Christians. And finally, the couple's ultimate unity comes in their death-- a sacrificial love. What a beautiful parallel/allegory for us to understand the Christ story. Overall, a truthful book of loving Christ and allowing the Bible to speak to us through not only words but emotion.
This book took me a while to get into. The writing style drove me nuts for about the first third of the book. It's very stream of consciousness. It got better though as it went on, and I thought all the ideas presented were interesting and worthy of a read.
Rather than relying on the trite formulas and arbitrary rules invoked by the church, Miller focuses on having and developing a one-on-one relationship with God.
I really appreciated the simplicity of Miller's message, that knowing God is not something that is accomplished immediately, nor is it a one time event. He speaks of building the friendship, just the way you do when you first meet someone. You're not immediately best friends or whatever; it takes time to build trust and to become close, and that's the way we should approach a relationship with God as well.
Oftentimes, churches will break down the gospel in an attempt to make it easier to memorize (for the believer) or to understand (for theheathen nonbeliever), but the end result is that the message is translated into an unemotional checklist. It's much easier to believe that Jesus died for me, etc., than to believe that He wants to know me; the first requires far less of a personal commitment on my part, and the second means that I have to let down barriers and become less guarded.
Miller discusses the us vs. them mentality that a lot of Christians have, and I'll admit that I've had the same superiority complex myself. He juxtaposes Christ's behavior with that of modern "prophets," or whatever you want to call them, and it's clear that one is far more effective than the other in drawing people to God. He even calls out the denomination war, pointing out that the people who claim to love Jesus the most demonstrate the most hatred against others who also claim to serve God.
I grew up in church--one of the most conservative ones around--and I'm fairly disillusioned by the idea of religion; I'm observant enough to see that religion, in the abstract, does God no favors. But the idea of pursuing a relationship with God ... you'd think, after all those years of church, that it wouldn't be such a shocking idea. The fact that it is> sort of a lightning bolt is kind of sad, actually.
There's a lot to think about here.
I really appreciated the simplicity of Miller's message, that knowing God is not something that is accomplished immediately, nor is it a one time event. He speaks of building the friendship, just the way you do when you first meet someone. You're not immediately best friends or whatever; it takes time to build trust and to become close, and that's the way we should approach a relationship with God as well.
Oftentimes, churches will break down the gospel in an attempt to make it easier to memorize (for the believer) or to understand (for the
Miller discusses the us vs. them mentality that a lot of Christians have, and I'll admit that I've had the same superiority complex myself. He juxtaposes Christ's behavior with that of modern "prophets," or whatever you want to call them, and it's clear that one is far more effective than the other in drawing people to God. He even calls out the denomination war, pointing out that the people who claim to love Jesus the most demonstrate the most hatred against others who also claim to serve God.
I grew up in church--one of the most conservative ones around--and I'm fairly disillusioned by the idea of religion; I'm observant enough to see that religion, in the abstract, does God no favors. But the idea of pursuing a relationship with God ... you'd think, after all those years of church, that it wouldn't be such a shocking idea. The fact that it is> sort of a lightning bolt is kind of sad, actually.
There's a lot to think about here.
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
The analogies used are quite helpful when thinking about people-pleasing instead of living up to the values you believe in. I find I'm in lifeboat or circus thinking often. As well, the call to love instead of judge is an important one.