Donald Miller, Formulas, and Postmodernism

                Donald Miller’s books (Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What) have captured the hearts and minds of a whole generation of Christians, mainly those under 30 years old (I guess these would “Gen-Y” or “Millennial Generation”). Whatever they are called, Miller speaks their language, and they are buying his books and passing them around to their friends, which raises concerns among those of my generation who have read his books. I have read them, and to be honest, I liked a lot of what he had to say. He speaks of searching for a deeper and more personal and relational spirituality than what “Christianity” has traditionally offered. I think he makes a legitimate criticism. Our spirituality has often been more formulaic than relational, more based on a checklist of things to do than on an intimate love relationship with our Father. In our fellowship within churches of Christ, we certainly have a heritage of creating simplistic or reductionistic formulas. We have the “five-step plan of salvation”, and the so-called five acts of worship. Formulas, in and of themselves, are not conducive to creating relationships. As Miller rightly suggests, we don’t build personal relationships with our friends that way. But then again, there is a vast difference between our friends and God. There are other things to consider, which Miller conveniently ignores.

                According to Miller, formulas (along with charts and lists) are an obstacle to a personal relationship with God. The first chapter of his book Searching for God Knows What is entitled “The Failure of Formulas.” In these opening pages, we learn from Miller that formulas offer false hope, that to find any formulas in the Bible you have to make them up, that Jesus never gave formulas, that formulas cannot change a person’s heart, and that formulas are simply a means of controlling God (e.g., “If you do this or that, God will respond”). While I agree that formulas can become simply a means of controlling God, Miller ignores the obvious, which is that Jesus did in fact offer a “formula” as part and parcel to restoring our relationship with God (e.g., Mk 16.15; Mt 28.18-20). The apostles affirmed this “formula” (Acts 2.37-38). Miller conveniently ignores such statements of scripture. He is large on opinion, short on Scripture.

It is true that a formula “alone” will not take the place of a personal relationship. But according to Jesus and the New Testament, to have a personal relationship restored with God one must obey a “formula.” Paul said it straight out in Rom 6.17: “But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed.” The word Paul used for “form” (Gk. tupos, from which we get “type” or “pattern”), fits well with the very meaning of the word “formula.” According to Webster’s Dictionary, a “formula” is a “fixed form of words” or a “rule or method of doing something” or “an exact statement of religious faith or doctrine.” The truth is, then, that “formulas” do have something to do with our relationship with God. But Miller is a “postmodernist,” and as such he denies fixed forms, rules, and exact statements of truth. That is the very nature of postmodern thought. It rejects truth that can be expressed in “forms,” “charts,” and “lists.” In other words, it is a rejection of truth, period. And when we do that, we have no reason to accept Miller’s “truth” over anyone else’s, in spite of Miller’s own assertion that his view of formulas is “true” -- Searching, p.13). Next week I’d like to examine postmodernism a little more. It is not Miller’s criticisms that concern me so much as his answers (or lack of). So stay tuned for more next week.

©Randy Hohf