Solomon has always been one of those guys I can’t decide about. Good or bad? He was definitely blessed with wisdom, health and riches and was almost certainly Israel’s most powerful king. Kings and queens came to visit him from all over the world to listen to his wisdom. The Proverbs he wrote are not only of literary brilliance (more so in Hebrew than in English, unfortunately) but have so much to say about following the path God has set for us rather than our own ways. Yet this ended up being something Solomon was singularly unable to do. In Deuteronomy 17 there is a list of what a king should not do-and when the writer of 1 Kings is describing Solomon’s kingdom Solomon pretty much does everything Deuteronomy commands them not to do. He also forces the Israelites and the aliens in the land into forced labour. Oh yeah-he also married 700 women. The mind boggles. And the thing is Solomon had actually seen God. Let’s turn to the narrator of Solomon’s story for this bit, “The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command.” (1 Kg 11:9f, bolding mine).
Solomon had actually seen God, had been given blessing upon blessing and still turned away from God to follow other gods. Douchebag much anyone? But more seriously if a guy who has seen God, who has pretty much been given every earthly thing a man could desire still turns away from God what hope is there for us?
Let’s take a broader look at this. The Lord tells Solomon “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you” (1 Kg 11). The covenant is the agreement between God and the Israelites that if they follow God’s commands the Israelites will prosper in the land. If they do not, however, the punishment will be severe (check out the last few chapters in Deuteronomy. It pretty much spells out the covenant). The Israelites end seeing pretty much every result that was foretold for disobedience to the Lord’s commands fall on them. Solomon fails and the consequences are severe: Israel is never as powerful again and long term it sets up the Israelites to be conquered first by Assyria and then by the Persians. Again, what hope is there for us? Most of us are not even close to having the experiences of God that Solomon had and he failed. How will we obey when Solomon could not?
The thing that gives us hope (and I mean hope in the Biblical sense: a joyful certainty) is this:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law…But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known…This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 2:20-24.
So what? SO WHAT? This means that we are saved, we who don’t experience what Solomon experienced, us without anything great, we’re saved not separated. I hope that today’s blog about something you may already have known is an encouragement. If this is new to you: chuch me an email at timlearningtoserve@gmail.com. Oh yeah, and if you are saved share the joy!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Best Blog yet (maybe?)
Hey, so I missed my posting date on Monday. But that’s okay because I’m still going to post fortnightly, but on a Wednesday instead. Also my recent posts haven’t been that great or even interesting so I’m going to try and up my game. I thought I’d start with something different: a book review.
I wasn’t going to, but I was in Koorong yesterday and saw this book, got and just devoured it. Totally brilliant, so I thought I’d share the ideas it raises. It’s Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander.
Alexander is a biologist and Fellow at Cambridge as well as being a professing Christian. He holds true to the idea that the Bible is the word of God and as such it is true, he believes that the means of salvation is Christ’s death and resurrection and he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Which is why I read the book. One of the common questions I face when talking to non-Christians is about the creation of the world and I always struggle to answer it. I’m firmly convinced that God created the world (as Alexander points out, to be a Christian you do need to be a creationist at that level). I also think that it doesn’t really matter how God created the world, but if I want to be fair, open and honest when talking with non-Christians they do often ask questions about it. I do always make the point that we need to start with what Christ does for us and go from there, but I want to be able to answer their questions as well. Before I continue I want to make the point while I find the book lucid, interesting and explanatory I haven’t come to a firm decision on whether I agree with everything Alexander says.
Likes
Alexander starts at the Bible and acknowledges the primacy of scripture. Which is something we should always do. He really got me thinking about what the purpose of the Bible and what the purposes of science are. I’ve never held the Bible to be a scientific text but he gives really good reasons why shouldn’t hold it as a scientific text.
He opens up what scientists actually mean when they use the term evolution. He gives a nice little history of what Christian thought and response has been to evolution since Darwin first published. One of the really interesting things I learnt was that the Christian academic response to Darwin was not hostility but acceptance that it validated God’s creation, and that the idea of a literal six day Creation isn’t actually around until the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact guys like Origen and Augustine held that it was a figurative six days. He really gives a readable and understandable explanation of the theory of evolution.
One of the things I really liked was the point he made that science doesn’t need to affirm the Bible. In the last 200 years much of our modern worldview has come to the conclusion that if it’s not scientific it’s not true. Well the Bible isn’t scientific and it is true, and when we try and make science fit the Bible or the Bible fit science then we’re saying for God to be true he has to be proved by science. Which is dumb. Because (to quote a friend): “the Bible reveals to us the supernatural Creator, why we were created and how we can know him personally.” God doesn’t need to be proved by science and when we do that we reduce God.
Dislikes
Well, not really dislikes because I really liked the whole book. More things I’m not as comfortable with and am not directly able to say yes to. But which got me thinking anyway.
Alexander’s model for how God first came to have a relationship with Adam and Eve. Mostly because it’s not from the text, but also because I’m just not comfortable with it. But as he says it is just a working model that seems to fit the evidence and is not conclusive. And me not being comfortable with it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. I’m uncomfortable with it, because I feel he doesn’t really address when Genesis stops being theological manifesto (which is a brutal way to put it. Alexander is more elegant) and becomes history, especially in regards to the flood. I’m not distressed by the idea of a local flood I’m just not convinced that the language used in God’s covenant relates to a localized flood. But to be fair it is not a salvation issue and Alexander doesn’t really spend much time on it. Which is my main gripe with this section of the book: I wish he’d spent more time on the flood.
His theology in regard to original sin isn’t directly convincing for me. He’s very much up and down the evangelical line of the sin was putting ourselves above God and choosing to follow our desires rather than God’s (summing up that idea in a sentence was hard and doesn’t contain everything about the whole idea). Generally Alexander’s exegesis is very good (seriously, he’s a brilliant mind) but I feel he’s not as thorough as he might have been on the issue of how original sin fits in with evolution. Again he might be right, I just wish he’d spent more time on it, but because he hasn’t I have to do more work…
Lastly, his postscript. He has a three page postscript where he pretty much says if you don’t believe in evolution, keep your mouth shut because otherwise you embarrass the church and legitimate Christian scientists. I don’t disagree with him that if you’re science isn’t sound you should shut up, but I wish his language wasn’t so strong. Generally he is pretty even handed throughout the book, but a lot of the criticism of his book has focused on this rather than on the actual science. A couple of times in the book he makes the point that if you have an alternate theory to evolution (like ID or new earth) get it published in peer reviewed journals. Which is a totally valid point, and the response from Paul Taylor (from AiG) is basically that there’s a consipiracy against creationist views like ID and new earth being published (more basically he’s saying poor me). I actually agree with Alexander’s points about peer reviewed publishing completely and his points that we should be careful in what we say in public about evolution I just think he could have been a little bit more loving towards Christian’s who might hold other views to his. To be fair he is even handed through the book but his postscript not so much.
Summing up.
Great read, really enjoyed it and has provoked lots of thought and will keep provoking lots of thought for me. I thoroughly recommend it. I’ve had to restrain myself in this book review from just vomiting out everything I learnt and thought and it’s still my longest blog yet. Read the book. It’s great!
I wasn’t going to, but I was in Koorong yesterday and saw this book, got and just devoured it. Totally brilliant, so I thought I’d share the ideas it raises. It’s Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander.
Alexander is a biologist and Fellow at Cambridge as well as being a professing Christian. He holds true to the idea that the Bible is the word of God and as such it is true, he believes that the means of salvation is Christ’s death and resurrection and he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Which is why I read the book. One of the common questions I face when talking to non-Christians is about the creation of the world and I always struggle to answer it. I’m firmly convinced that God created the world (as Alexander points out, to be a Christian you do need to be a creationist at that level). I also think that it doesn’t really matter how God created the world, but if I want to be fair, open and honest when talking with non-Christians they do often ask questions about it. I do always make the point that we need to start with what Christ does for us and go from there, but I want to be able to answer their questions as well. Before I continue I want to make the point while I find the book lucid, interesting and explanatory I haven’t come to a firm decision on whether I agree with everything Alexander says.
Likes
Alexander starts at the Bible and acknowledges the primacy of scripture. Which is something we should always do. He really got me thinking about what the purpose of the Bible and what the purposes of science are. I’ve never held the Bible to be a scientific text but he gives really good reasons why shouldn’t hold it as a scientific text.
He opens up what scientists actually mean when they use the term evolution. He gives a nice little history of what Christian thought and response has been to evolution since Darwin first published. One of the really interesting things I learnt was that the Christian academic response to Darwin was not hostility but acceptance that it validated God’s creation, and that the idea of a literal six day Creation isn’t actually around until the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact guys like Origen and Augustine held that it was a figurative six days. He really gives a readable and understandable explanation of the theory of evolution.
One of the things I really liked was the point he made that science doesn’t need to affirm the Bible. In the last 200 years much of our modern worldview has come to the conclusion that if it’s not scientific it’s not true. Well the Bible isn’t scientific and it is true, and when we try and make science fit the Bible or the Bible fit science then we’re saying for God to be true he has to be proved by science. Which is dumb. Because (to quote a friend): “the Bible reveals to us the supernatural Creator, why we were created and how we can know him personally.” God doesn’t need to be proved by science and when we do that we reduce God.
Dislikes
Well, not really dislikes because I really liked the whole book. More things I’m not as comfortable with and am not directly able to say yes to. But which got me thinking anyway.
Alexander’s model for how God first came to have a relationship with Adam and Eve. Mostly because it’s not from the text, but also because I’m just not comfortable with it. But as he says it is just a working model that seems to fit the evidence and is not conclusive. And me not being comfortable with it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. I’m uncomfortable with it, because I feel he doesn’t really address when Genesis stops being theological manifesto (which is a brutal way to put it. Alexander is more elegant) and becomes history, especially in regards to the flood. I’m not distressed by the idea of a local flood I’m just not convinced that the language used in God’s covenant relates to a localized flood. But to be fair it is not a salvation issue and Alexander doesn’t really spend much time on it. Which is my main gripe with this section of the book: I wish he’d spent more time on the flood.
His theology in regard to original sin isn’t directly convincing for me. He’s very much up and down the evangelical line of the sin was putting ourselves above God and choosing to follow our desires rather than God’s (summing up that idea in a sentence was hard and doesn’t contain everything about the whole idea). Generally Alexander’s exegesis is very good (seriously, he’s a brilliant mind) but I feel he’s not as thorough as he might have been on the issue of how original sin fits in with evolution. Again he might be right, I just wish he’d spent more time on it, but because he hasn’t I have to do more work…
Lastly, his postscript. He has a three page postscript where he pretty much says if you don’t believe in evolution, keep your mouth shut because otherwise you embarrass the church and legitimate Christian scientists. I don’t disagree with him that if you’re science isn’t sound you should shut up, but I wish his language wasn’t so strong. Generally he is pretty even handed throughout the book, but a lot of the criticism of his book has focused on this rather than on the actual science. A couple of times in the book he makes the point that if you have an alternate theory to evolution (like ID or new earth) get it published in peer reviewed journals. Which is a totally valid point, and the response from Paul Taylor (from AiG) is basically that there’s a consipiracy against creationist views like ID and new earth being published (more basically he’s saying poor me). I actually agree with Alexander’s points about peer reviewed publishing completely and his points that we should be careful in what we say in public about evolution I just think he could have been a little bit more loving towards Christian’s who might hold other views to his. To be fair he is even handed through the book but his postscript not so much.
Summing up.
Great read, really enjoyed it and has provoked lots of thought and will keep provoking lots of thought for me. I thoroughly recommend it. I’ve had to restrain myself in this book review from just vomiting out everything I learnt and thought and it’s still my longest blog yet. Read the book. It’s great!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
