In the beginning...we misunderstood - J Miller & J Soden

This is a well written little book by two conservative Christians, both with PhD's from Dallas Theological Seminary.  Neither of these men believe in the 'Young Earth Creationist' viewpoint.  When I was a new Christian, one of the first books that I was given was Ken Ham's "The Lie", with his lambasting and polemical invective against Evolutionary theory and Modern Science.  He espoused a belief in understanding Science through the prism of Scripture.  Miller & Soden accurately attest to this 'concordism' in theology, and they, correctly in my view, dismiss its worth.

The purpose of this book is to show conservative Christians that Ken Ham's and J Sarfarti's views of a young earth and seven literal 24 hour days of creation is not the only goat in the shed.  There are a plethora of views available to them, and it doesn't mean rejecting the faith or denying the truth of God's Word.

I soon came to find Young Earth Creationism (YEC) to be confusing and misguided.  This was not because of a belief in Modern Science - that would be concords, rather from what the text, itself says.
This can be an uncomfortable issue for many conservative Christians.  However, it shouldn't be.  It really exposes a hugh flaw in Bible teaching and literacy in Churches today.  Unfortunately most conservative Christians believe the lie that they must be YEC or they have rejected God's Word to us.  It seems that issues of inspiration, inerrancy, hermeneutics and exegesis are simply either misunderstood by most Church leaders or they are not trained in them.  This is true of my local Church - the Pastor has done courses in counselling and ministry - not doctrine or systematic theology.  It is no wonder that the Creation mob from Brisbane has such a strong foothold where they really shouldn't.

"Young Earth Creationists are one kind of concordats.  They read Genesis 1 through a particular set of scientific lenses that assume it presents the material origins of the Universe, and therefore it is science.  They start with the Bible and read science into it." (pg. 36)

Old Earth Creationists, like myself, can also be concordists and conclude that from Modern science that the days of Genesis are not literal - rather figurative.  It seems to me that both have a high view of Scripture and that both are dedicated but both are in error as concords is the wrong interpretive tool to use in understanding Genesis.

The preliminary chapters in this book are a fantastic introduction for the lay Christian and the non believer in the state of the discussion at the moment.  Chapters 3 & 4 deal with how to understand Genesis and what is it's purpose.  They are a simplistic but accurate overview.  It is not a Waltke or Walton commentary (both recommended for those interested in further reading) but it is an excellent summary.

For instance, the Toledoth table on page 60 is valuable, for further detail though, Sailhamer's "The meaning of the Pentateuch" is more detailed.  Although, from this chart the believer should be able to mount an argument against those who claim that Genesis 1 & 2 are two contradicting creation accounts.

Miller & Soden then go on to analyse the Hebrew Creation account in Genesis with the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Canaanite creation myths.  In alternating chapters we have similarities and the differences of each.  Again, reading Walton's "The lost world of Genesis one" or particularly Oswalt's "The Bible and the Myths" one will get more information, but it is a wonderful introduction to the Ancient Near Eastern writings and particularly the Creation Myths.

Understanding an ancient and nuanced text like Genesis 1 & 2 needs understanding of ancient language, customs, worldview, archeology and alike - it is a complex matter.  Atheistic scientists who claim that the YEC is the only feasible view and then rip it to shreds are themselves irresponsible with the text.  The placing of the text amongst the other ancient narratives is important - although I am not as certain that it is as important as Miller & Soden think.

One of the best sections of this book is the discussion on 'Death before Adam and Eve'( pg 166-171).  This deals with a theological question that YEC seem to think is a knock-down argument against more figurative approaches.  If animal death before Human kind existed before sin - then sin could not have entered with Adam and therefore cannot be expiated through Jesus.  This question is important but easily answered - Miller & Soden do it well.  Dembski, in his book the 'End of Christianity' answers it in a way that I find more plausible.  But either answer is fine with me.

Any criticisms of the book?  I have some quibbles, however, in the light of what it is supposed to do:

"...helping laypeople and students ask the most vital interpretative question that needs to be asked in the study of any portion of Scripture:  What did the original author (and Author) mean for the original readers?" pg 190

I think that it is quite a success.  Although mostly for lay readers.

4 out of 5 stars

The Churchill Factor - Boris Johnson

I love reading about Churchill.  Despite his many failures, he was an outstanding Statesman and a true hero - a dying breed.  Boris Johnson however, the mop-haired, affectionally toffy-nosed, slightly drunk on Sherry, Lord Major of London, is another thing all together.  He seemed to me one part comedian, one part conservative politician and two parts liberal democrat.  However, in this book I can see why the Lord Major of London is so very endearing.

I relate so much to the opening of the book; Boris shares how he grew up believing that Churchill was the greatest Statesman of all time, and he used to read Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: a life in pictures".  My Dad has this book - I remember pouring over the pictures of Churchill amazed at the fawning adulation and the pomp and ceremony that surrounded him.  He was the Wartime Prime minister, he saw Hitler for who he really was - no one but Churchill was capable of leading Britain during the War.  Then Johnson mentions his wit:

Colville, Churchill's chief whip had to bear the unhappy news of some homosexual behaviour involving a cabinet member in public - the exchange went:

""Did I hear you correctly in saying that so-and-so has been caught with a Guardsman?"  

""Yes, Prime Minister."  

"In Hyde Park?" 

""Yes, Prime Minister."  

""On a park bench?"

""That's right, Prime Minister."

""At three o'clock in the morning?"

""That's correct, Prime Minister."

""In this weather!  Good God, man, it makes you proud to be British!"" [Pg. 3] 

 Johnson has such overwhelming respect for Churchill - he defends him from his enemies and tries to reason why he has been mis-represented.  He is honest about his mistakes and errors; he is forthright about his ego and hubris.  Yet, Churchill is an endearing character and he sparkles when seen through Johnson's eyes.

The book is Johnson's - he somewhat ostentatiously recounts standing in the places where Churchill stood - drinking beer on Churchill's battlefield in Belgium and being chased off by a local farmer.  He has a great balance between modern ways of communicating and a respect for language.  Boris Johnson is a clever man - cleverer than I thought - maybe not as conservative as I thought - but intelligent.  He writes in a warm, affectacious manner in which both he and Churchill feel like familiar friends.

The book is discussed with funny Churchillian witticisms and even ones that weren't his (but were good for a laugh anyhow).  I loved the section on America, it was revealing and interesting and hilarious and emotional all at the same time.  Churchill great line about having to kiss America on all four cheeks was funny and the decision to avoid Roosevelt's funeral was disquieting.

The bombing of the French fleet, the Dardanelles disaster and the failed WWII battles were all brought up as Johnson wanted a warts and all discussion.  However, it always has a love for Churchill behind it all.  This is Johnson's model of leadership; and it answers a number of questions about Boris too.

There is a section worth quoting as it has to do with Churchill's prescient understanding of events and the popular political views of the time.  It is a section which cautions us to listen to those that bring bad news, that challenge current thinking and buck the popular perspective.

Churchill made a speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946 that was a warning to America about the dangers of Communism and the advent of the 'Iron Curtain'.  He was predictably demonised by the Russians, labelling him a warmonger.  However, for a man views have been vindicated by history, he was subjected to inimical invective from within his own party and people.

"'Winston must go' was the word from the lunch tables.  labour MP's were so scandalised by his red-baiting that they called on Atlee to repudiate the speech...they tabled a censure against Churchill" [pg. 288]

 Many today censure and restrict the truth.  It seems to me that Churchill's brilliance lay in his refusal to give credence to the denouncement of others.

"A lesser man would have packed it in, and gone off too...paint.  Not Churchill.  He never gave up; he never gave in...." [pg275]

5 Stars -so enjoyable.