Abraham's Promises = Solomon's Rules

As I was reading Ecclesiastes this morning it occurred to me that Solomon’s advice to those “under the sun” applies to people today who want the promises of Abraham in their lives. Maybe I should back fill that: I have always contended that the “prosperity gospel” preached by modern charismatics (mostly) is an attempt to apply the promises made to Abraham to Christians.  Prosperity preachers love to cite the blessings of obedience from Deuteronomy as their basis for claiming material wealth. What this position ignores is the fact that Christians are under a new covenant, one described by the writer of Hebrews as a “better covenant with better promises.”

The old covenant was an earthly covenant: land, progeny, prosperity in the physical realm. The entire account of God’s dealing with a physical people, from Abraham through the eventual nation of his descendants, was intended as a picture, an illustration of God’s principles of interaction with His creation. Paul says as much to the Corinthians. We are supposed to take lessons from the Israelites specifically so that we will not make the same mistakes they did. Yet here we are, focusing on the material things God can do rather than on the condition of the heart.

To understand what is better about the Christians’ promises, one need only look at Solomon’s view of life “under the sun.” He declared that all his wisdom and wealth amounted to vanity or fruitlessness because there was nothing gained beyond this world “under the sun.” No matter what you amass here, Solomon learned, it all passes on to someone else when you die. All men, rich or poor, wise or foolish meet the same fate: Sheol. As far as Solomon knew, that meant annihilation: cessation of existence. He knew nothing of a New Heaven, a New Earth or new anything after life; his concept was pretty much Old Testament dogma: when you die, it’s over.

Enter Jesus Christ who emphasized the Resurrection and the resurrection. It is interesting to note that one subject that repeatedly got Paul into trouble with the Jews and Greeks alike was the resurrection. Life after life is a controversial subject. But the issue I am talking about is life before the afterlife. It is my contention that Jesus’ whole point was that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples wanted to know when He would usher in His kingdom (They were picturing lands and thrones.); He told them to go to Jerusalem and wait.

What came of their wait was the Holy Spirit initiation of the church on Pentecost: the kingdom come. If the original twelve Apostles are any measure, material prosperity was not in the plans; tradition says they all died martyr’s deaths (except John) in material poverty. Many, if not most, of the early Christians were from the “lower classes” of society. James asks, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom?” When Jesus told Pilate His kingdom was not “of this world,” He pretty much excluded getting rich as one of His priorities. Riches, as Solomon rightly noted, are “of this world.”

So as I said, Christians looking for material prosperity today are looking for Abraham’s promises; those who seek Abraham’s promises are bound by Solomon’s rules. I believe those promises would fall under the “vanity” description of Solomon, which means they should be meaningless to true believers, a “striving after the wind.” Jesus framed Solomon’s conclusion like this: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Solomon for all his wisdom did not understand that; he promised nothing beyond this world “under the sun.”

I prefer Jesus’ promise: “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” Abraham will be there too, and Solomon, and they will be joined by the surprised prosperity preachers when they finally recognize the “better promises” really are better after all.

The New Downey Version

I joined 9.5 million viewers watching A.D. The Bible Continues last week and again last night. Producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett have crafted a passable story line that draws on Scripture, but it has a few features that bother me slightly. It is not surprising that the story would be juiced up a bit, given Burnett’s filmography. The creator of such big reality shows as Survivor and Apprentice can’t be expected to simply stage what really happened according to the Bible. No one believes his other shows are not somewhat inventive when it comes to the “reality” part of reality TV.

In principle I have no quarrel with adding imaginative features to a Bible record to make it come alive. I did exactly that in my novel, Wings of Mentridar (out of print but available digitally on Amazon). The difference between my inventions and Burnett’s may be minor, but I find them significant. I took what little we know about the biblical account of Noah and added details that seemed plausible without contradicting the Scriptural facts. Even though I invented an entire angelic universe to go along with Noah, I strove to keep it aligned with what we know from Scripture.

Downey and Burnett have taken a half a step away from that position, in my opinion. There are three features of A.D. that bother me. First is making Pilate and Caiaphas central to the story. I did not put a stopwatch on it, but I would estimate that the political interplay of those two leaders filled far more screen time than the acts of the Apostles. I understand the need to fill a back story, but if screen time is money, too much was spent on fictional background and too much left out of the true story. Some vitally important biblical facts were omitted: for example, one would assume that Jesus only appeared after his resurrection twice briefly to the Apostles in the upper room. No mention is made of his dozens of appearances to a total of hundreds of people.

The second feature of the film with which I take issue is the prominent place given to women in every relationship. Outside of the biblical record, history teaches that women were not regularly involved in the political and religious decisions of the day, Cleopatra and a few others excepted. Pilate and Caiaphas are both badgered by intrusive wives. Given either Jewish or Roman culture of the day, this seems unlikely. Even Peter is strongly influenced by an imagined daughter, his wife having died, according to the script of A.D. There is nothing wrong with thinking women were players in a patriarchal society on some level, but the prominence given by Downey/Burnett smacks of feminist revisionism.

Another interesting bit of possible revisioning is making the Apostle John a black man. It is not impossible that Jesus could have found dark skinned men in Palestine to form part of his original twelve. There are specific instances of black men mentioned in Acts, most notably in 13:1 where a disciple named Simeon was “called Niger” which is Latin slang for black man. Also, the regions from which people gathered for the Passover as listed in Acts 2 include areas that could well have had blacks among the population. My difficulty with a black Apostle is only that I believe for theological reasons Jesus would have specifically called sons of Abraham and not sons of Ishmael (assume if you like that Hagar was a black woman). There is really no need to “color” the players in the Bible; truth be told, they would all be people of color by today’s standards, Jesus included.

There are those who will say I am picking at nits. They may be right. If Downey and Burnett were not cutting out so much we know is true and replacing it with things that are pure speculation, I would be less uncomfortable. The teller of any story presumes to share only that which supports the theme; the Bible itself is like that. The apostle John admits that endless books could have been written about Jesus; he made editorial choices to limit his tome. My beef with A.D. is that it left too much meat on the bone and served up too much fluff.

Outdoor Education Appeal

Full disclosure: this is a fund raising appeal. I belong to an organization called the Muskegon Environmental Research and Education Society (MERES). We operate the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve on the east end of the lake. MERES has been working on the Preserve for almost twenty years, and we now want to sharpen our focus and broaden our appeal.

First some history: anyone who has been around Muskegon for long remembers when the Port City Princess used to dock on Lake Ave in North Muskegon. There was a boat launch ramp and a bait shop there for quite a few years. Just east of there was a piece of lakeshore where road crews, foundries and unidentified citizens dumped their rubbish. In 1996 the effort to reclaim the dump was begun by a group of dedicated visionaries. The beautiful Preserve people enjoy today is the result of years of committed volunteer work and generous financial support by individuals and groups who caught the vision of the early pioneers.

Those men and women who built the Preserve understood the value of an outdoor experience. I was fortunate to have a father who built us a family cottage on a lake where we could enjoy the Michigan water wonderland. He took me salmon fishing and deer hunting and sailing and passed on his love of the outdoors. I also had the pleasure of roaming the fields and woods around our suburban home. There are many young people right here in Muskegon who are not as lucky as I was. My wife taught in a local school district where many of her sixth graders had never seen Lake Michigan, let alone gone sailing or fishing.

The latest research shows that children who regularly experience the outdoors in a meaningful way are healthier and happier. It is not uncommon after a day in the outdoor classroom at the Preserve to hear young students remark that it was the best day of their life. Environmental education is not just enjoyable, it is essential to maintain a force for conservation and preservation in the next generation. A day at the Preserve sparked an interest in one young lady that carried through to a career in environmental education. Many others simply learn that peace and tranquility can be found by stepping into a small bit of nature preserved for their benefit.

This is our cause; this is why MERES exists. We have been able to do this for thousands of people, young and old, every year for two decades. Now we want to do more. Many people who enjoy the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve think it is a public park funded by public dollars. Only a few of those who experience the Preserve and the River Walk realize that it is completely funded by donations.

To move to the next level of service to the community, we need to build an endowment fund that will allow us to maintain what we have and broaden our outreach. Our goal is to have sufficient funds to keep the outdoor education programs at the Preserve and the River Walk functioning and to construct an education center which will help us bring more programs to the people of Muskegon County. We want to see the realization of the vision of one of the early supporters who said the project could be, “a jewel in West Michigan.”  We have the stone in the setting; now we just need your help to polish it to gleaming brilliance.

To make a donation, visit the MERES website.

  http://www.muskegonlakenaturepreserve.org/