Karen Hancock's The Enclave has some strong negatives, but they're a bit hard to present tidily. Some are geek issues; for example, if you really could shoot a laser or heat ray out of your eye, the power demands would be incredible, and the waste heat would blow your head off. Also, it's extremely naïve to claim that an explosion could be dismissed as an earthquake. Then there are literacy issues--putative sentences that really don't parse and transitive verbs used intransitively. But I'll stick with the theological problems. Let's start with a simple one that really ticked me off.
Surviving the Flood. Would you believe that a bunch of guys blew off Noah and his Love Boat and still survived the Flood? I wouldn't, but it supposedly happened.
Evilution. [sic] There are a number of false dichotomies and bad assumptions in Cameron's debate about Christianity. For example, while 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be ready to give unsaved people a reason for our faith, it never mentions giving scientific proofs. A testimony will do. (I've mentioned this before.) Otherwise you just get into an argument, as Cameron does. Note that when people come up with old lines such as, "If there is a God, why is there so much evil/suffering in the world?" they are wasting your time. If they really wanted to know, they could look it up. Refutations and simple responses are easily found online. In any case, I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone asking such a question honestly.
But what's odd is that Cameron states that evolution and Christianity "are two antithetical belief systems that cannot be reconciled" (p. 282). Now, I'm not an evolutionist, but there are Christians who accept evolution. I consider them factually in error, but they aren't going to Hell as a result. So how can evolution be the Devil incarnate?
It isn't. However, atheism is incompatible with Christianity--there aren't any true Christians who deny that God exists or created all things (whether directly or by indirect, evolutionary means). So what Cameron's actually talking about is not the old "Creation/Evolution" debate, but the more important "Design/Chance" debate. Why not just say so? Because the loudest proponents of Design tend to attack Evolution instead of Chance. They are dead set against theistic evolution for the simple reason that they agree with its assumptions but disagree with its conclusions. Both Creation Science and theistic evolution twist Scripture and exalt human expectations; it's hard to say which is worse.
And there are various places where the unbiblical sensationalism of Creation Science shows up. We have the old joke about the Nephilim being the result of demonic rape, for example. They weren't: if you read Gen. 6:1-4 carefully, you should find at least one reason (if not two) to reject this idea. We also see very briefly the ideas that it never rained before the Flood (p. 448) and that there was a vapor canopy over the Earth (p. 449). The Bible implies neither, and the second implicitly contradicts Scripture: Psalm 148:4-6 tells us that the waters above the heavens (i.e., clouds) are permanent.
Speculation is fine; just keep it in line with the Bible.
Send in the clones! Clones are a theologically tricky topic. Some say that clones are the same as identical twins, so there's no theological problem. Nonsense. The mechanisms are drastically different. Identical twins occur when a fertilized egg cell splits into two fertilized egg cells, instead of simply dividing and redividing. Cloning as currently practiced involves yanking the nucleus out of a fertilized egg cell and replacing it with another nucleus and its genetic material. It takes materialism--the view that we are no more than the sum of our physical parts--to assume this makes no difference. It's a complex issue and calls for more depth than we find in the story.
An unhappy ending... I know a lot of people will disagree with this one, but they'll do so based on the surrounding culture, not the Bible: While Lacey is a widow, Cameron is merely a divorcé (note the single "e"). So based on 1 Cor 7:10-11, it's doubtful that their relationship can properly go anywhere. (Yes, I've seen a lot of attempts to get around that, but they amount to saying that Paul could and would over-rule God.) That somewhat messes up the romance.
Conclusion. This is another case where the more you know about the Bible, the more annoyed you'll get. Unfortunately, that will leave a lot of people unfazed. Yet there are certainly good points as well. In fact, there's more to be said for and against than I've had time to mention, so if you're wondering whether to bother, check the other reviews for a better idea of the story:
Brandon Barr
Jennifer Bogart
Keanan Brand
Grace Bridges
Canadianladybug
Melissa Carswell
Valerie Comer
Amy Cruson
CSFF Blog Tour
Stacey Dale
D. G. D. Davidson
Janey DeMeo
Jeff Draper
Emmalyn Edwards
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Todd Michael Greene
Heather R. Hunt
Becky Jesse
Cris Jesse
Julie
Carol Keen
Krystine Kercher
Dawn King
Mike Lynch
Melissa Meeks
Rebecca LuElla Miller
Mirtika
Eve Nielsen
Nissa
John W. Otte
Crista Richey
James Somers
Speculative Faith
Stephanie
Rachel Starr Thomson
Steve Trower
Fred Warren
Elizabeth Williams
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Steve, I think you may be undermining your own arguments with your dogmatic approach. For example, you said The Bible implies neither, and the second implicitly contradicts Scripture: Psalm 148:4-6 tells us that the waters above the heavens (i.e., clouds) are permanent. So you're saying, when heaven and earth pass away, the waters will remain? And are you sure the verses in Psalm 148 are talking about the water and not the heavens?
Despite these considerations, you take a line that does not allow for any alternative.
Another instance. Clearly Genesis 6:4 states the Nephilim were before "those days and also afterward." But according to you, there was no way they survived. Do you believe instead they were recreated?
Because Scripture doesn't tell us how the Nephilim were before and after, I don't see speculation about this as the theological problem you do. And I think taking a dogmatic stance about something Scripture does not, creates confusion.
If the novel had suggested Satan created the Nephilim or some such heresy, then, yes, you have Scripture to back you up. But with theories about things Scripture does not state unequivocally, I think it is risky to take an unequivocal stand.
Becky
For example, you said The Bible implies neither, and the second implicitly contradicts Scripture: Psalm 148:4-6 tells us that the waters above the heavens (i.e., clouds) are permanent. So you're saying, when heaven and earth pass away, the waters will remain? And are you sure the verses in Psalm 148 are talking about the water and not the heavens?
But if it does refer to the heavens, they also pass away, as you said yourself, so they aren't permanent either. But the phrasing is quite inclusive: the heavens, the waters, the sun, moon, and stars are all to praise God, who has appointed them at least until the end of this age.
Or look at it another way: Psalm 148 was written during the time of Israel (v. 14). Creation science typically claims that the supposed vapor canopy (their view of the "water above the heavens") rained itself out in the Flood, leading to massive climatic change. But apparently the waters were still around thousands of years later when this psalm was composed.
Despite these considerations, you take a line that does not allow for any alternative.
Have you ever disagreed with these people? They're way less tolerant than the Inquisition. I allow for alternatives; I just don't have patience with people who put their ideas ahead of Scripture.
“I can face facts,” Professor Driscoll remarked affably. “It’s just that I keep being confronted with assertions. They aren’t the same thing.” --Out of Time
Another instance. Clearly Genesis 6:4 states the Nephilim were before "those days and also afterward." But according to you, there was no way they survived. Do you believe instead they were recreated?
The simpler reading is that "in those days"--the days when the "sons of God" married the daughters of men (not something demons are wont to do)--there were already Nephilim around: they were present "in those days." They were also around afterward. I suspect that the Nephilim were the sons of God, though the argument is involved and dips into Hebrew a bit. But I would say that the Nephilim--actual, if unusual human beings--existed all along, though I doubt they were twenty feet high with X-Men tendencies.
But the point is that the story has humanoid creatures--biological, not spiritual, entities--surviving the Flood in defiance of God by means of their own contrivance. No. Gen. 7:21-23 is quite explicit: the only survivors were on the Ark.
Post a Comment