Sunday, June 01, 2008

David, Saul, Goliath and God

I'm taking the day off exams today, and I've finished exams on the Bible, so here are some thoughts I had this morning.

Saul was chosen as king of Israel because he was the sort of king they wanted.

They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others.Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see the man the LORD has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people."
Then the people shouted, "Long live the king!"

1 Samuel 10:23-24, NIV

His quality as king was marked out by his tallness. Of course, we also know he's an incompetent donkey-herd (1 Samuel 9:4), a coward (he doesn't attack the Philistine outpost in Gibeah like he's meant to), not devout (he needs his servant to tell him that Samuel even exists, 1 Samuel 9:6) and a proud man who would even sacrifice his heroic son for his own pride (1 Samuel 14). Saul wasn't at the gathering to choose a king because he was hiding in the luggage.

So it it hardly a surprise that when Israel under Saul comes up against Goliath in 1 Samuel 17, that he doesn't know what to do. His best attribute was his height - he was a head taller than anyone else in Israel. But Goliath was 9 feet tall.

David, by contrast, was everything that Saul was not. He was a good shepherd, brave, devout, only a boy and quite willing to admit it, but with an unshakeable confidence in God. We wasn't at the gathering to choose him king because he'd been overlooked and was keeping an eye on the sheep. And he's the one God uses to kill Goliath.

So why do we care about the kind of image that our leaders have? Saul was the one expert on image. Man looks on outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, and that's what matters.

Why does ministerial training teach us presentation skills, but not personal prayer life and spiritual disciplines? Why do we learn to talk about God, but not to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength?

[ETA - That's not just a Wycliffe-specific comment. I know people at lots of the theological colleges, evangelical, catholic, whatever, and one quite a few of the courses. And none of them seem to prioritise helping their people be men and women after God's own heart...]

11 comments:

bcg said...

"Why does ministerial training teach us presentation skills, but not personal prayer life and spiritual disciplines? Why do we learn to talk about God, but not to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength?"

My friend, that is a VERY good question.

Unknown said...

a very interesting insight into training at Wycliffe Hall

John said...

It's a much wider problem than Wycliffe. I've visited 6 of the 11 C of E training colleges, and know people at the other 5 and on a fair few of the courses. I don't know any C of E training that actually prioritise people's individual walk with and discipleship of Christ and seeks to help them to be people after God's own heart above anything else.

And no, the 6 are not the 6 evangelical ones...

Unknown said...

weasel words, john. your real experience is of where you are, not as a tourist at other colleges, and it's a pretty damning verdict on turbull that you feel that way. you can back-pedal as much as you like in future statements, but this one has the ring of unguarded authenticity. as i said, in a proper institution you would not be deemed fit for ordination. this blog gives a very good insight into your character. it also reveals the shortcomings of wycliffe hall in not challenging you.

John said...

So you think you're better than the C of E at judging who is and isn't suitable for ordination?

Just as well I don't stand or fall by human judgement really...

bcg said...

I think that the Church of England has been having this problem ever since it began prioritising academic training over individual ministerial and character formation.

While I agree that some theological training is absolutely vital for a minister, it seems that the Church makes recommendations for your training based on the highest qualification you can get while you are there.

In a C of E report twenty years ago into the impact of the Church in inner cities (Faith in the City), it was recommended that ministerial training and selection should move away from their long focus on academic studies.

Sadly, I don't see any shift in that. While it is of course important for the Church to encourage and train the next generation of theologians, most people are not gifted that way (thank goodness), and anyway theologians need personal formation as well!

John said...

bcg, I'd want to add that I think there's a difference between the ideal and the actual here. We both know that people arriving at theological college don't all have the level of Biblical knowledge (or preaching experience, or basic theology) that we'd hope a reasonably gifted layperson would have, and it's important that they get them too.

Jody Stowell said...

hi

my personal experience is at Spurgeon's (baptist) and whilst I was not training for ministry at the time, I can tell you that it did a mammoth job in my personal relationship with God - it's difficult to explain how it did that really.

probably because most of the tutor's absolutely shone.

having visited st john's I was struck by their 3 thread DNA which includes Way to God: Spirituality, Truth about God: intellectual inquiry, and Life in God: Ethics outworked.

We were also told that pilgrimage as a community was an integral part to the college life.

so if I did end up there I would expecting my spiritual formation to continue.

I think that it is sad for you John, if this is your experience before ministry. Do your utmost to pursue it for yourself. I can suggest a look at the renovare website for an insight into spiritual disciplines and balance in our lives.

Unknown said...

Having once sat through a practice sermon in which the preacher said that the difference between David and Saul was that David was anointed by the Spirit for kingship and Saul was not! (see 1 Sam 10) I would just like to register an alternative POV.

Saul was chosen by God some time before he was presented to the people (1 Sam 9.15,16) and not apparently for his height. 1 Sam 10.23,24 may well be intended to be a comment on the people's values. It is not, I think, a comment on Saul's qualities.

The whole of Samuel-Kings is very ambivalent about the role of Kings and for every fault of Saul's we could find at least one of David's (adulterer, murderer for example). I think Saul is an object lesson for any who have the gift, capacity or even anointing of the Spirit for leadership. In the end it is (as you say) faithfulness to the Lord that counts (though as Jeremiah shows us that doesn't necessarily guarantee success)

John said...

One of the tutors at Wycliffe has not dissimilar thoughts...

John said...

James -

Saul was chosen by God some time before he was presented to the people (1 Sam 9.15,16) and not apparently for his height. 1 Sam 10.23,24 may well be intended to be a comment on the people's values. It is not, I think, a comment on Saul's qualities.

I read it as the people have asked God for a king just like the nations, so he gives them one.

In any case, we can still apply what I said through the lens of the people's perception. They like Saul because he is tall. Goliath is taller.

There's a persuasive argument that Saul is meant to destroy the Philistine garrison he ends up next to at the end of 1 Samuel 10. He doesn't. David does destroy the Philistines when they are "at hand".