The Age of Reform

The age of reform refers to the period covered by the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries. Steven Ozment recaptures this journey helping to draw out significant themes and changes within the church during this time. Several prominent figures emerge, all of who serve to aid the development of the understandings theological issues the Church faced throughout the age of reform. 

This essay will serve to analyze Ozment’s writing, highlight the life of Luther, as well as the specific local reformations of this time. Conclusions and applications for twenty-first century Evangelical Chistians will follow.

The Age of Reform

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries we begin to see the emergence of reason and the beginning of its nature as an informative one for theological issue. The Church in the past has not relied on reason as much as experience and direct revelation. The Middle Ages were considered an age of faith, This was beginning to change and would have profound consequences. “The scholastic synthesis of reason and revelation in the 13^th century was a chief source of both the intellectual and ecclesiopolitical conflicts of the late Middle Ages.”

The figures of most prominence during the early Middle Ages were farmers and soldiers. Physical survival was the focus of most people. We see a lot of experimenting with preservation tactics. People were not preoccupied with reason, much less reconciling reasons with their faith. In fact to some, the two were opposed. “The proper relationship between philosophy and theology, between reason and faith, because a major problem for thinking of the high and later Middle Ages”

As we move to the fourteenth century, the idea of mysticism surfaces and we see people reverting to their old ways of grounding their theology in subjective experience and unjustified dogmatism.  Ozment comments that the options in that day were simply “either ‘practical skepticism’ or ‘blind fideism.’” 

The high Middle Ages were marked by self-discovery and definition. As we fast-forward to the late Middle Ages, we see challenges emerge that were unprecedented. Famines, wars, revolts, and schism in the church. However, the fifteenth century was also considered a true renaissance of culture and learning.

The new discipline of the days was call “dialectic.” Everything was beginning to be subjected to logical analysis. Indeed, even the articles of faith began to be scrutinized.  These “thinkers first discovered the pains and pleasures of truly critical thought.” Ideas now had consequences. There was now a disbelief in the neutrality of ideas. There were logical consequences that could be found through reason. 

Though the concept of reasons was being esteemed in a way that it was not before,“the church did not challenge bad logic with good logic or meet bad reasoning with sound.” There existed a dichotomy between the realm of life to which reason could apply, and the other realm of like to which reasons could not be applied. “Reason and revelation, nature and grace, philosophy and theology, secular man and religious man, the state and the church – all progressively lost their common ground and went their separate ways”

Martin Luther and the German Reformation

Martin Luther was born at the end of the fifteenth century in Germany. He was an active scholar, and by the age of twenty-two he had received both his bachelor and master’s degrees. He would have continued with his studies in law had not other circumstances pointed him towards the monastery. He soon became a doctor of theology, and was considered the “ages most brilliant theologian.”

The most important doctrine that led to reformation in the Church was that of justification by faith; Luther stressed it as well. The implications of the doctrine of justification by faith were far reaching. “The Reformation was an unprecedented revolution in religion at a time when religion penetrated almost the whole of life.” However, according to the medieval church, what made fallen man righteous again was not faith, but was rather “the remission of the guilt incurred by sin by priestly absolution…In theological doctrine the medieval Christian was always sinning, always beginning anew, always returning to the sacraments for short-lived strength and assurance” 

The doctrine of justification challenged priestly authority head on, potentially influencing the balance of power. In light of the unacceptable implications of what he was preaching, the emperor gave Martin Luther “a brief period of grace in which to reconsider before he cam under the imperial ban and subject to capital punishment”

Luther lived his life expecting “religious values to inform secular life and the sword of the magistrate to defend religious truth.” Sadly, this was not what he experienced. He had already begun influencing what would undermine the authorities of the day. The people had been listening the Luther. The people agreed with Luther. “Many common people looked to him for deliverance from both social and religious bondage.” Luther was familiar with what the scriptures taught on obeying authorities, but he instructed disobedience to authorities which aimed to rule over people’s (believer’s) conscience.

The German Reformation, in regards to the doctrine of justification by faith, “enhanced the inner, personal side of religion against its stultifying external and institutional forms… [It] made it possible for Christian values to penetrate German society and politics and transform German culture.”

I believe Luther had many strength in his approach to reforming the Church. Partly because his focus was on reading scripture aright, that is, properly. If scripture properly read implies justification by faith, and if by emphasizing this doctrine there follows reform in the Church, then that reform was needed. When examining the life of Luther, it does not seem that from the get-go he set out to shake things up in the Church. Rather, as he studied and experienced his own Christian pilgrimage, he was attuned to the convictions of the spirit and did not remain quiet.   

In the same respect, because Luther was not always enacting a specific thought-out strategy, some might accuse him for having various weaknesses. However, I think that his strengths and his lasting impact on the Church far outweighed any weaknesses one might challenge him for. 

Swiss Reformations

The Swiss reformations included both that Anabaptists and the Reformed. Each reformation had its own essential theme: Anabaptism was concerned with baptism, and the Reformed tradition was concerned with the Eucharist. 

Conrad Grebel was the founder of Anabaptism. Anabaptism was an opposition that focused “especially on the issue of infant baptism.” Though people sometimes baptize infant for different purposes, such as simply a way of dedicating them, Anabaptist were responding to the type of infant baptism that seemed to be equated with salvation. Baptism viewed in this way was also viewed to Baptism neutralized “the individual’s responsibility for original sin” and weakened “the inclination to sin.” Familiar with the understanding of baptism of their time, the Anabaptist were convicted that rather, people should be baptized “as mature, consenting adults who had freely chosen a life in imitation of Jesus.”

In response to the Anabaptist movement, adult rebaptism became a capital offense in the sixteenth century. “Scholars estimate that at least 850 and perhaps as many as 5,000 Anabaptists were legally executed between 1525 and 1618 by burning, decapitation, and drowning.”

The second Swiss reformation was started by Ulrich Zwingli, and  “n several ways, Zwinglian Protestantism broke more radically with medieval religion than Lutheranism.” Zwingli was a well-studied young man like Luther, and also left a lasting impression in the church as did Luther. However, Zwingli and Luther had their differences. 

The main concern of the reformed centered around the sacraments, specifically the Eucharist. Rather than literally understanding the elements of Christ’s body and blood, as had been previously held, the reformed interpreted it as symbolic. “In contrast to others, the Zwingli “believed as firmly as any medieval mystic that tangible things could neither contain nor dispense spiritual reality; the physical could not nourish the spiritual.”

Though each local reformation succeeded in challenged what was assumed in the day, they each were very different. “So it was that in 1530 Lutherans and Zwinglians went their separate ways, both confessionally and politically.”

American Evangelicalism

In several ways American Evangelicals have been faithful to the Reformation heritage. However, I do believe there are some issues that the reformers would have with the way we do church now. We focus first on the former.

American Evangelicals have whole-heartedly embraced the doctrine of justification by faith alone. There is no room for a works-based justification in most of our local churches, as there is no sacred space reserved for anything in authority to pardon sin. As whole congregations, pastors included, we acknowledge we are on level playing-field at the foot of the cross. 

However, have we swayed too far away from responding to certain commandments, because our focus on faith rather than works? Faith and works are not pitted against each other in scripture, but sadly this is what many of our churches do today. Faith produces good works, but I think the reformers might ask where that work is, if they walked into some of our churches today. 

Luther’s influence left the church with the “opportunity to invest society’s established institutions with moral and religious values.” Are we as involved with our institutions as to invest in them would the truth we know from scripture and from reasons, or do we function as if we still live with the dichotomy of two realms, one of which is informed by scripture and reason and one of which is not. Luther might be disappointed.

Ozment concluded that the problem of the Reformation was the “naïve expectation that the majority of people were capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation.” In spite of whether this is true or not, have we thought about whether people today are capable of radical religious enlightenment and moral transformation?

It has been said that whoever does not remember history is doomed to repeat it. As I have journeyed through history classes, I have realized that some of my grand ideas were actually tried by people earlier on and they didn’t pan out so well. I am thankful to be able to learn from history. However, I do not think that “learning from history” can be reduced to simply meaning avoided the large mistakes they made. I think it means we can take pointers and see how strategies work/fail and mold our plans having gleaned from what history has taught us.

In an age of postmodernism, we find ourselves in a current culture which has sanctioned religious life as “reason-free.”  Believers are being called as they were in the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries to be faithful in their witness and to fight against this dichotomy. We are not called to escape this world but are called to participate in the redemption of it. This is done at the institutional, religious, and cultural levels. All of which believers should find opportunities to share the gospel and to influence through proper morals. 

Bibliography

Ozment, Steven. The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press,1980. 

 Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980) 20.

Does Plato's Republic reduce to a reductio ad absurdum?

Plato’s Republic

Plato’s Republic has served as rich instructive material upon which philosophers have reflected for centuries. Written in the 4^th century B.C.E., Plato drew up his inspiration from the great philosopher Socrates. Though we do not have any writings from Socrates directly, he serves as the narrator in Republic. As the speaker of the phrase “the unexamined life is not worth living,” the character of Socrates engages in an extensive dialogue regarding justice, politics, and ethics. Among the men whom Socates engages with are Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, the home owner of the home where the dialogue takes place, Polemarchus and his father, Cephalus, as well as the rhetorician Thrasymachus and the Athenian politician Cleitophon. Each character plays an important role in fulfilling the wide array of perspectives on the issues at hand. The Republic is “not only [an] advertisements for the Socratic method of inquiry, but also a vehicle for a complex agenda that is at once ethical and intellectual, cultural and political.”

Athens served as the cultural center of Greece, and it is here where this dialogue takes place. An array of divinities were worshipped and the Greeks did not have a strong mindset regarding moral issues. Because the political system of the day was based on the moral psychology of the day, this is one of the first discussion points that Socrates engages in with Thrasymachus.  “The center of Plato's Republic is a contribution to ethics: a discussion of what the virtue justice is and why a person should be just.” “The challenges of defining justice and understanding its effects on long-term happiness, fulfillment, and well-being… lead to the discussion of the ideal city-state”

Socrates “offers up a striking blueprint for an ideal city-state.” 

The dialogue will be examined below, in an attempt to draw out applications for the contemporary philosopher. The issues of circular reasoning and the question of whether Plato was writing this piece as a reductio ad absurdum will also be addressed.

The Republic

Socrates begins the discussion with regards to repayments of debts, which eventually leads to a discussion on justice. His main interlocutor is this section is Thrasymachus, who shows pretty quickly his annoyance when Socrates shows the inconsistence with his theory. This is how the remainder of Republic plays out: Dialogues progress through Socrates’ use of questions, and theories then serves as hypotheses of which the most practical serves as the conclusion.

As most philosophers are all too aware, a discussion on justice can only continue for so long before the concept of absolute truth and goodness surfaces, for justice must appeal to what is binding on both the enforcer of justice and the so-called unjust. “Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of good [by appeals to absolute truth], you would say that he knows neither the idea of good nor any other good.” Just as justice is a slippery slope to speaking of absolute truth, so is morality a slippery slope to speaking of God.

Though it was not titled so at the time, the problem of evil is referenced. “Then God, if he is good, is not the author of all things…the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere.” The men also agree on the immutability of God, advising that “it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every God remains absolutely and forever in his own form.” (One wishes to debate with these men on the singularity of God, but alas, our only option is to learn how we can better debate with others regarding this issue). They also affirm that “God [is] perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceived not, either by sign or word, by dream or walking vision.”

After laying a foundation with justice and virtue, the men began discussing how and where these characteristics should manifest themselves. They begin by demanding that those responsible for ruling the city (the guardians) and educators must possess virtuous characteristics, alluding to anybody in authority in the ideal city-state. In combining this with the need to control potentials for unjust action, Socrates and the rest of the men also insist that everything should be in common. We find a summary of their argument at the beginning of Book 8,

Wives and children are to be in common; and all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings… [houses] are common to all…no one was to have any of the ordinary possessions of mankind; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians.

In response to this summary, Socrates comments on four types of government in an effort to find which one could reflect this. He begins with (what he calls) timocracy, that is, a state that is ruled by the more simple-minded. The discussion then leads then to oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, all the while showing that one leads to the other. “Does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy…the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty.” We see a certain dilemma begin presenting itself, for though tyranny seems the best option, as the logical conclusion of the succession of the dialogue, it is in fact a government with citizens “always either the masters or servants and never friends of anybody; the tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship… [It is] the most miserable of states.”

Application

In her introduction to Republic, Elizabeth Watson Scharffenberger questions “whether Plato actually thought this theoretical model for a political community was practicable.” I share in her questioning, wondering if Plato was giving a type of reductio ad absurdum, showing that the conclusion of preferring a tyrannical government is absurd, yet this is where the discussion ends up. Is he perhaps trying to show that there must be more to the discussion at hand?

“Socrates takes a long way around, sketching an account of a good city on the grounds that a good city would be just and that defining justice as a virtue of a city would help to define justice as a virtue of a human being.” However, does this ring of circularity?  In book 4, we read that “good practices lead to virtue, and evil practices to vice,” but haven’t virtue and vice been defined in terms of justice and justice in terms of what is good?  How are the dilemmas (the lack of criteria for good and evil as well as the seemingly circular argument form) to be handled? If by focusing on the unchanging natures of goodness and human tendencies (most often unjust), Plato has come to the conclusion that tyranny is the best option for the much needed enforcement of justice, should not these men, and ourselves in addition, be in agreement of this conclusion? However, what we see an argument that undercuts itself: The happiest of citizens will be the citizens of the most just system, the most just system is a tyrannical one, but citizens of a tyrannical system are the most miserable.

What are we to make of this dilemma? Elizabeth gives us her opinion, advising that we acknowledge Plato’s circumstances and simply let his Republic prompt our own reflections and further study into these matters.

Socrates and his companions make innumerable assumptions and countless leaps of logic… We may raise any number of questions about the insights the dialogue might offer us into our world…Much of Republic, especially its political philosophy and argument for censorship, is at odds with modern ideals; [however] its critique of ancient Athenian society opens the door to meaningful question about contemporary cultural practices and priorities…The questions it raises and the approaches it takes to dealing with these questions are not wholly unique to Plato or even to ancient Athens. The spirit of Socratic – and Platonic – inquiry thus bids each of us to ask our own questions of Republic and let it help us, in turn, examine ourselves and our world.

Examining cultural, religious, and political practices takes commitment and humility, two virtues unfortunately not commonly held by most. However, a community desire for a just society and an individual desire for a virtuous self should overshadow and propel us into further study.

Bibliography

Plato. Republic. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2004.

Brown, Eric. "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2011 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/plato-ethics-politics/.

Total Truth

     I met Nancy Pearcey at a conference last year. I went up only wanting to introduce myself, only to end up speaking for 15 minutes and her guessing my Myers Briggs. We sat by each other during the next lecture which was given by the head of my department. He later asked me if I knew who I was sitting by, I simply remarked that she's my new best friend and it's no big deal. I also called my mom and bragged because she read this book way before me. For worldview training this book is foundational. 

Truth Decay

     It's always great to study a book in a class that it taught by the author of the book. This book gives a comprehensive look at truth and examines postmodernism in light of its destruction of truth. So many good quotes in this one, it is also a must read for the believer in order to engage our postmodern culture. 

Christian Apologetics

    No, you cannot look inside this book. This is simply the proof I copy my images from Amazon. This little anthology gem is filled with some of my favorites: Augustine, Pascal, Lewis, and Plantinga (Saint Theresa and Kreeft are good, too, I just had not read them before). 

     I must say, my favorite part of this book is William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. Lots more to get through...

Knowing God

     Confession time: I grabbed this book from the Church library and may or may not have given it back. What can I say, it is the 1976 edition and I'm a sucker for yellowed paperback editions. I also must confess, I have not read the whole book. Rather, I have referenced chapters here and there, mostly for my Theology class I took this past semester. The second part of Part 2 (including The Love of God, The Grace of God, God the Judge, The Wrath of God, Goodness and Severity, and The Jealous God) proved to be powerful. This has been the best articulation yet on the love and justice of God. This is especially relevant in our contemporary misunderstanding of the word love. 

In Defense of Natural Theology

     In my Advanced Apologetics class we talked about Hume and Natural Theolog. Authors Keith Yandell, James F. Sennett, Douglas Groothuis, and J.P. Moreland and others pen in regards to the relationship between Hume and natural theology and various philosophical arguments including: ontological, cosmological, moral, and consciousness. 

     Let's be honest, without a philosophical background some of this was over my head and I had to rely on class discussion and office hours to explain what was being said. However, in the end it was valuable to learn how many objections of natural theology that we deal with today have already been brought to light and defeated. Yay history!

Encountering Religious Pluralism

     Used as a text for a Religious Pluralism class, this book have proved to be my favorite from the last semester. Netland reflects on pluralism in the descriptive sense, spends time on John Hick, and continues in penning his thoughts on pluralism in the normative sense. He writes on the nature of truth and the evaluation of other Worldviews. Netland is articulate and thoughtful, and spurred helpful discussion.

True Spirituality

Francis Schaeffer

With a God-given inquisitive mind, Francis Schaeffer became very interested in the field of philosophy in his late teens.[1] He discovered that philosophy without the acceptance of the existence of God left more questions unanswered than it answered. Schaeffer was led to the Bible, and regarding the questions that had been plaguing him, he found that the “Bible was sufficient in and of itself.”[2]

Schaeffer was gifted in facilitating small group environments, and faithfully used his gifting in opening a study center, L'abri Fellowship, nestled in the Swiss Alps. Though this was a somewhat quiet and secluded environment, Schaeffer was anything but uninvolved with challenging the culture in ways which are still relevant today.

True Spirituality

In True Spirituality, Schaeffer compares and contrasts justification with sanctification, acknowledging both as critical and necessary. Justification occurs only once, and reflects Christ's death as central in the Christian faith. "Christ died in history; Christ rose in history; we died with Christ when we accepted him as Savior. This, too, is a historic thing. It is something that happened (past tense) at a point of history."[3]  

Though justification happens once, sanctification involves a continual dying to the self, and reflects "how central and fundamental is our individual and continuing death by choice as Christians."[4]  Schaeffer approaches spirituality as the completing piece to Christianity, as opposed to the optional continuation after our justification, as certain cultures sometimes portrays it as. "There is a new birth, and then there is that Christian life to be lived... [it] means more than being justified and knowing I am going to Heaven."[5]                                                 Though justification has dealt with the metaphysical reality of sin separating us from God, the effects of sin in the fallen world are continually being faced by justified believers. Sanctification deals with the ever apparent power of sin in lives of Christians. However, the process of sanctification cannot even begin based solely on the strength of the believer. "In sanctification, we must see, acknowledge, and act upon the fact that we cannot live the Christian life in our own strength, or in our own goodness."[6] We are called to obedience and to be available, however we are in no way actually doing the sanctification of our selves. We demonstrate "active passivity."[7]

Caught in the midst of two competing views on Spirituality, that of legalism or perfectionism and that of apathy, Schaeffer challenged both in light of Biblical teachings. Christians should not be consumed with striving towards perfection, especially when "to worry about it is to do despite to the infinite value of the death of the Son of God."[8] However, believers must acknowledge specific sin as sin if there is to ever be hope of a restored relationship with God.[9]                                                                                                                                  

 The effects of sanctification and of the lack thereof, run “from the internal to the external." [10]  This is evident in Biblical examples such as the story of Joseph and his brothers selling him into slavery. They were "perfectly willing to kill their brother and break their father's heart. All these things arose in the internal world of their thoughts - in their hatred, in their envy." [11] The good news is that this same internal to external truth goes for restoration: as we become sanctified in our spiritual or internal life, there will naturally be external results. As God relates to the Christian in a personal way in the internal life, the Christian should be an external demonstration of the existence of God. [12]
            The same goes for the Church as a whole. "The church as the body of Christ should be Christ's means of communication to the external world."[13] In addition, the sanctification process is a tangible way to strengthen the unity of the body of Christ. "In the absence of present perfection, Christians are to help each other on to increasingly substantial healing on the basis of the finished work of Christ."[14]

Application

As believers in the twenty-first century, we should heed the wisdom of Francis Schaeffer, and seek ways to reach our own culture in ways similar to his. Much of what Schaeffer believed has relevance to our current culture, and we should be letting our own spirituality affect our external actions as they did his. We should be living a life reflective of our inward Christian spirituality, portraying a continual death to self as we call others to embrace the life-giving death of Christ.

We should not be as focused on formulas or programs for the masses, as we should be on actual individuals. We should follow Schaeffer’s example in conversing with people "always with great sympathy and gentleness but penetratingly because of his acute intellectual gifts."[15] We also must, therefore, be continually striving to become more intellectually competent and conversant.

As believers, we have the answers to so many of life’s unanswered questions. As Schaeffer puts it, "how beautiful Christianity is - first, because of the sparkling quality of its intellectual answers, but second, because of the beautiful quality of its human and personal answers."[16] The questions to which these intellectual answers support are inescapable as humans created in the image of God. How refreshing and joyous an opportunity we have to share the answer to people who are undoubtedly asking. When we "begin with the Christian worldview…everything makes sense: Start elsewhere and nothing does."[17]

As a believer myself, I conclude with the eloquent lines of Schaeffer in light of the sometimes painful sanctification process that I myself face, and to what I am calling others. 

"But thank God, now I can move; I am no longer running on ice...It does not need to be the old, endless circle. It is not any longer the dog chasing his tail. The light is let in. Things are oriented, and I can move as a whole man, with all the rationality I possess utterly in place. I will not expect to be perfect...but there now can be substantial overcoming of this psychological division in the present life on the basis of Christ's finished work."[18]

Bibliography

Macauley, Ranald. “What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?” The Pearcey Report, (2007),                http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2007/10/ranald_macaulay.php (accessed           February 18th, 2004).

Schaeffer, Francis A. True Spirituality. Carol Steam: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 2011.

---

[1] Ranald Macaulay, “What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?,” The Pearcey Report, (2007), http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2007/10/ranald_macaulay.php (accessed February 18th, 2004).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Francis A. Schaeffer, True Spirituality, (Carol Steam: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 2011), 35.

[4] Ibid., 23.

[5] Ibid., 4, 14.

[6] Ibid., 76.

[7] Ibid., 77.

[8] Ibid., 92.

[9] Ibid., 89.

[10] Ibid., 100.

[11] Ibid., 99.

[12] Ibid., 135.

[13] Ibid., 145.

[14] Ibid., 158.

[15] Macaulay, What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?

[16] Schaeffer, True Spirituality, 144.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Schaeffer, True Spirituality, 116.

Scripture and The Authority of God

Authority of God in Scripture

A topic of hot debate within religious circles is in regards to the authority of Scripture. N.T. Wright wrote an insightful book on the topic, and this essay will serve to critically review The Authority of God in Scripture. In the prologue of his book, N.T. states that “taken as a whole, the church clearly can't live without the Bible, but it doesn't seem to have much idea of how to live with it."  I agree with this statement, and believe it alludes to the importance of the study of the application of scripture. This is not an easy task, the Bible "tells a single overarching story which appears to be precisely the kind of thing people today have learned to resist." Culture plays a huge hindrance to the study of the Word. As Christians, we are "to hold in our minds and hearts what the Bible says about who we are, are to do our best to live by that, [but this] clashes head-on with our culture."  We must seriously reflect on the matter of to whom we are granting authority of our lives: culture or scripture? 

On Authority

Many people have questioned the nature of the word authority, and this must initially be discussed before we can proceed. N.T. states that the "'Authority of Scripture' is a shorthand for 'God's Authority exercised through Scripture'."  Therefore, the authority of God himself is the larger context of which scripture is set within. 

The debate continues, however, too much of it "has had the form of people hitting one another with locked suitcases. It is time to unpack our shorthand doctrines, to lay them out and inspect them."  We must remember what we are debating for. The debate on the authority of the book is not where the conversation ends, but rather with the wonderful words which this book contains, taken to be authoritative in our lives. God "remains present and active within that world, and one of the many ways in which this is so is through his living and active word." 

On Jesus and the church

Jesus is a key to understanding scripture, and a study of the early church shows how the early Christians understood in light of Jesus’s teaching. This is where N.T.’s attention turns. 

"Jesus opens the minds of the disciples to understand what the scriptures had been about all along." Jesus explains how the story of Israel is now told as reaching its climax in himself. Certain continuities and discontinuities naturally will happen, as 

"the law must be put aside...not because it was a bad thing but because it was a good thing whose task is now accomplished. But... the people of God renewed through Jesus and the Spirit can never and must never forget the road by which they had traveled." 

N.T. studies the history of the church over the first sixteen centuries and the various ways in which they attempted to interpret the Scriptures. He reflects on these attempts as being failures, because "once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion."  We must remember that "the backbone of many traditional arguments for the authority of scripture has been those specific sayings of Jesus which stress that he himself regarded scripture as authoritative and criticized his opponents for not doing so." 

Christianity was undermined during the period of the Enlightenment as historical and rational study was used as a weapon against the church. “Much of what has been written about the Bible in the last two hundred years has either been following through the Enlightenment's program or reacting to it, or negotiating some kind of halfway house in between."  The act of God in Jesus Christ has been reduced to mere moral teaching. Or equally disappointing, Jesus’s death is now treated as simply “the mechanism whereby individual sinners can receive forgiveness and hope for an otherworldly future - leaving the politicians and economists... to take over the running, and as it turns out the ruining, of the world." 

"Whenever people today talk about 'authority' within the church, a regular appeal is made on behalf of 'experience'."  However, as Wright states, "'experience' is far too slippery for the concept to stand any chance of providing a stable basis sufficient to serve as an 'authority'." This idea is proved upon simple reflection, because when people's experiences differ, this would lead to a complete absence of authority. However, as Wright stresses, "it is vital that Christians should 'experience' the power and love of God in their own lives." 

To conclude in the wise words of N.T. Wright, We need to 

"highlight the role of the Spirit as the powerful, transformative agent... keep as its central focus the goal of God's Kingdom, inaugurated by Jesus on earth as in heaven and one day to be completed under the same rubric... envisage the church as characterized, at the very heart of its life, by prayerful listening to, strenuous wrestling with, humble obedience before, and powerful proclamation of scripture." 

Review

N.T. Wright has an insightful way with words, engaging his readers and stressing the importance of the issue of authority in the bible. I agree with his claim that we need to move from scrutinizing the Bible to letting it be more authoritative in our lives. We must engage in a way that will be transforming rather than in a way that will simply set us up to win debates. We must study scripture privately and corporately, as we look to it for counsel, prayer, devotion, example, study, and worship, all the while remaining conscious we do not look at it to justify our own agendas.

I applaud N.T. for stressing the study of Jesus, a point which I think is not stressed enough in our churches today, though His life is at the center of the gospel. The gospels must be in must be read in context, that we might know what is prescriptive and what is simply descriptive of the early Church. We must view it through a lens that grants the inspiration of Holy Spirit, rather than simply another worldly historical/wise document. We must view it more than simply an object of study or a research tool. We must set aside time to reflect in an intimate way with the Lord and the guiding of the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to the significance to our own lives. 

N.T. does not expect his reader to have presupposed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but rather uses supporting evidence for his argument that this is the case. He used scripture throughout his book appropriately and effectively. Most of the claims in this book can be compared to the main objectives or elements of this course on Biblical Interpretation. The development of skills for the proper interpretation of scripture is a must. If we must initially study the scripture to see what it says before we can apply its authority to our lives, skills to determine a proper understanding is a necessary prerequisite. A properly weighted importance on this history of interpretation found in the book is also similar to that which has been stressed in class. False interpretations in the past have led to the compromise of the church and its message, and of this we should be wary. Context is key in any interpretive attempt, whether that be cultural or literary, that we might apply the text appropriately. We accept the teaching, both from the book and from class, that the importance of proper scripture interpretation is found in the fact that these truths form the foundation for our Faith. 

Studying the scripture will require everything that goes against our culture: humility, discipline, endurance, patience, and a moldable spirit. A willing and humble spirit must embrace the task, recognizing that this task in so small one. Daily prayer must be a theme in any believer’s life, that God would provide strength, clarity of mind, and perseverance. To this N.T. makes clear. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Wright, NT. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

The subject of war has always been a topic of debate, but since the attacks on September 11th in the United States, the subject has become more highly debated as a matter of immediate security. As humans coexisting in a world of many different agendas and ideals, we must find the best solution which affirms the right to life and to freedom. As believers, we must find the way of which our Lord commands us, and then accept the duty to which we are called.

There are many examples of war in His specific revelation to His people, the Bible, to which we turn our attention. These stories are to be examined to shed light on current situations, but one must keep in mind the differences between the world in which the Hebrew people lived, and the modern times in which we find ourselves. All factors, such a differing methods of communication and weaponry, must be taken into account.

Overview of War in the OT

War was accepted as being part of the Hebrew world. The question was not “is war right”, but rather was “in which way is God commanding us to deal with it”. There are various stories represented in the Old Testament, however none of these may be taken out of context of the whole scripture. The war examples must be examined in light of the unchanging character of God, regardless of how an initial glance at the text could show otherwise.

The God of the the Hebrew people, Yahweh, is a holy god, and He carries out whatever means necessary to preserve His holiness.  His activity in the various wars the Israelite people enter into, are almost always a response to a people rebelling against Him. Even His chosen people are not immune to this.

Without a proper understanding of God’s holiness, the text could be misinterpreted as God not being a God of love or mercy. However, in the context of the grand narrative that is portrayed throughout the Old testament, God is continually forgiving and turning away His wrath. His mercy is even evident when He does release His wrath, because we can see that He is destroying a few as a means of preserving the ones who have not yet been enslaved by sin.

A New Testament reference, in John 15 verse 2, alludes to this. The author writes about a vine being pruned, and how the branches that do not bear fruit are cut off so that the whole vine may become more fruitful.  

Another characteristic of God that can be inferred from the war stories presented in the Old Testament, is his role as savior. "The greatness of Yahweh is described in terms of his role as Savior...the purpose of the victory is not the destruction of the enemy but the salvation of Yahweh's people." #

God has been described as the divine warrior, leading His people into battle, and possessing the only authority to set the terms of the battle. His people were never permitted to take more than what he allowed. As Hess stated, "the Bible prescribes for Israel neither a total ban on war not permission for the nation to fight however it wishes." #

In conclusion, “the Bible reflects a variety of reasons for war, but it does so with a moral tenor that ultimately recognizes battle as a necessary evil in the context of a great, cosmic struggle between good and evil.” #

Shalom by absorbing the violence

"The legacy of biblical monotheism is shalom, not violence" says Elmer Martens on page 33. # I would venture to say, there are many opposing view to this. However, I also believe these opposing views are based on taking stories out of context, not recognizing that apparent violence is actually a means in which God is using to establish His peace. This theme runs through the Bible and foreshadows what ultimately happens upon the cross.

"The cross both incorporates the message of peace and exhibits the method by which peace is made." # On the outside, even the cross has been criticized as being an act of violence, but again, ephesians 2:13-14 tells us “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” #

The peace which God brings must be “calibrated” as Martens says, with the means by which it is brought. In order to stop the spread of evil, God may take "drastic action to halt the downward spiral." # Again, the destruction we see from stories in the Bible must be interpreted in light of God’s holiness and desire for His people.

In application for modern times, it is necessary to notice how the Bible never teaches violence from personal vengeance. As believers, we aim to follow Christ’s example in absorbing violence, rather than instigating or allowing to perpetuate. We are promised peace in the eschaton, and in light of this “it is incumbent on God's people to work in the present toward this goal." #

In conclusion, "God's project, to restore shalom, involves God's ultimate offering of himself as the scapegoat, the ultimate absorber of human violence...sin-caused violence is intercepted by Jesus Christ. Shalom is the result, but it's purchase price is the total self-giving of the deity, the absorption of violence." #

Impulses toward Peace in a Country at War

Two questions we must ask ourselves, as encouraged by Daniel Carroll, are: who are we, and what are we to do.# As believers, our identity lies within Christ, and is therefore where we find what we are to do.

In the book of Isaiah, we see the prophet’s grief and anger regarding Judah’s leadership and arrogance in the context of their pact with the Egyptians. As the people of God, they wrongly took their focus off of God, separating them from their “divine warrior”, and leaving them with a “death sentence.”# "The prophetic evaluation of Judah's preparations for war is extremely negative... there is at the same time a word of hope for the people of God that lies beyond the affliction that would soon befall them."#

We see another foreshadow to a model king that will not make ungodly choices, but will rather “reign in righteousness.”#  In conclusion, "war is not God's final word: the promise of universal peace is a fundamental part of the text's eschatological hope." #

Modern Terrorism

For modern application, we must examine prevalent violence in our world. Terrorism has been defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."# We must recognize that terrorism is not so much a movement as it is an instrument, and the people who utilize it are considered terrorist. The next step is to categorize terrorist, either as criminals or enemies. They may represent an enemy, but it is not always the best option to pursue them in this way.

"If terrorist are simple criminals, then acting in a way that will lead to civilian deaths, even if unintentional, is morally impermissible."# However, sometimes they "may be more appropriately regarded as enemies, given the magnitude of the threat they represent... The fact that [destroying institutions that preserve civilian life] is their goal and that they have the capability of carrying it out is what makes them enemies." #

Conclusion

As followers of Christ, we must look to His instructions for how to deal with the idea of war. We can, and must, study the Bible to shed light on modern situations, both for establishing peace and for maintaining it. Our goal should be to defeat enemies and to establish credible institutions to maintain the order. As Tony Pfaff writes, "by enforcing laws, police maintain peace; by fighting was, soldiers establish it,"  we just need to be wary that the means of establishing and enforcing are appropriate.#

We have to take into account, that with modern advances with technology, communication, and weaponry, what could once be considered a potential threat has to be taken more seriously. If weapons are capable of mass destruction, the mere possession of them now has to now be seen as an actual act of aggression. Our role as shalom-bringers and peacekeepers, is to affirm human life, while following the Biblical example of destroying whatever remains a threat to this. At the end of the day, "as governments deal with terrorists in a way that is legal and just, it is vitally important for them to recognize and address the roots of opposition from which the terrorism springs." #