“The end then of learning is to repair the ruins of our first parents by regaining to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him, as we may the nearest by possessing our souls of true virtue, which being united to the heavenly grace of faith makes up the highest perfection.” John Milton, Of Education
Milton’s words are powerful. They presuppose something very important. They presuppose, in their very statement, that repair work has to be done. We can go through the litany of problems with modern education, but we don’t have to to see where Milton is coming from. You see, Milton does not locate the problem of education in the newest curricular fad, multicultural program, or pro-homosexual textbook selection. Milton locates the problem systemic in education exactly where it is, the fall. The goal of education, according to Milton, is to repair the ruins of the fall. To bring us back into wonderful, blissful communion with our heavenly Father and the glory of His only-begotten son, Christ, our Lord. Not that we reverse the fall through education, but that we seek to suppress it. We seek, through knowing God aright, through loving Him in knowledge, through imitation of His divine attributes, “to be like Him … by possessing our souls of true virtue.” That is the goal of a classical and Christian education.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Themes Part Two
The other major theme we need to consider when reading Uncle Tom's Cabin is Stowe's understanding of Christian Ethics. This theme goes two ways for Stowe. On the one hand, Christian ethics are lauded on the part of Tom and ultimately George Shelby. They are Christ figures in the novel. Tom accepts the humiliation of his life with the understanding that as long as he trusts his life to God he will persevere. Tom is seen reading his Bible, accepting his humiliating position in life, and taking cruel and undeserved punishment from an authority figure, much as Christ. George Shelby, though a late-comer in the novel, is seen acting out his ethical principles to find and rescue Tom from Legree.
The other way Stowe uses Christian ethics is to condemn most of the white characters in the novel and convict readers of the novel. While each person in the novel confesses Christ, they do not truly represent Christ-likeness as Stowe understands it. True Christ-likeness, as Stowe understands it, would immediately free the slaves since she holds slavery itself to be antithetical to Christian love and charity. Rather, many white characters use Christianity as a means to gain and keep power as opposed to a way of changing the world. In this respect we can see Stowe’s link to the social reform movements of Transcendentalism in America.
The other way Stowe uses Christian ethics is to condemn most of the white characters in the novel and convict readers of the novel. While each person in the novel confesses Christ, they do not truly represent Christ-likeness as Stowe understands it. True Christ-likeness, as Stowe understands it, would immediately free the slaves since she holds slavery itself to be antithetical to Christian love and charity. Rather, many white characters use Christianity as a means to gain and keep power as opposed to a way of changing the world. In this respect we can see Stowe’s link to the social reform movements of Transcendentalism in America.
Major Technological Breakthrough by Tristan Gylberd
I found this in the recent edition of Arx Axiom. It was originally published December 1998 in the Stirling Bridge newsletter.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
At the recent technology show in Las Vegas, a protocol for a new technological breakthrough was announced. The new protocol, Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, will be trade named BOOK. This new BOOK protocol is a revolutionary technological marvel-with no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected, and nothing to be switched on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it after only a short training session. Compact and portable, it can be used practically anywhere-even sitting in an armchair by the fire-yet it is powerful enough, and contains enough data storage space to potentially hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc.
Here is how it works. BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of fully recyclable paper, each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now, BOOKS with more information simply use more pages. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by opening it. BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unstable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with the "index" feature, which enables users to pinpoint the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.
Marvel of marvels, it has also been determined, following a series of laboratory tests in the most adverse conditions, the new protocol is altogether Y2K compliant. Indeed, it seems to be entirely unaffected by the seemingly omnipresent Millennium Bug-thus, guaranteeing the survival of the technology regardless of what the next year brings us in the way of basic infrastructure disruptions.
Optional BOOKmark accessories allows users to open BOOK to the exact place they left it in a previous session-even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKS by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOK markers can be used in a single BOOK if users want to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. Users may also wish to make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with yet any one of another series of optional accessories-transferable programming tools: the Portable Erasable Nip Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus, known by the trade name, PENCILS. Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is already being hailed as a precursor of a new wave of educational and entertainment products. Also, BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking in. Look for a flood of new titles soon.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
At the recent technology show in Las Vegas, a protocol for a new technological breakthrough was announced. The new protocol, Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, will be trade named BOOK. This new BOOK protocol is a revolutionary technological marvel-with no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected, and nothing to be switched on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it after only a short training session. Compact and portable, it can be used practically anywhere-even sitting in an armchair by the fire-yet it is powerful enough, and contains enough data storage space to potentially hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc.
Here is how it works. BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of fully recyclable paper, each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now, BOOKS with more information simply use more pages. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by opening it. BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unstable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with the "index" feature, which enables users to pinpoint the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.
Marvel of marvels, it has also been determined, following a series of laboratory tests in the most adverse conditions, the new protocol is altogether Y2K compliant. Indeed, it seems to be entirely unaffected by the seemingly omnipresent Millennium Bug-thus, guaranteeing the survival of the technology regardless of what the next year brings us in the way of basic infrastructure disruptions.
Optional BOOKmark accessories allows users to open BOOK to the exact place they left it in a previous session-even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKS by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOK markers can be used in a single BOOK if users want to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. Users may also wish to make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with yet any one of another series of optional accessories-transferable programming tools: the Portable Erasable Nip Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus, known by the trade name, PENCILS. Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is already being hailed as a precursor of a new wave of educational and entertainment products. Also, BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking in. Look for a flood of new titles soon.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Five
Today we consider the final major principle in interpreting the Bible.
Scripture must be interpreted according to the genre in which it is written: Poetry should not be interpreted as prose, nor should prophecy be interpreted as prose. Each style of literary genre is to be interpreted differently, not all as the same thing. This hampers the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is full of allusions, allegorical remarks, metaphors and other literary devices. Many students of the Bible claim to interpret the Scriptures literally, but they cannot do this consistently. For instance, John 15:1 portrays Christ as a vine, yet few (if any) interpreters would say that Jesus meant this literally. Is the difference in the text, does Jesus clue us into the metaphor in any way. Not really. He just says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." Throughout the Old Testament we see God portrayed in a variety of metaphors. None of these are to be taken literally with respect to God, for God is spirit and cannot be understood as anything literal or physical. He even warned against this in the Decalogue. Anthropomorphism is a frequent literary device among ancient writings and is never meant to be taken literally. Scripture may have a divine origin, but its writers were men who had to follow the rules of grammar for their social context, just as we do today. Idioms and other literary devices are not uncommon in Scripture, and we must not impose literal constraints on passages that do not have them. How do we tell the difference? We return to the previous point and let Scripture interpret Scripture. In the Olivet discourse Christ references events of catastrophic and cosmic proportions. Today most evangelical Christians understand these events to be future because they have not happened in time. However, this presents the problem of expecting a literal fulfillment of prophecy, which cannot be justified. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet records that in God's judgment on Babylon "the stars of heaven will not give their light and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth and the moon will not cause its light to shine" (Isaiah 13:10). This passage must be understood to have been fulfilled because of later revelation in the book of Daniel which references the judgment of Babylon by God through other nations (Daniel 2:36-45). Is this passage to be interpreted literally as one would passages such as Genesis 6 where God destroyed the earth with a flood? Some have suggested that events such as these are literal to God. However, this does not really answer the question. In supposing that scripture was written for contemporary hearers, it must also be supposed that they understood what was being written or said. Otherwise the very nature of Scripture as personal revelation from God is useless. Why would God go about telling us what is real to Him if it is not real to us as well? In short, even if passages such as Isaiah 13:10 are to be taken as literal to God, though not to mankind, they must have some form of reference point to mankind and interpretational value. Therefore, are they to be taken as literal to us? The direct answer is obviously not. The heavens are still around, we can look up and see them. This discussion should inform our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Is it necessary to restrict Christ's words to literal events which were to occur? Not at all.
If we use these principles of hermeneutics carefully and faithfully, the Scriptures will open up to us with very few problems. We will not understand everything. That is part of the hermeneutical problem. We were not alive when they wrote and have a very different perception of things. The problem of translation is that it does not always catch the idioms and figures of speech that a culture like Israel or Babylon, or even Rome would have known instantly. It is perplexing to us to understand why Christ said that the Pharisees strained out a gnat to swallow a camel, but not impossible to understand it. There are some passages of Scripture that have perplexed scholars for years. The great church father Augustine once wrote concerning the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians, that he had no idea what Paul was talking about. The best efforts have yet to come to a conclusive answer to the question yet. That does not mean that no answer exists, only that we lack the tools to find it with. All of Scripture is meant to be understood. It may not be for our generation to understand that passage yet. It was not meant for the early church to understand the doctrine of justification, it was meant for those men who suffered for the Protestant Reformation to draw on the Scriptures and the insights of godly men to set down clearly the doctrine of sola fides. This is to say that we should be mindful of our task as exegetes of Scripture. It is there to say something. The depths of Scripture are deep, but they are not inpenetrable. We can exegete a passage to learn what that has to say. We can expound a passage based on our exegesis and learn what the Scriptures have to teach us there. We can systematize the passage with other similar passages to see what God would teach us regarding a similar theme. We can systematize the entire Bible and learn God's will for humanity. But we can do none of these things exhaustively, or without the aid of the Spirit. He is the primary agent in the understanding of Scripture. It is He who, as the Westminster Confession says, is the "supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we can rest" since it is He who is "speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.x).
Scripture must be interpreted according to the genre in which it is written: Poetry should not be interpreted as prose, nor should prophecy be interpreted as prose. Each style of literary genre is to be interpreted differently, not all as the same thing. This hampers the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is full of allusions, allegorical remarks, metaphors and other literary devices. Many students of the Bible claim to interpret the Scriptures literally, but they cannot do this consistently. For instance, John 15:1 portrays Christ as a vine, yet few (if any) interpreters would say that Jesus meant this literally. Is the difference in the text, does Jesus clue us into the metaphor in any way. Not really. He just says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." Throughout the Old Testament we see God portrayed in a variety of metaphors. None of these are to be taken literally with respect to God, for God is spirit and cannot be understood as anything literal or physical. He even warned against this in the Decalogue. Anthropomorphism is a frequent literary device among ancient writings and is never meant to be taken literally. Scripture may have a divine origin, but its writers were men who had to follow the rules of grammar for their social context, just as we do today. Idioms and other literary devices are not uncommon in Scripture, and we must not impose literal constraints on passages that do not have them. How do we tell the difference? We return to the previous point and let Scripture interpret Scripture. In the Olivet discourse Christ references events of catastrophic and cosmic proportions. Today most evangelical Christians understand these events to be future because they have not happened in time. However, this presents the problem of expecting a literal fulfillment of prophecy, which cannot be justified. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet records that in God's judgment on Babylon "the stars of heaven will not give their light and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth and the moon will not cause its light to shine" (Isaiah 13:10). This passage must be understood to have been fulfilled because of later revelation in the book of Daniel which references the judgment of Babylon by God through other nations (Daniel 2:36-45). Is this passage to be interpreted literally as one would passages such as Genesis 6 where God destroyed the earth with a flood? Some have suggested that events such as these are literal to God. However, this does not really answer the question. In supposing that scripture was written for contemporary hearers, it must also be supposed that they understood what was being written or said. Otherwise the very nature of Scripture as personal revelation from God is useless. Why would God go about telling us what is real to Him if it is not real to us as well? In short, even if passages such as Isaiah 13:10 are to be taken as literal to God, though not to mankind, they must have some form of reference point to mankind and interpretational value. Therefore, are they to be taken as literal to us? The direct answer is obviously not. The heavens are still around, we can look up and see them. This discussion should inform our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Is it necessary to restrict Christ's words to literal events which were to occur? Not at all.
If we use these principles of hermeneutics carefully and faithfully, the Scriptures will open up to us with very few problems. We will not understand everything. That is part of the hermeneutical problem. We were not alive when they wrote and have a very different perception of things. The problem of translation is that it does not always catch the idioms and figures of speech that a culture like Israel or Babylon, or even Rome would have known instantly. It is perplexing to us to understand why Christ said that the Pharisees strained out a gnat to swallow a camel, but not impossible to understand it. There are some passages of Scripture that have perplexed scholars for years. The great church father Augustine once wrote concerning the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians, that he had no idea what Paul was talking about. The best efforts have yet to come to a conclusive answer to the question yet. That does not mean that no answer exists, only that we lack the tools to find it with. All of Scripture is meant to be understood. It may not be for our generation to understand that passage yet. It was not meant for the early church to understand the doctrine of justification, it was meant for those men who suffered for the Protestant Reformation to draw on the Scriptures and the insights of godly men to set down clearly the doctrine of sola fides. This is to say that we should be mindful of our task as exegetes of Scripture. It is there to say something. The depths of Scripture are deep, but they are not inpenetrable. We can exegete a passage to learn what that has to say. We can expound a passage based on our exegesis and learn what the Scriptures have to teach us there. We can systematize the passage with other similar passages to see what God would teach us regarding a similar theme. We can systematize the entire Bible and learn God's will for humanity. But we can do none of these things exhaustively, or without the aid of the Spirit. He is the primary agent in the understanding of Scripture. It is He who, as the Westminster Confession says, is the "supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we can rest" since it is He who is "speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.x).
Monday, August 4, 2008
Foucault and Progressive Education
The "expert" phase of Progressive Education is dead, or at least dying. We have come to the end of the rope with regards to the idea that there are professionals out there who can and should do a better job at education than other, less professional folks. Well, there's a lot of double talk, but some of the more academic educators have figured this out even if the court system in California is a little behind. Instead of relying on the idea of a professional expert to show us all what we need to know to become Dewey's "knowledgeable citizens" the educators have shifted gears to Michel Foucault (1926-1984). Foucault was a French social theorist who taught that people learn through self-questioning and other-questioning, which eventually creates power. According to Foucault, "power and knowledge are joined together" because what we consider knowledge is created by those in power. The old "winners write the history books" argument comes into play here.
Foucault was a postmodern thinker who taught that in the realm of truth, there were "regimes of truth" generated by societies. Truth amounted to "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true." Truth was, of course, relative, and was kept in place by those in power.
In Progressive education the standardized, testable, formal assessment is the only way to determine if anything is being done because the "experts" who wrote the curriculum are not present teaching the curriculum. The teacher is no longer the one who knows, but is instead a stand-in administrator for the all-knowing textbook. Foucault suggested that American education exercises a disciplinary role over children to the tune of a prison. “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” The challenge of Progressive education, in their own minds, is not to teach children anything, but to keep them where they are long enough so they don't leave. School systems regularly pass students from grade to grade, regardless of how they perform, because if students don't pass they will drop out. If a student drops out, the argument goes, the system has failed. So they keep the train moving regardless of the condition of those inside. So this aspect of Progressive education is dying because educators are figuring out that the plethora of tests and administrative controls actually devalue the teaching role. One author has asserted that "standardizing procedures and developing competency tests may actually create more problems than they solve."
So what is the pedagocial answer? Foucault argues that to have power, everyone must accept responsibility for knowledge. The teacher must hand over the seat of authority and become a student in the same idiotic state as the student. Both sit there sharing statements, responses, questions, and replies to enhance or argue the last reply indefinitely. "For Foucault, through these discourses or complex crisscross of thoughts and the social forces that support them, individuals come to know what is true about the world. Drawing on these created truths, they organize and control their lives." (Levitt, 47).
Levitt argues, "To encourage students to critically consider and even challenge their learning, teachers must develop their own self-images as knowledgeable individuals, interacting and learning with others. Educators’ contributions to this discourse are particularly important, as they have as much to offer as to gain."
Modern education is scary folks.
Foucault was a postmodern thinker who taught that in the realm of truth, there were "regimes of truth" generated by societies. Truth amounted to "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true." Truth was, of course, relative, and was kept in place by those in power.
In Progressive education the standardized, testable, formal assessment is the only way to determine if anything is being done because the "experts" who wrote the curriculum are not present teaching the curriculum. The teacher is no longer the one who knows, but is instead a stand-in administrator for the all-knowing textbook. Foucault suggested that American education exercises a disciplinary role over children to the tune of a prison. “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” The challenge of Progressive education, in their own minds, is not to teach children anything, but to keep them where they are long enough so they don't leave. School systems regularly pass students from grade to grade, regardless of how they perform, because if students don't pass they will drop out. If a student drops out, the argument goes, the system has failed. So they keep the train moving regardless of the condition of those inside. So this aspect of Progressive education is dying because educators are figuring out that the plethora of tests and administrative controls actually devalue the teaching role. One author has asserted that "standardizing procedures and developing competency tests may actually create more problems than they solve."
So what is the pedagocial answer? Foucault argues that to have power, everyone must accept responsibility for knowledge. The teacher must hand over the seat of authority and become a student in the same idiotic state as the student. Both sit there sharing statements, responses, questions, and replies to enhance or argue the last reply indefinitely. "For Foucault, through these discourses or complex crisscross of thoughts and the social forces that support them, individuals come to know what is true about the world. Drawing on these created truths, they organize and control their lives." (Levitt, 47).
Levitt argues, "To encourage students to critically consider and even challenge their learning, teachers must develop their own self-images as knowledgeable individuals, interacting and learning with others. Educators’ contributions to this discourse are particularly important, as they have as much to offer as to gain."
Modern education is scary folks.
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Themes Part One
The first theme we want to consider is that of slavery. It seems almost ludicrous to discuss the theme of slavery in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Slavery would strike us as more of a subject or topic than a theme. But it is a theme. Stowe’s opinions on slavery and the institution of slavery form the very heart of this novel. As we have said before, much of Stowe’s experience with slavery came from people she met and things she saw from the North. She did not spend great amounts of time researching the various ways people kept or treated slaves. The novel itself was written from Brunswick, Maine, nearly 500 miles from Maryland, the most northern slave state in the Union.
That being said, how does slavery fit into the novel as a theme? It is obvious that Stowe thinks of slavery as an evil in the nation. Even as she recounts the gentleness of Shelby and St. Clare, she counters with the cruelty of Haley and Legree. With the exception of Tom, almost every slave we meet wants out of that circumstance in their life. They want to escape, to get to the North or Canada where they can be free. The cruelty with which Legree and Haley treat slaves overshadows the beneficence of Shelby and St. Clare because the latter are unable to make good on their intentions of freedom. Shelby and St. Clare have good intentions regarding Tom, but are incapable of carrying them out. In this way, Stowe represents every Southerner who is kind and gentle with their slaves as incompetent to do what they know should be done. No matter what good intentions a slave owner may have, the system itself is evil, and will inevitably lead to cruelty.
That being said, how does slavery fit into the novel as a theme? It is obvious that Stowe thinks of slavery as an evil in the nation. Even as she recounts the gentleness of Shelby and St. Clare, she counters with the cruelty of Haley and Legree. With the exception of Tom, almost every slave we meet wants out of that circumstance in their life. They want to escape, to get to the North or Canada where they can be free. The cruelty with which Legree and Haley treat slaves overshadows the beneficence of Shelby and St. Clare because the latter are unable to make good on their intentions of freedom. Shelby and St. Clare have good intentions regarding Tom, but are incapable of carrying them out. In this way, Stowe represents every Southerner who is kind and gentle with their slaves as incompetent to do what they know should be done. No matter what good intentions a slave owner may have, the system itself is evil, and will inevitably lead to cruelty.
Hermeneutics Part Four
Today we consider the fourth major principle of biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Uncle Tom's Cabin-Summary
A basic summary is all that is necessary here. The story begins at the Shelby plantation in Kentucky. Tom and Harry are the best slaves Mr. Shelby has. When Mr. Shelby cannot pay all of his debts, he is forced to sell some slaves. A slave-trader, Mr. Haley selects Tom and Harry both for selling. Harry’s mother, Eliza, cannot bear the thought of being separated from her child. Since her own husband has already made an escape, she decides to do the same. Eliza gathers Harry up and begins her escape. She stops at Tom’s cabin to try to convince him to go as well, but he decides he must be loyal to Mr. Shelby. The story then breaks into two plotlines, one following Eliza and Harry as they make their way north to Canada and another following Tom.
Eliza and Harry race up the Ohio River with Haley right behind them. They get across the Ohio River into northern territory and find shelter and sympathy from Senator Bird. Eliza and Harry are taken to a nearby Quaker community where they find Eliza’s husband George. The family finds a boat going to Canada and evades capture by men Haley has hired to find them.
Upset over losing Harry, Haley intends to sell Tom in New Orleans for the highest price he can get. Tom resigns himself to his destiny and reads his Bible as he is taken down the Mississippi River. While on the steamboat, Tom meets Eva St. Clare and becomes a guardian to her. He saves her when she falls off the ship. For this kindness, Tom is bought by Eva’s father and lives at the St. Clare plantation. Tom lives a fairly comfortable life at the St. Clare plantation, growing fonder of Eva. However, Eva becomes ill and dies leaving Mr. St. Clare in deep grief. He plans to free Tom for his many kindnesses to Eva, but never gets around to doing it legally. He is killed while trying to stop an argument between two drunken men. Once again, Tom is sold to pay debts at the St. Clare plantation.
This time he is sold to Simon Legree, a cruel plantation owner. Tom befriends Cassy, another slave on the plantation. Legree drinks heavily and beats his slaves when he is drunk. Tom often takes the worst of his beatings. Cassy and Emmeline, another slave, plan an escape from Legree’s plantation. As Tom is dying of the beatings, George Shelby, son of Tom’s original owner, appears to try to purchase Tom from Legree. Legree refuses and Tom dies in George Shelby’s arms. George buries Tom and returns to Kentucky by steamboat. There he is able to help Cassy and Emmeline, who have finally managed to escape from Legree’s plantation.
Eliza and Harry race up the Ohio River with Haley right behind them. They get across the Ohio River into northern territory and find shelter and sympathy from Senator Bird. Eliza and Harry are taken to a nearby Quaker community where they find Eliza’s husband George. The family finds a boat going to Canada and evades capture by men Haley has hired to find them.
Upset over losing Harry, Haley intends to sell Tom in New Orleans for the highest price he can get. Tom resigns himself to his destiny and reads his Bible as he is taken down the Mississippi River. While on the steamboat, Tom meets Eva St. Clare and becomes a guardian to her. He saves her when she falls off the ship. For this kindness, Tom is bought by Eva’s father and lives at the St. Clare plantation. Tom lives a fairly comfortable life at the St. Clare plantation, growing fonder of Eva. However, Eva becomes ill and dies leaving Mr. St. Clare in deep grief. He plans to free Tom for his many kindnesses to Eva, but never gets around to doing it legally. He is killed while trying to stop an argument between two drunken men. Once again, Tom is sold to pay debts at the St. Clare plantation.
This time he is sold to Simon Legree, a cruel plantation owner. Tom befriends Cassy, another slave on the plantation. Legree drinks heavily and beats his slaves when he is drunk. Tom often takes the worst of his beatings. Cassy and Emmeline, another slave, plan an escape from Legree’s plantation. As Tom is dying of the beatings, George Shelby, son of Tom’s original owner, appears to try to purchase Tom from Legree. Legree refuses and Tom dies in George Shelby’s arms. George buries Tom and returns to Kentucky by steamboat. There he is able to help Cassy and Emmeline, who have finally managed to escape from Legree’s plantation.
Hermeneutics Part Three
Today we consider the second major principle in biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Hermeneutics Part Two
Today we will look at the first concept of Biblical Hermeneutics, Sola Scriptura
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)