The Redeemed Christian Church of God brings African Christianity to North America.
0 Comments
Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) Izzy Storm
Curtis Lee Law’s text titled, “The Old and New Theologies: The Bible and Authority” discusses the differences between the old and new theologies that emerged in the 1920s. As a conservative Baptist he despised the new theologians, and began to call those who opposed them; “the fundamentalists”. “The bible is the record of progressive revelation made by God to man through the religious experience of his people” (152), states Law, by which he means that the old (fundamentalist) view ties current events to those in the New Testament. Everything that happens in the world, including scientific discoveries, are key parts of the final revelation. The collection of spiritual and mental truth is imperative to knowledge, which is the key to redemption. The new theology rejects parts of the New Testament, and emphasizes the importance of mental health (and not spiritual). It undermines scriptural authority by ignoring all truth, which as Law believes, therefore cannot a wholesome Christian make. He continuously discusses the notion of the new theology being pantheistic because it does not recognize the historical validity of Christ. Without this historical knowledge of Jesus, there can be no ties between current events and past ones, which destroy the old theological ideals. Law clearly dissects the different theologies, and shows why he is a staunch believer in the older views. In my personal opinion, the “new” theology was so worrisome to Law because it did not accept everything as God’s world. It questioned parts of the New Testament that he found to be holy, so it was an immediate attack on his own religious views. His fundamentalist ideals, aka the belief in the whole truth of the scriptures, clashed greatly with the Modernists and their ideologies. The strict fundamentals led to rejection of any newer theories or ideals that could threaten their older ones. Their hatred of new ideals also flowed to new scientific discoveries. These people, overall, were close-minded and terrified of change. Any sort of new idea was a threat to their entire belief system, and instead of adapting to it – they rejected it. Their animosity was filled with intolerance, which does not surprise me. Many people take their religious beliefs to an extreme, and refuse to learn more than they want to. They find something that makes sense and is easy and ignore any thing else that anyone has to say, because they are scared that what they believed might be wrong…or might change with time. If "humility is an organ of knowledge" (153) like Law states, they why does he reject all change and his own ability to accept new and different things. by Darby Smith
By: Shanna S.
Summary: Curtis Lee Laws, an anti-modernist editor of a conservative Baptist paper, contributed to the argument between traditional and progressive forms of Christianity that span the years 1910-1920. He supports and makes his argument for the side of the fundamentalists- a term he himself coined to describe the anti-modernists and their approach to Christianity. He describes and denotes salient distinctions of authority between “old” theology and “new” theology. In its aggregate the bible is claimed by Fundamentalists to be the sole authority for a Christian’s life. This is, of course, in direct opposition to the modernists who claim reason holds this place of authority for the Christian. Laws says the fundamental difference between the old and new theologies is that the old theology takes the New Testament as a whole into account while the New theology rejects what reason cannot comprehend (153). He says in both views we understand truth in order to possess it. However, the new is concerned with “mental needs in the scientific age” while the old is concerned with “religious needs of the soul” (152). Laws extrapolates on these distinctions in the following analysis. Critical Analysis: Laws opposes the “new theology” and scorns it claiming the far-reaching belief has been one in which “there is no truth for the Christian except what he can assimilate” (152). New theology then suggests that human consciousness or rather human reason and knowledge hold a place of authority for the Christian. Laws strongly opposes this and advocates a return to “old theology” which claims scripture is the sole authority for a Christian. He says the “old view” is attacked by some and the bible is accused of acting as a pedestal in which people are subservient. He says it is also alleged that the bible’s authority is based on a “dictation theory of inspiration,” and that its authority is nothing more than a “store house of weapons for spiritual warfare” rather than a reflection of religious experience (152). It is also alleged, he claims, that the bible is made into the form of a pope in which Christians are obligated to obey. He points out that it is also believed that if the bible is infallible it must be so throughout and on all accounts. He clearly refutes all of these attacks, denies their case, and defends his position. Laws attempts to refute these views— he says none of these accusations are true nor hold any weight on the true conception and authority of the scriptures. He says when this conception is made apparent it is clear also that it does not depend on mere “theory of inspiration,” nor can it be associated with the alleged offenses (152). He then goes on to say it is consistent with historical and scientific study and exegesis. In refutation to the alleged attacks on the “old view” and to clarify his argument, Laws says the bible is an authoritative criterion given to man through experience. He says the “unity of the revelation covering many centuries is one of its marked characteristics” (152). And that God disclosed himself through Christ in the scriptures. He then says “truth experienced is truth understood” (152). For Laws, truth is revealed through experience, this is of course in direct opposition to the new theology in which truth is obtained through reason— which is to say truth is possible through human consciousness. Laws says the authority of scripture is grounded in the direct historical revelation to Christ (152). He says the New Testament therefore possesses the authoritative quality as a form of God’s progressive revelation and as such is ample for daily life. Laws says the mature Christian consciousness is in harmony with revealed truth; he says it is most “Christian” when it is conscientious of its limitations; and most perfect when its grasps its own shortcomings. He uses scripture to support his argument (Philippians 3:15). He says “the last thing the adult consciousness desires to attempt is the adjudication of ultimate questions by its own wisdom” and that an immature conscious is prone to over confidence in its judgments (153). Which his way of saying Christians shouldn’t gauge questions using reason as their sole authority but should instead search and use scripture. Asking questions- or rather using reason to answer questions- shows a lack of faith in the authority of the bible. He says “to imagine that we know all is deathly to knowledge,” which is his way of scapegoating reason and fallaciously pinning it against scripture as a place of folly (153). Just because reason is used to arrive at a conclusion doesn’t mean reason “knows” all- nor does it mean reason is without limitations. In fact I would argue that most people who reason- would “reason” that reason has its limitations. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a perfect example of this (He argues that we can never know an object “in itself” and our “knowledge” of the world is always mediated by us [i.e. before we can say what we know we have to give an account of how it is that we know, which is to say we have to give an account of ourselves- as knowers- in relation to the world]). This is of course an enlightenment idea. I think Kant and Voltaire would think Laws argument is foolish. Voltaire would probably call him a fanatic- and rightly so (I know I’m being rather harsh). I think Kant would gracefully derogate his argument. I think both would say calling on the bible as a “sole authority” is a cop-out; a ruse; a way to eschew one’s responsibility for what happens in the world. When one uses reason to gauge what is right or wrong- personal responsibility has to be taken for that value judgment or moral decision. If one gets their authority from a book- if all goes wrong- they can simply blame the book for the prospective and possibly unsettling outcomes- the wars, injustices and terrible atrocities- rather than having to accept personal responsibility; it’s a way of shifting blame and responsibility (which essentially makes God into a being who is inherently bad and evil). This is very different than the enlightenment thinkers who insisted on the human subject as an agent of reason and an authoritative sovereign being who is morally responsible and a God who is experienced in nature (as a verb), not in a book (as adjective and/or noun). Laws criticizes the naturalistic religion (i.e. human consciousness- he won’t even assign it reason) claiming its views are pantheistic. He then says according to the new theology all forms of consciousness are equally acceptable since there is no standard of truth objective to man: men, flowers, tree, the table in front of me— they’re all the same. He goes on to say that morality- or what is “good” or “true” would not apply in this state of consciousness as there is no grounds for anything that is “untrue” or “bad.” Therefore, he argues, that if we admit degrees of “trueness” or “badness”— “we assume an external standard that is regulative” (153). Interestingly enough in criticizing the new theology as pantheistic he essentially claims religion is experienced as experience, no? Which in a way refutes his argument (truth experienced is truth understood); of course by experience he means divine revelation, but is nature any less real because it is not revealed through scripture but instead via human experience qua human consciousness? Is the human experience of nature less authoritative than scripture which he claims is perennial? Is nature not objectively true? I don’t think anyone would refute the idea or belief that a tree is a tree and is experienced as such. His argument is at most persuasive, but terribly faulty. Laws says the bible is authoritative because it meets the soul’s needs” (153). He then goes on to say the infallibility of the bible is the infallibility of common sense, which is an interesting argument since experience tells us that common sense can at times be fallible (or perhaps it is just mine?). He says the old theology welcomes scientific study of the bible but it does not accept “premature” criticism. Which I think is his way of saying he does not welcome criticism if it is going to conflict with his beliefs. Laws says Christians can know Christ through experience as it “vindicates and confirms” one’s experience. The implication with this is that experience (via revelation) is more objective than reason. Laws concludes that the old theology accepts the new testament with its “completely trustworthy preliminary revelation” as a final authority, and thus he concludes it is incompatible with subjective criterion. The thing he seems to forget is that in transcribing the bible or even in reading it, we “interpret” it and that requires subjectivity, no? So how is reading or interpreting scripture not any less subjective then the claims he makes about reason? The “new theology” poses a threat to Christianity because of the subjectivity inherent within. If people are sovereign rational beings who can use their own judgments and call their own shots, this undermines the “authority” the fundamentalists argue the bible possesses- which ultimately undermines their own religious and political authority as such. The debate between “old” and “new” theology still rages on today. Fundamentalists essentially use old and static principles found in what they consider to be a “timeless” document and esteem these as applicable to modern situations- which inherently presents a problem as history is not static. (Reason tells us this). That would be like trying to buy a loaf of bread with a quarter in today’s economy. *Ahem* Inflation. Not possible. Times change, history progresses- or regresses- or however one wishes to think of it. Either way it doesn’t remain “still.” Shouldn’t the tools and the ways in which we address these issues change as well? I think “reason” would agree. Harry Emerson Fosdick
“Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” (1922) Fosdick began his sermon, in reaction to the issue of rising fundamentalism, with a story from the book of Acts, thus using Scripture directly to refute anti-modernist theology. He continued by defining the fundamentalist movement as conservative and then presented the causes that he believed led to their rise; namely, scientific progress, historical and anthropological advances, and comparative religion. Some Christians, he went on, found it difficult to reconcile both the new knowledge and their Christian faith. Fosdick agreed that the modern Christian had a dilemma to be solved but that this in itself was not new. The church had grappled with similar problems since the realization of the heliocentric solar system. The resolution, he stated, was that, “the new knowledge and the old faith had to be blended.” (156) He described the Fundamentalists as staking out the confines of Christian faith within certain parameters very similar to the articles laid out in the Niagara Falls meeting in 1895 and asked whether it was right for the fundamentalists to decide who is actually Christian and shut out the liberals and modernists (Gonzalez 342-43). Fosdick then approached two key points in the debate, the inerrancy of scripture and the second coming. He took the view that insisting on precise literalism made the Bible “static” as opposed to continuously “inspired and inspiring”(157). The second coming, he felt could be viewed as a hope for divine help from God in the present and future. In conclusion Fosdick offered two elements as a solution to the intolerance of the Fundamentalists, one was tolerance and Christian freedom (of consciousness), and the other was to focus on the greater issues in the world and cease squabbling over minor theological issues. This sermon, was written in response to a debate that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century between Fundamentalist and liberal Christians in America. Reverend Fosdick believed that the drive of the conservative Christian movement to shut out the modernists stemmed from the inability to justify the old faith with the new knowledge (pertaining to science and humanities,etc). According to Fosdick the Fundamentalists were trying to rigidly confine the definition of Christianity in order to protect it from modern thought and the liberal Christians. The Fundamentalist authors of the Princeton Doctrine would have responded that Biblical literalism was the only lens through which to view Scripture because the text was divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unchangeable, they left no rhetorical wiggle room for alternate ideas. Curtis Law would have held Fosdick to be an “immature” Christian who fell into the spiritual folly of presuming to place human reason as an authority before God. This debate is still very much alive today and the Fundamentalist’s stance has not changed, they see the world through the lens of Biblical literalism and shun contrary ideas. As a brief example, recently a conservative Christian organization protested astrophysicist Neil de Grasse’s show “Cosmos” because he did not once bring the Christian creation story into the picture (or mention God at all, for that matter), few liberal Christians would have a problem with a popular science TV show. Ben Oglesby
Summary: William Miller's introduction to his lecture is about the study of Biblical prophecy, and the coming of Judgement day. According to Miller, the world is on the precipice of the return of Christ. Miller said that the sections of the Bible that are prophetic, are linguistically different from the other portions of the Bible. However, despite these differences, Miller says that the Bible's prophecies have a consistency to them throughout that gives them more credence. “...yet God in his wisdom has do interwoven the several prophecies that the events for told are not all told by one prophet, and although they lived and prophesied in different ages of the world, yet they tell us the same things; so you take away one and a link is missing.”(227). In addition to this, he also says that this will be self evident to any one that reads the scripture. The harmony of the Bible according to Miller, demonstrates it's greatness. He then goes on to predict the second coming of Jesus and judgement day as prophesied in the Bible, closing with a plea for people to study the Bible, lest they not be saved. The section from The Book of Books by Ellen White, is a document that stresses the importance of the Bible and its use in the curriculum for teaching kids. She opens by saying that reading the Bible will give you “strength of intellect”. According to White the ideas contained within the Bible, if woven into your day to day life, will raise you up to a more spiritual and good place. (230). To White is is incredibly important for students to read the bible as part of their education to help resist the temptations of Satan. (230) Analysis: The tie that seems to bind Miller and White together is the assumption of the Bible's perfection. They even use similar terms to describe the book, Miller calls it “a great storehouse full of precious commodities”(228), while white calls it “a treasury containing jewels of precious value.” (230) Both Miller and White predicted the second coming of Christ. Miller's approach to reading the prophetic sections of the bible is to compare them with other prophetic portions of the bible and create what to him seems like an obvious through story. The interpretive method that he employs in his reading of the bible is a literal one, though he does allow for the “highly figurative”(227) nature of prophetic visions. White's understanding of the bible is very similar to Millers in it's nature. According to White the practical consequence of bible study is an elevated spiritual and moral life. To her, the Bible is the ultimate book for both practical and spiritual study. I think that people are attracted to apocalyptic teachings because there is something incredibly comforting about being certain about the end of all things. The unknown is scary, and having less or no doubts is ultimately an amazing way to put your mind at ease. Shelby Lopez
Fredrick Douglass paints a picture of how Fourth of July can view in a different way. To many it seems like a celebration of the great United States of America, to brag about how far they have come and how much they have accomplished. Yet, for the Negro community, there is a different outlook on the day. Douglass expresses, “…a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”(Douglass 3) which just describes that this day is a reminder of the falseness of what America projects. Douglass proclaims how the argument of the wrongness of slavery is not necessary due to the fact that the accomplishments of the Negro community is answer enough. He decides to bring up this idea that the true argument of slavery is how was projected correct underneath the word God. To Douglass this idea seems up surd since slavery was not established by God so how could the founders of this establishment create this false truth when its basically stained with the blood of slaves. This theme can also be showed in Sojurner Truth’s essay and how general rights declared does not mean true liberty. She lays out the facts of women and Negros not having the same rights even being under a liberating country. Truth describes how being a Negro women does not get the benefits from being a white woman. She also brings out the idea that being the person she is means that’s he has all the rights as anyone including standing alongside Jesus Christ. With this in mind, woman has to stand together aside God to turn the injustice that is given ahead. Both Truth and Douglass had this in depth idea about the rights of a human being and how not acknowledging this flaw in government is the ultimate corruption. Douglass explains how slavery is a cruel act done by people who believe that they are always in the right. Truth also touches on the fact that people who sad “all men are created equal” believe that Negros do not go that category as well that not putting women rights as equal was a correct thing to do. Both authors weaved in the concepts of God doing good for all and that people chose to do wrong under the word of God. These people tend to misinterpret the word of God to fit the idea of them always being right. They celebrate the fact of their country being free but it does not match the actions that they do so it shows how hypocritical this nation is. By Jenna L. Summary: Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth were born into slavery and then became influential voices in the abolitions movement and women’s rights. Frederick Douglass gave a speech titled, The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro given on July 5, 1852 in Rochester, New York. This speech opened with the respect and understanding of the importance of him being there. He understood that he was there on behalf of political freedom and justice. Douglass addressed God many times throughout his speech and Christianity was a major theme through his address. He described the fourth of July from a slave’s point of views as a time of mourning, sadness and death. It is not filled with liberty and freedom, as many non-African American’s believe. He used a biblical quotation from the Babylonian exile of the Israelites as the introduction into his main argument. He believes that his day should be filled with mourning of all the slaves that have come and gone by saying, “My subject, then, fellow- citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July!” Douglass is angry and ready to speak for changes and fair laws. He wants liberty, justice and hope for a better future for American Slaves. Sojourner Truth’s Ain’t I a Woman? Is an address aimed towards women’s rights. She beings with a question and addresses that there are some things that have been said about women by men about the way they should be living. She gives examples of men saying that women should be lifted and carried but she has done no such things but isn’t she a woman? She can work a farm or eat just as much as a man but she is a woman. Then she talks about Jesus and that he is the only one who can hear her cry after her 13 children have been sold into slavery. She ends with the argument that men say that women are less then men because Christ was a man, to which she replied that Christ came from God and a woman. “Man had nothing to do with Him”. Throughout her response, she is giving examples of strong women, who can do just as much as a man. Analysis: Through both of these speeches, Truth and Douglass characterize slaves as strong, powerful people who have proved many people wrong. Truth believes that women do just as much, if not more, then men and Douglass pushes for justices and equality between people. Truth comes off as a woman just stating facts and she does everything she needs to do in order to survive which is the same as what men do. Douglass is very detailed and gives great examples for better equality. He also spoke out about the truth of the injustices of certain laws. He gives the example of five major crimes that are punishable by death for slaves but only two of those crimes are the same for whites. The Bible plays a major role through both of these speeches. Douglass refers to Christian symbols throughout his entire speech. He said that he was at the “nations alter” as he is stating before everyone and that God didn’t not create slavery, people did. Truth gives power to women because she notes the use of females in major biblical roles like the Virgin Mary and Eve. Women were the cause of major events through humany’s history. They both commented on the fact that Jesus was the only one to hear their people’s cry and hoping for a better afterlife than the one they live in. Lastly, they also say that certain people should live or act a way that whites themselves do not follow. They say women should act a certain way, but Truth does the opposite. Douglass lists an entire paragraph of occupations of black former slaves, which are jobs that are usually for whites. These authors are proving the system wrong and calling for change as they do it. William Miller and Ellen White
Tim O'Donnell Summary Miller outlines some of the basis by which he interpreted prophetic sections of the Bible. He regards all biblical prophecy as one interconnected whole, reasoning that God revealed pieces of the same prophetic knowledge to different individuals throughout history. To Miller, the main subject of this wider prophetic knowledge is the first and second coming of Christ. Despite calling prophecy “highly figurative” earlier in the passage, Miller reasons that since some of the prophecies referring to the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally, the prophecies concerning the second coming of Christ must also be. The chapter from Ellen White's Christian Education presents an argument for the use of the Bible in an educational setting. Ellen argues that the Bible is worthy of academic study because the Bible contains much of historical value, and also reveals much about the future. Similarly to Miller, White takes a literal approach to interpretation of the Bible. White is concerned with the moral character of her time, and recommends study of the Bible as a protection against moral weakness. Analysis Miller starts from an assumption that the Bible is a cohesive whole. He shows this attitude towards Scripture when he writes that “There never was a book written that has a better connection and harmony than the Bible.” The other major assumption that he makes is that since certain parts of this cohesive whole are literally true, that the whole must also be literally true. Miller is concerned with the simple truth of the Bible, reasoning that “the more naked and simple the fact, the stronger the truth appears.” This attitude leads Miller to interpret the Bible in a very literal fashion. At the same time, Miller does interpret some prophetic text less than completely literally, as when he takes the idea of 2300 days to instead mean 2300 years. White has a similar literal understanding of the Bible to Miller, taking as fact the historical sections of the Bible and holding them up as “a history that opens to us the past centuries”. Where Miller was concerned with physical truths such as the date and time of the second coming of Christ, White is concerned with the moral truths of the Bible and how they can be communicated to young people. Their ultimate goals are the same, however, as the selection from White concludes with passages from the Bible which point to the return of Christ. Miller was concerned with predicting the date where White was concerned with preparing for the return itself. I think apocalyptic teachings have an appeal because they provide certitude in life. Life is a constant struggle to balance one's priorities, and the belief that the world as we know it is going to come to an end at a definite time throws those priorities into sharp relief. The danger, though, is that the promised apocalypse never comes. I think this is a danger of the study of the Bible, especially in insular groups. A radical interpretation of the text has the potential to take hold of a group and lead them to behave in a manner that might not be completely in line with what the Bible teaches. |