Team 3, Question 1

Posted on by under civil rights movement

Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from Birmingham illustrates the great disappointment that King had toward his nation, and his fellow believers in the way that they were treating issues of race. In the letter written from jail, the justness of laws and actions of civil rights activists are questioned in relation to morals and God’s law. King addresses the issue of which laws are just/unjust and why it is only moral to not follow some laws as they greatly contradict the laws of God. There are two reasons to follow a law and that is for legal reasons and for the sake of morals, but he continues to quote St. Augustine, saying “an unjust law is no law at all.” Laws of segregation are largely unjust because it causes separation while giving one group superiority and consequently makes another group inferior. King agrees with Paul Tillich in that separation is sin and then argues that “segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically sound, it is morally wrong and sinful.” This reasoning is the justification for the Black community to fight segregation laws, while following the 1954 jurisdiction to integrate schools; hence the laws aligned in solid morals should be followed and those laws that are morally unjust should not be followed, but reprimanded. King references the Bible story from the book of Daniel about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to further support his argument. These 3 men were punished for disobeying the orders to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar’s image, as it was a ruling that did not align with God’s law. This story is parallel to King being forced to follow laws that are immoral and being punished for defying them.

Another issue that King covers is the accusation that the Black rights movement is violent and is viewed as extremist. The movement was ridden with violence, although not from the Black Activists; the violence was primarily from police, who of course were all White. In fact, King’s movement was forceful (for completely justifiable reasons) without being violent. He states, “Rather, I have tried to say that this is normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action.” Acts of violence go along with almost any important movement or piece of history, but that should not be reason to condemn groups for fighting for what is right. Violence is an issue to consider, but often times the problem at hand is more important than the potential violence that may come along when advocating for movements of great significance. King makes his point as follows: “We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.”

The accusations that the civil rights movement was considered “extremist” was at first insulting, but then King draws encouragement from the Bible as many of the greatest figures were considered extremists. Even Jesus, the son of God, was an “extremist of love.” Other Biblical characters who exemplify extremist qualities that King notes are Amos (extremist for justice), and Paul (extremist for the Gospel). In this sense, being entitled an extremist was not necessarily something of negative nature. Extremists can accomplish great things, just like Martin Luther King Jr did; extremist of just laws and treatment of all people that aligns with morals and God’s laws. While these allegations were being thrown around publicly, the White Christian churches said nothing to defend the Civil Rights movement even though segregation is morally wrong. King expresses his disappointment in his fellow believers’ lack of action and suggests a flaw within the church is that they are concerned with being non-conforming; “Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church,…” Although there is disappointment in the church as a whole, there is hope in personal faith in God and the few others who are brave enough to protest the wrongs of segregation laws.

Martin Luther King Jr’s letter uses numerous tactics to dramatize the severity of the issue at hand. One of my favorite examples that is used is the comparison of segregation laws in America to laws in Germany under Hitler. King points out that the way Jews were treated was completely justified by the laws, even though totally morally wrong. This comparison was probably even more shocking when the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was written because it was chronologically so much closer to when WWII/Holocaust occurred. Another really powerful point that King makes is the underestimated importance of the value of time. He receives a letter from a friend in Texas that suggests the Civil Rights movement will just take time. King does not agree with the notion that all things can be fixed just with time. If those who are fighting for justice do not use time wisely, suffering will continue to ensue. King rebuttals his friend’s notion of “all in due time” by stating: “Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of goodwill.” It is evident that Martin Luther King Jr sees the extreme importance and heaviness of segregation issues and is confident that eventually equality will be established, but only through a sense of urgency and determination.

Team 2-Question 1

Posted on by under civil rights movement

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” uses impressive rhetoric to prove his clear points on why he came to Birmingham while graciously addressing each of his critic’s points against him. Throughout the letter, King uses scripture along with references to the early church to explore various themes for which he has been critiqued. For instance, he addresses the ideas of justice and injustice by arguing that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (1). King defends his trip to Birmingham to promote justice by referencing the apostle Paul and how he journeyed from his homeland to spread the gospel to areas far from him. Where there is injustice, King points out it is his duty as a Christian to promote justice for the sake of humanity.

On the subject of nonviolent direct action, King asserts that the goal of these protests is to bring to the surface the underlying tensions present in society so that they may be addressed in light of a higher moral standard. Here, he uses an example from Daniel in the bible in which three men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, refuse to bow before the statue of King Nebuchadnezzar upon the grounds of being faithful to God in not bowing before an idol. These men, King points out, peacefully disobeyed the law due to the higher moral standard for which they were accountable and accepted their punishment for it, bringing to light the injustice of Nebuchadnezzar’s law without violence.

In terms of extremism, King admits that at first he did not want to be associated with extremism. However, looking back at the bible, he points out the good that can come from extremism if it is used the correct way. He exemplifies Paul, Amos, and Jesus Christ as extremists who were bold in their declarations about love, justice and the gospel. For instance, he quotes Jesus as saying “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to             them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you,” something that was radical to the people of the time who were taught to love their neighbor but to hate their enemies (6). Thus, extremism can be used for good things, like advocacy for love and justice, something King argues is much needed in the United States.

In addressing the mainstream church, King asserts that the church has become weak with an “uncertain sound” (8). He recalls the early church, where Christians were not afraid to suffer for what they believed and calls the church to return to that state of faith. In regards to the spiritual church, he commends those within the church who are stepping outside of the weakness of the mainstream church and have “preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times” (8).

Finally, King addresses the fact that using immoral means to achieve moral ends is just as wrong as using moral means to achieve immoral ends. He draws from T.S. Eliot, quoting “‘the last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason’” (9). Therefore, his protests are justified in that they are using moral, nonviolent means in order to achieve a moral end, justice everywhere for everyone.

King uses exceptional rhetoric throughout his letter. For example, he uses several metaphors, one being his comparison of injustice to a boil that needs to be popped in order to be fully taken care of and healed. He also appeals to emotions in several spots, the most prominent in a long paragraph describing the daily sufferings of colored people. He explains at one point how a father has to explain to his six year old daughter that she cannot go to an amusement park, “and see tears welling up in her eyes because she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children” (3). King also references historical events to prove his point, such as the fact that technically everything Hitler did was “legal” while those who housed Jewish families during that time were acting “illegally.”

Team 1, Question 1: Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Posted on by under civil rights movement

Martin Luther King, Jr. spent eight days in jail for leading a peaceful protest against segregation.  During that time, an ally smuggled a newspaper to him that contained criticism against King by leading white church leaders.  In response to the newspaper article, King wrote Letter from a Birmingham Jail within the margins of the same newspaper.  King’s letter provides a logical and unemotional response to why the African American community was engaged in peaceful protests and King’s hope for the response of the white church.

King starts his letter by positioning himself as an insider rather than an outsider.  Outsiders are frequently seen as a threat to those who believe they have a right to belong to a particular group, so King argues why he has a right to speak up: he was invited by his organizational ties and it’s his duty as a Christian to correct injustice when he sees it, “just as the Apostle Paul” did (King, 1).  King defines justice as “a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God… Any law that uplifts human personality is just” (King, 4).  In contrast, “an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law… Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King, 4).  King argues that injustice is “morally wrong and sinful” (King, 4) because it creates a divide between people.  If people are brothers and sisters in Christ, then such actions that promote difference, superiority, and inferiority are not God’s will.  As brothers and sisters in Christ, no one is an outsider.

As an insider, King and his movement tried negotiations with city leaders but this only became a cycle of broken promises.  Since talking about negotiation hadn’t been fruitful in bringing about change, King argues that “this is the very purpose of direct action.  Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.  It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King, 2).  By using their bodies as physical barriers, they created opposition against the oppressors.  By using sit-ins and refusing to spend their hard-earned money at certain establishments, these protests created a visual and financial impact that could not be ignored by white society.  As king points out, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (3).  King argues that these actions are necessary in order for their society to grow to become what God intended America to be.

These actions were deemed extreme by those who wanted to maintain the status quo.  King argues that what others might call extremism isn’t so bad when considering biblical characters and great men in history who stood for what they believed was right.  For example, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego disobeyed the laws of Nebuchadnezzar.  Other examples of “normal and healthy discontent [that were] channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action” (King, 7) included Amos, Paul, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and perhaps most importantly, Jesus Christ.  King argues that these actions are the natural consequence of an oppressed people and he will be “an extremist for love” (7) like Christ was.

This love of Christ and His church drove King to express his deep dissatisfaction with the church.  He states, “I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership” (King, 8).  This disappointment stems from the opposition King and his movement experienced when he had expected that “white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among [their] strongest allies” (King, 8).  This disillusionment led King to criticize the church for not doing what was morally right for their African American brothers and sisters.  Rather than providing support, many white Christians “remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows” (King, 8).  White Christians found security within their church buildings which allowed them to develop social blinders to the harm being inflicted upon the black community.  King criticizes the ministers who made an “un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular” (King, 9) that allowed the white churches to so easily dismiss their African American Christian brothers and sisters.  This deliberate disregard of the abuses by the white community was what King would call unchristian.

Two of the most striking aspects of this letter are both the tone and how it can be applied to social injustices still happening today.  First, King’s letter is logical, unemotional, and level-headed as he appeals to his fellow clergymen.  While many religious sects rely on high emotions and passion to get their spiritual message across, King instead relies on reason.  In a time when racism was the norm, King’s even tone challenged the stereotypical angry black male trope and appealed to the logic of white church leaders.  This was another act of resistance by King since his reason disrupted accepted beliefs of the character of the African American people.  Second, injustice is still happening to marginalized people today.  Laws are being passed to control the bodies of our LGBT brothers and sisters.  The rhetoric is that laws are being put in place to protect the imaginary child, yet, just as King provided facts to back his claims, it has been proven that our LGBT brothers and sisters are the group at highest risk for violence committed against them.  King’s call for a united people who act out of Godly love towards one another is still applicable today and that’s what makes his letter still so powerful.

Team 7, Question 3

Posted on by under evangelicalism

Maurer explains that the rise of the evangelical movement were political issues in the 1980’s. The main issue was abortion laws in America, evangelicals believe that human life begins at conception, so they think that abortion is killing human life. He explains that the Moral Majority were pleased that Reagan was conservative, but they felt that the country as a whole was moving too far away what evangelicals considered to be important religious principles. Evangelical fears were increased by very public money and sex scandals in the 80’s. Gonzalez explained that American society after WWII was experiencing great changes. The baby boomers would be America’s largest generation. With the rise of suburban communities people would lean on churches for stability as well as places to socialize. There was an increased fear of Communism. As there became greater socioeconomic and racial differences between those in the inner-cities and the suburbs these differences expanded to where people worshiped. Gonzalez explains that the Civil Rights and feminist movements changed how American society viewed itself. The evangelical rebirth was in response to the rapid changes America was going through. Some evangelicals used the media to spread their message, and tried to appeal to a wider variety of people. Others felt they needed to work for more justice economically and socially.

Falwell is concerned with American society in the 80’s for several reasons. Throughout his writings he is hostile towards American liberals. He expresses fear that America is moving away from its Judeo-Christian past. Specifically he addresses abortion right, marriage equality, acceptance of all sexualities and what he perceived as an increase in the use of illegal drugs and pornography in American society.

He claims to have been waiting for other religious-minded individuals to speak out against the current American morality. Eventually he decided he would need to do it for himself. Falwell says that his Moral Majority does not consider itself a political party and they do not endorse political candidates. They “believe in the Separation of Church and state”. They also believe that morals are not exclusive to certain religious people, so they do not align with a specific religion. The Moral Majority wanted to see abortions made illegal. They do not believe in anything besides traditional marriage between a man and a woman. They do not support homosexual relations. They also want to stop illegal drug use and addiction. With pornography they do not condone censorship, but want to promote education and legislation to stop the use of pornography. They specifically mention economic boycotts to achieve this. They support Israel, as well as having a strong national defense system. They want equality for women, but do not support the Equal Rights Amendment. They do not support the ERA because they think it will lead to things like legal gay marriage. They believe that homosexuality is a “moral perversion”. They think that the rights of homosexual people should be preserved, but do not think that they should be given special treatment as a minority group.

For Falwell the fundamentalists are inspired by the Bible. He also tells Evangelicals that they should not worry that they are becoming too involved in political discussions, and cites a congressman that said religion is imperative in political decision making. He does not think that fundamentalists and evangelicals are very different theologically. He says that they hold the same beliefs about the Bible, and both fear that their youth are leaning too liberally. He wants fundamentalists and evangelicals to work together. He would also like those who are charismatic speakers to become leaders and speak up.

Team 1: Libolt, Question 1

Posted on by under fundamentalism

The conflict within Christianity in the late 19th century rose on the intellectual battleground, sparking a clash between groups that would come to be known as the fundamentalists and liberals. As people had new ideas about the world, science, and religion the authenticity and completeness of the bible came into question. Darwin’s theory of evolution seemed to throw a wrench into the creation story found in Genesis, which caused a stir within Christianity. The historical authenticity of most books of the bible was brought into question as well, and the supernatural miracles in the bible became less and less popular. People began to realize the capabilities of human beings, and found great satisfaction in solving problems and gaining knowledge. Protestant Liberalism arose in the elite class of U.S. citizens to accommodate these new ideas while still holding to Christian beliefs. Liberals could think as freely as they wanted, as long as they never crossed over into the realm of superstition. A few number of radicals emerged as modernists, who renounced the bible and Christianity as merely another religion and book. The majority of Protestant Liberals didn’t go too far, however, and just saw an opportunity to wrestle with the new intellectual ideas of the time, and fit them into their Christian beliefs. Opposition slowly arose as people saw liberalism as a threat to the very essence of Christianity. The main debate had to do with the theory of evolution, a debate that is relevant today in public schools. This group of people against the liberals were known as the fundamentalists, and stuck to the fundamentals of Christianity. These fundamentals were the inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return. This debate between fundamentalists and liberals went on for years as new intellectual ideas have come up. The fundamentalists hold true to the bible and the core of Christian doctrine while the liberals think more freely about biblical truths.

 

In the Princeton Doctrine, the ideas of Inspiration and Revelation are discussed. Inspiration is defined as the constant attribute of all the thoughts and statements of Scripture, while revelation is defined as frequent. The authors believe there was a mixture of both human and divine agency in the creation of scripture. The people who wrote it were humans in history, but God inspired them. The authors of the bible experienced facts in reality that turned into ideas inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was at work the whole time, “causing His energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the though designed by God.” (144) In other words, the Holy Spirit was intricately involved in the entire authorship of the bible.

 

Laws talks about the difference between the fundamentalists and modernists, classifying them as the new and old theologies. The main issue he addresses is the question of authority. People abiding by new theology didn’t think the Scripture was the final authority, but that God’s speaking into their life was. They thought that scripture was being made into a kind of pope, which is what the Protestants were trying to escape from. The old view of the bible was that it was divinely inspired by God, and should absolutely speak authority into the Christian’s life. The Bible is still spiritual and inspired by God, so it isn’t like another pope that one has to slavishly obey. It contains the words of God revealed to man that are relevant to life in any context or culture.

 

It is hard to believe that the arguments made by the people at Princeton are dispassionate. There is definitely emotion and passion involved in the ideas they are talking about. They are talking about what they believe to be ultimate truth and reality, while holding to traditional ideas and views that they have known probably their whole life. It is extremely difficult to be unbiased when talking about religion, because it is often so ingrained within the lives of the people in conversation. That being said, they have a decent argument for why the old theology is superior to the new. If God divinely inspired the authors of the bible to write down what he wanted them to, and everything in the bible came from a perfect God, then it absolutely should be authoritative. If one questions the authority of the bible, it would seem they have to question the authority of God, or the truth of the bible. Their view of God probably comes from the bible though, and it isn’t logical to believe some of it to be true and divinely inspired by God and not all of it. From a logical standpoint, if Christians believe God to be all knowing, all perfect, and all-powerful, then what he says is authoritative. If some of the bible is true and inspired by this God, then all of it has to be, or the God they believe in is something different than the one described above.

Team 5, Question 2, 5/3

Posted on by under modernism

Gonzalez talks about how Protestantism in the United States had many different challenges to face outside of urban growth, but the most significant and important was intellectual in character. Europe had constantly been sending immigrants across the Atlantic, “but also ideas that questioned much that had earlier been taken for granted” (Gonzalez 341). It was Darwin’s theory of evolution that seemed to contradict the creation story in Genesis, and therefore produced an evident stir among the masses. However, amongst theologians, an even greater challenge was raised by the historical and critical studies that were happening in Europe. These studies raised doubts about the historical accuracy and authenticity of most books of the bible. From a methodological presupposition, all that seemed extraordinary or even miraculous was to be rejected. And “thanks to evolution and progress, the day was at hand when humans would be able to solve problems until then insoluble, thus bringing in a new age of joy, freedom, justice, peace, and abundance” (Gonzalez 342). Protestant Liberalism made an attempt to couch Christianity in the mold of these ideas, and eventually gained wide acceptance among the intellectual elite that resided in the United States. Many saw liberalism as a threat to the core of Christian faith, specifically in regards to the theory of evolution. But many conservative theologians knew that the question of evolution was only one aspect of the threat the new ideas posed to the fundamentals and foundations of Christianity. The term fundamentals became the characteristic of the anti-liberal reaction that began to be called fundamentalism. In 1846, the Evangelical Alliance was made, seeking to join all those who saw that liberalism as a denial of the faith. But it was in 1895, that the movement actually listed the five fundamentals that could not be rejected or denied without being put into the error of liberalism. The five fundamentals were the “inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return” (Gonzalez 342-43). Following this principle, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church adopted similar principles. The rise of fundamentalism gave rise to new interpretations and led to the connection it had with dispensationalists. Liberalism made its most significant contribution in what became known as the Social Gospel. The leader of a small core of liberals, Walter Rauschenbush, “insisted that the social and economic life of the nation should conform to the requirements of the gospel, and showed that economic liberalism—the theory that the law of supply and demand suffices to regulate the marketplace—results in great inequity and social injustice” (Gonzalez 343). The ultimate goal is to limit the unbridled power of runaway capital while advocating for laws that will help the poor and promote greater justice. The similarity between the Social Gospel and the rest of liberalism was the common optimism regarding human capabilities and the progression of society.

Fosdick characterizes the mentality of the fundamentalists as having an adamant intention to drive out the evangelical churches men and women who are of liberal opinions. “All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Fundamentalists” (Fosdick 155). The greatest conservatives give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is all around illiberal and intolerant of its ideas. The Fundamentalists see the strange new movements in Christian thought. The new knowledge is about the physical universe, its origin, human history, other religions, has come into man’s possession. There are many Christians who have been unable to keep this new knowledge in one area of their minds and the Christian faith in another. The new knowledge and the old faith must be blended together to create a new combination. The people trying to create this new combination are the modernist liberals, and the Fundamentalists are the ones who are campaigning to shut the doors of the Christian fellowship against them. Ultimately, Fosdick characterizes the modernists as the people who accept the new knowledge provided and try to use it to help explain their Christian faith. This is an attempt to find a method to incorporate the new knowledge in their belief system. However, the Fundamentalists attempt to ignore this new knowledge and begin a system that fights back against the new knowledge with five fundamentals (inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return) that must be observed.

Fosdick discusses how the Bible is observed in two different beliefs, with Fundamentalists taking one and the modernist taking the other. The Fundamentalists view the Bible as the literal work of God that is told to man in order to make up the proponents of the Bible. In this belief, all historical and scientific contexts remain without change and kept in the way it is told from the Bible. Fosdick is ultimately arguing that Fundamentalists take a much more literal translation of the Bible, and those who follow this thinking see the finality of the world, directly addressed within the Bible. As for the modernists, modernists view the Bible as God unfolding his will on the world from the beginning to end. This different and dynamic way to view the Bible allows for the incorporation of many new ideas and concepts. So ultimately, the Fundamentalists approach to the Bible was that they believed the Bible to be the absolute word of God, and viewed everything in it (including miracles, crucifixion, resurrections, etc.) as scientifically and historically true and accurate. Modernists viewed the Bible less so, less statically, believing that Christ was a representation of how God wanted us to live life. This would mean that the modernists were able to reconcile their religion with the new knowledge of the modern world. Fosdick identified himself as a modernist and strongly believed that trusting in science was the correct path to take while also believing strongly that this was the only way for Christianity to survive in the new modern world. Fosdick says the first part of the solution that is “necessary is a spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty” (Fosdick 157). Fosdick says that this is something that both the Fundamentalist and modernist need to learn. The second part of the solution is to realize and address the main issues of modern Christianity, while ignoring the little matters that Fundamentalist and modernists quarrel over.

Modernist Christianity integrating the scriptures with new knowledge would ultimately diminish the authority of the Bible in some way or another. For instance, miracles in the Bible are not meant to be explained or understood by man, rather, simply seen as an amazing work of God beyond reason or explanation. These are supernatural events that happen in the Bible. The new knowledge would not be able to explain these miracles, which would ultimately lead new knowledge to deny the miracles in the Bible. Although things like the crucifixion could be proven and understood with new knowledge, it would not even be able to explain or prove Jesus’ resurrection, which would mean that it would deny and reject that any resurrection ever took place. Miracles and Jesus’ resurrection are some of the key foundations and truth of the Bible; to have that incorporated with new knowledge would ultimately lead to the denial of these miraculous events from ever occurring, ultimately diminishing the authority of the Bible. The good moral teachings that are in the Bible would be one of few things, if not the only thing that would be relevant to the new knowledge because it can be explained and reasoned with. But because many of the things in the Bible would be denied and rejected because of no explanation or reason, I would imagine that it would diminish the authority of the Bible to some extent.

Team 7 Question 2, 5/3/16

Posted on by under modernism

González talks about the intellectual conflict between religion and modern science. This conflict stemmed from the idea that Darwin had proposed: evolution. This idea conflicted with some of the bibles passages about the creation of earth. Beyond that there was a greater challenger being presented about Christianity by studies that were being done in Europe, these studies led to doubts about the validity of most of the bible. Anything that seemed to be magical was declared fiction. This lead to new denominations of Christianity. One of the new denominations was Protestant Liberalism, this was mainly popular in the north eastern states and attempted to fit Christianity into the new intellectual mold. The other main denomination hat came about was an anti-liberalism approach called fundamentalists. This idea was more popular in the southern states where many people saw liberalism as a denial of faith.

Fosdick characterizes the mentality of the fundamentalists and the modernists on the question of “new knowledge” by the separation of the modernists blending the new knowledge and the old faith, and the fundamentalists view that everyone must believe in certain miracles shown through the texts of the bible. Their approaches differ from the bible as fundamentalists deny those the name of being a christian if they do not believe in all that is written in the bible as they believe that everything that has been written has been the work of god. While, the modernists approach of the bible is god revealing his will for the world from the beginning of time up until the end of Christ. Fosdicks solution for resolving this divide is tolerance from the denominations and emphasis on more pressing worldly matters than fighting over denominational issues.

Fosdick envisions modernist Christianity integrating the scriptures with new knowledge, this approach could diminish the bibles authority by contradicting it’s passages. Given the theory of Darwinism as an example, by integrating that the man has evolved through out the years in religion it would contradict with the passages of genesis and the idea that the earth was intended for man. With the continuation and furthering of science this could bring superstition to all the miracles in the bible, which could in turn question the validity of any of the bible being god willed and it would lose it’s importance.

Group 4, Question 2

Posted on by under modernism

The scientific advancements of the 19th century led to a lot of skepticism about Christian ideals and Biblical stories. This created a split that divided people according to their reaction to these scientific advancements; modernists believed the science and shifted in to more conception and open interpretation of the Bible that allowed for scientific advancement in the new world. The fundamentalists were a group created out of the backlash to this idea, that said that the Bible was fact and in order to be a true Christian you must believe in the five fundamentals of the faith. Both sides felt their way was the only way for Christianity to continue, and this created conflict.

Fosdick describes the fundamentalists much in the same way Luther described the Catholic church; they believed in the miracles of Christianity and prescribed to a type of worship that maintained those ideals, creating their five fundamentals in order to maintain them. In contrast, and the reason for the fundamentalists’ formation, were the modernists. They focused more on the ideas and teachings of Christianity and rejected to miracles that the bible used to teach them. Their focus was how to bring new and scientific knowledge into their faith.

Fundamentalists believed the Bible to be the absolute word of God, and they viewed everything in it as scientifically and historically accurate. Modernists viewed the Bible less statically, thinking that Christ was a representation of how God wanted us to live. Again, this meant that the modernists were able to reconcile their religion with the new information of the modern world. Fosdick was a modernist himself and therefore believed that trusting in science was the right path to take; he believed this was the only way for Christianity to survive in the new modern world that we are living in.

I have actually watched and read media that attempts to explain the miracles of the Bible using modern knowledge of science, and it creates a very interesting dynamic where practicing Christians seem to be contradicting themselves by searching out and explaining completely natural causes for seemingly supernatural happenings from the Bible. Ultimately I do see how the Bible’s authority can easily be diminished by these processes, because once a miracle is explained it is no longer wondrous. I think the best way for a Christian to rationalize this would be by taking a somewhat naturalist or enlightenment view on religion; the science that explains these miracles must be a work of God as well.

Team 6, Question 2, 5/3

Posted on by under modernism

Due to the increase of transportation of people and ideas during the late 19th century many of the traditional Christian ideas were challenged by new ways of thinking. New scientific studies raised questions about the authenticity of Bible stories, and anything that seemed to be a miracle was to be rejected due to a new methodology. Those who rejected the Christian miracles, but still lived by the morals of Christian thought were referred to as liberals. Liberals attempted to use the new explanations of the world hand in hand with Christian thinking. Their counterpart would be the fundamentalists, who were against the new way of thinking such as evolution. Fundamentalists continued tradition and placed barriers on who was a Christian by the use of five fundamentals: inerrancy of Scripture, divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’s sacrifice for sins, and his resurrection.

In his speech Fosdick characterizes the modernists as those who accept the new knowledge provided and attempt to use it to help explain their Christian faith. They attempt to find a way to incorporate the new knowledge in their belief. The fundamentalists on the other hand try to ignore the new knowledge and instead began a system with five fundamentals that must be observed.

Fosdick then discusses how the Bible is observed in the two beliefs. The fundamentalists view the Bible as the actual work of God being told to man to produce the Bible. In this view all historical and scientific context remains static and as it is told by the Bible. Fosdick is essentially saying that fundamentalists take a more literal translation of the Bible, and those who follow this view see the finality of the world, which is told in the Bible. On the other side the liberals view the Bible as God unfolding his will on the world from the beginning until the end of Christ. This dynamic view of the Bible allows for the incorporation of new ideas and concepts, and reverting back to a static stake would be devastating.

In his liberal view Fosdick foresees the integration of new ideas into the Bible. This of course would cause problems for the Bible as well as the fundamentalists. The Bible is filled with good teachings but also miracles of wonder that would fall quickly when compared with new science. The reasoning in faith for Christians would be at a loss if the miracles performed in the Bible were proved to be superstition. Then the Bible would have no relevance besides its good moral teachings.

Moss

Skip to toolbar