God likes a laugh!

An interesting and entertaining video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r13sG3Bs9c8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL52E445D37DF81258

Noah

Retelling of, ‘The Flood Narrative’ (Gen.6:9-9:29)

God looked upon the earth.  He looked upon humankind and saw that it was evil.  This offended God, his heart was broken (Gibson, 1981, 187).  The abominable behaviour of humankind then, was such that God would be entirely justified in destroying the earth (Speiser, 1964, 46) and this is what God set out to do to deal with the growing problem of human sin.  God decided to destroy the earth with a flood.  Noah however, found favour in the sight of the Lord, for God would use Noah to pave the way for the future salvation of his creation (Von Rad, 1972, 118).  Thus God instructed Noah to build an ark into which he would bring the creatures of the earth, and Noah responded in faith and in obedience to the Lord’s commands (Von Rad, 1972, 120).  Thus God’s plan was executed and the flood filled the earth.  But Noah was not forgotten, God ‘remembered’ Noah (Gibson, 1981, 170).  God did not forget his creation and was faithful to the promise he had made with Noah, for he loved his creation dearly and the flood subsided.  The living creatures, which were so corrupt, were justly destroyed, but by God’s grace the earth was renewed (Gibson, 1981, 170).  Noah was wise and sent out birds in search of dry land, which was common practice among mariners. The findings of the dove confirmed God’s faithfulness and the ark landed upon a mountain.  Noah left the ark with his family and built an alter straight away in thanks to God, signifying a new relationship between God and humanity (Von Rad, 1972, 122).  In response to Noah’s sacrifice God made a promise to himself that he would never again destroy the earth, and he also affirmed that the natural order would be sustained.  Nevertheless, humanity was still the same, it was still evil from its youth and God would still be justified in again destroying the earth, but by his grace he does not.  Following God’s promise to himself, God tells Noah that he is allowed to eat animals but not eat their blood, this lays the ground for a further understanding of what the blood means in this context.  Blood means life, and God points out that it is only in himself that the chain of human blood shedding can be put to an end, or can ever be justified (Coats, 1983, 78).  God continued in blessing humanity through his covenant with Noah (Coats, 1983, 78-79), which was in fact a covenant with all creation and all of humankind as Noah is here seen to be the ancestor of all humans following the flood event (Gibson, 1981, 169).  As a sign of his faithfulness and grace and as confirmation of his covenant with humankind and the rest of creation, God gave the rainbow, symbolising the eternal significance of his promises.  But Noah was still imperfect, he went on to farm and produce vineyards and became drunk on wine and was naked.  One of his sons, Ham, saw his nakedness and Noah cursed him.  Ham was the father of Canaan and thus the abominable practices that Canaan performed throughout its history were condemned (Von Rad, 1972, 137). The flood narrative ends then, in affirming the power of God, his eternal justice, love, grace and faithfulness in stark contrast to the sinfulness of humankind.

Word Count: 528

Bibliography

Coats, G.W. (1983). Genesis volume 1: The forms of the Old Testament literature. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Gibson, J.C.L. (1981). Genesis: Volume 1. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press.

Speiser, E.A. (1964). The Anchor Bible: Genesis. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Von Rad, G. (1972) Genesis, a commentary. (Revised ed.). London: SCM Press Ltd.

Deuteronomy

To what extent can we describe Deuteronomy as a covenant text?

The book of Deuteronomy commands a diverse array of opinions as to how it should be conceived of as a text.  When looking at the question concerned it is presumed that by covenant text it is meant that the form resembles the structure of a covenant/treaty text, most notable documents of similarity are those of the ancient Near-East (ANE) (Pritchard, 1955, 201-205 cf. Arnold and Beyer, 2002, 97-103).  In establishing to what extent that Deuteronomy may be described as a covenant text it would be logical then to look at how covenant is defined in the ANE, then conducting a search for parallels in form between the biblical text and a number of other texts from the ANE that are firmly set within this formulary.  This will provide a basis for understanding the affinities between form, but then also provide a springboard from which differences between form may be observed and how some, if any aspects of the document may have been drawn from other forms.  A weighing up of the evidence will then be conducted and so granting an accurate conclusion concerning this question. 

Theological consequences of culturally diverse covenant/treaty formularies

Firstly, it is important to note the theological consequences of ANE treaty formularies particular to different cultures and to how they define covenant.  The ANE treaties of significant concern within scholarly discussion in the area of Deuteronomy are the Hittite and Assyrian treaties.  Despite the Hittite and Assyrian texts being similar in form, there are subtle differences.  Assyrian treaties focus on curses and ignore the concept of blessings amongst other things (Craigie, 1976, 26).  This may, prima facie, not appear as wholly relevant; however the absence of blessings encapsulates the vehemence of Assyrian treaty form in contrast to that of the Hittite treaty style. Thus, the concept of covenant relationship differs from culture to culture.  It is clear then, that the peculiarities of different treaty formularies in respect to different cultures must give way to theological consequences concerning parallels that might be found in Deuteronomy.  Therefore ‘covenant text’ is a somewhat loose definition, indeed if parallels are found between Deuteronomy and Hittite texts alone,  the theological nature of Deuteronomy might be entirely different than if parallels had been found in Assyrian forms. It would be wise then to bear this in mind in continuing the investigation as it plays a significant role in the interpretation of Deuteronomy.

Parallels

What parallels can be seen between the covenant/treaty texts of the ANE and the book of Deuteronomy and what reason have we to think that Deuteronomy is in any extent to be described as a covenant text?  The form of ANE covenant/treaty texts has been widely understood by a number of scholars as generally consisting of; ‘1)  preamble; 2) historical prologue; 3) general stipulations; 4) specific stipulations; 5) witnesses; and 6) blessings and curses’ (McConville, 2002, 24 cf. Woods, 2011, 44).  Some have postulated, perhaps over enthusiastically, an almost identical match between the structure of Deuteronomy and of the Hittite covenant/treaty texts (Currid, 2006, 18).  Indeed, these similarities can be seen from the very beginning of Deuteronomy. Initiating with, “These are the words that Moses spoke…” (Deut. 1:1) the text might be paralleled with the treaty between Hattusilis and Ramses II, “These are the words of Rea-mashesha mai Amana…” (Pritchard, 1955, 202) and again with the treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru, “These are the words of the Sun Mursilis…” (Arnold and Beyer, 2002, 98).  In any case, similarities from the very beginning of Deuteronomy with Hittite covenant/treaty texts are clearly recognisable.  It could be argued that the similarity of form and vocabulary is sustained throughout the document (Currid, 2006, 13-24). As with the preamble, the historical prologue is in both Deuteronomy and the Hittite documents remarkably similar (Deut.1:6-4:49) (Pritchard, 1955, 203-204).  Moreover, Weinfeld (1991, 6-8 cf. Rofe, 2002, 228) argues rather convincingly for Deuteronomy’s direct dependence on ANE Assyrian covenant/treaty texts, particularly through the consideration of the pericope concerned with curses and the oath sworn concerning Israel’s covenant with YHWH at Deut. 28:15-68; 29:10-12.  The list of parallel blessings and curses that are present in ANE Hittite covenant/treaty texts should be noted, as in Deuteronomy the prospect of an identical, or at least very similar form is also present, giving the hypothesis of a recognisable covenant/treaty form within the book greater credence (Rofe, 2002, 228).  A specific case of this parallelism may be noticed at Deut.28:7 which is then mirrored in the form of a curse at Deut.28:25.

Parallel purpose?

 Related to this is the purpose of Deuteronomy. Generally, at its most base, Deuteronomy is conceived of as being concerned with the renewal of the covenant relationship between Israel and YHWH and Israel’s search for what it means to be the “community of God’s people” (Craigie, 1976, 7).  Thus a formulary concerned with such a relationship should probably be expected in Deuteronomy.  Indeed, “the crucial theological category of Deuteronomy’s programme was that of the covenant…” (McConville, 2002, 20).  The covenant and the concept of covenant/treaty form is therefore fundamental to our understanding of the Book of Deuteronomy.

Differences

It seems that up until now the exegete is justified in concluding that the book of Deuteronomy is, without a doubt, a perfect representation of Hittite covenant form and to some extent, the Assyrian form also.  Having discussed the similarities between Deuteronomy and a number of ANE treaties it is now appropriate to search for differences.  The previous section may leave one with great enthusiasm for the presence of a covenant/treaty formulary in Deuteronomy.  Thus it may now be surprising to hear that this avenue has been declared by some scholars as “a dead-end” (Nicholson, 1993, 87) and that “It is clear that Deuteronomy is not in itself simply the text of a treaty.” (Wright, 1996, 2) and can only be so in a “mutilated form” (Von Rad, 1966, 23).  Nicholson (1993, 87) points out that the reduction of Deuteronomy to the form of covenant/treaty alone is a grave mistake. The presence of covenant/treaty form, then, is already to be doubted. Brueggemann (2001, 17) expresses his reservations in only applying the structure of covenant formulations to the second speech of Moses (Deut.4:44-29:1).  Indeed at Deut.29 it appears as if this whole formulary begins again.  Also, the ANE covenant/treaty form, particularly the vehemence of Assyrian types, does not come close relationally in comparison to what can be seen in Deuteronomy (Nicholson, 1993, 87).  A covenant formulary, therefore, simply will not suffice in trying to communicate the theological ideas and structure represented in Deuteronomy as a whole.  This is quite apparent in that, on inspection, Deuteronomy is very much different in length and purpose from the treaties of the ANE.  For scholars have recognised elements that are not to be found in ANE covenant/treaty texts. It has been said that Deuteronomy can be conceived of as a national constitution (McBride, 1993, 63-64), and bears remarkable similarities with the law code of Hammurapi (Woods, 2011, 44). Such divergence from the covenant/treaty form cannot be explained within that form alone, indeed the exhortation of the Decalogue recorded in Deut.5:6-21, and the extent of the casuistic law that follows is quite alien to ANE covenant/treaty texts.  The extent to which this law is expounded in Deuteronomy is therefore best explained by the influence upon the author(s) from ANE law codes (Wenham, 2003, 125).  The casuistic law of Deuteronomy is mirrored in the law code of Hammurapi, concerning witnesses, “ if he [the seignior] did not produce witnesses…since the seignior was a cheat, he shall be put to death.” (Pritchard, 1955, 166), likewise statements of casuistic law concerning witnesses are found at Deut.19:15-21.  Laws concerning agriculture, land, theft and homicide are also mentioned in both texts (Pritchard, 1955, 166-180) (Deut.22;7;26;24;21) and so a good deal of common ground can be observed.

Diversity

 In affirming this, however, one should not then deduce that Deuteronomy is a static amalgamation of two forms of text alone.  This description, despite being to a certain extent accurate is somewhat disagreeable and scholars acknowledge this (McConville, 2002, 24, cf. Woods, 2011, 46).  Indeed, the wealth of formulary diversity within Deuteronomy is overwhelmingly clear.  Deuteronomy also contains aspects of poetical and musical artistry (Christensen, 2001, lxxxvi) and the presence of affinities with ‘wisdom literature’ has also been postulated (Brekelmans, 1993, 125).  The entire document is ordered in a chiasmus (Christensen, 2001, xciii), which sets the book in a memorable form.  This concentric structure is then echoed in smaller sections throughout, Deut.5:12-15 for example (Nelson, 2002 , 82).  One would not at all expect such rhetorical mastery to be found in what might have been deemed simply, a ‘covenant/treaty text’ and ‘law code’ combination.  Deuteronomy is not just a form of legal documentation, but a piece of theological coherence and artistry.  It attempts to be a clear and memorable theological statement of covenant through the use of lyrical elements, as can be seen in the song of Moses (Deut.33:2-29), a call to observance of the law and obedience to YHWH (Deut.28:1).  All of these genres and lyrical references are then set in a homiletic of Moses (McConville, 2002, 19), and the sermonizing again adds a further dynamic to the already brimming pot of formulary diversity.  

  At its most simplistic level the Book of Deuteronomy is a covenant text only to a very limited extent.  Indeed, it does include a number of features characteristic of a text within a covenant/treaty form, more so of Hittite form than Assyrian, but only to the extent that that form can be used for the theological agenda that is contained within Deuteronomy’s pages.  Despite the description of Deuteronomy as an amalgamation of covenant/treaty and law form being disagreeable in a strict sense, these forms do indeed make up the majority of the material contained within the book.  However, the dynamicity of Deuteronomy shows that these two forms are amongst many others that have all been drawn upon together as an expression of the themes the author wishes to proclaim.  Fundamentally then, the text of Deuteronomy can be seen as the product of numerous formularies, significantly not just one alone, and certainly not just to the form usually used for covenants.  It is noticeable that a complex medley of genres is best suited to communicating the special relationship between Israel and YHWH as found in Deuteronomy, and this shows in the various dichotomies that make up the book.

Bibliography

Arnold, B.T, Beyer, B.E. (2002). Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary sources for Old Testament study. Grand Rapids: Baker Acedemic.

Brekelmans, C. (1993). Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp123-134). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Brueggemann, W. (2001). Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Christensen, D.L. (2001). Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 1:1-21:9, revised. (2^nd ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Craigie, P.C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Currid, J.D. (2006). A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy. Darlington: Evangelical Press.

McBride, D.S.Jr. (1993). The Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song (pp62-77). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

McConville, J.G. (2002). Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5: Deuteronomy. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Nelson, R.D. (2002). Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nicholson, E.W. (1993). Covenant in a Century of Study Since Wellhausen. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp78-93). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Pritchard, J.B. (1955). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. (2^nd ed). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rofé, A. (2002). Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd.

Von Rad, G. (1966). Deuteronomy: A Commentary. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Weinfeld, M. (1991). The Anchor Bible: Deuteronomy 1-11. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Weinfeld, M. (1993). Deuteronomy: The present state of enquiry. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp21-35). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Wenham, G. (2003). Exploring the Old Testament, volume 1: The Pentateuch. London: SPCK.

Woods, E. J. (2011). Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Volume 5: Deuteronomy, An Introduction and Commentary. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press.

Wright, C. (1996). New International Commentary: Deuteronomy. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Ethics

Tim Stanyon

TH4712

During secondary education I witnessed a friend being attacked by a number of people, around about five in number and there was no-one else around.  As a Christian, there being no other option than allowing the attack, would I be ethically justified to intervene with violence?

This moral dilemma concerns the justifiability of violence in defence of another.  With the distinctiveness of Christian ethics a Christian is bound to look at moral dilemmas in specific ways, ways that will often conflict with the resolution of moral dilemmas in the secular sphere (Hauwerwas, 2005, 37-50).  Of main importance here, is what scripture has to say of the matter within the concept of the grand biblical narrative and the anthropological presuppositions it makes, which govern Christian obligations to God and to others (Bonhoeffer ,1969,58).  In addition to this there are the different theological approaches to ethics that must be taken into account, the concept of Christian realism for example.  Proceeding from these two areas of enquiry is the concept of conscience and ultimately, culpability. In taking these areas into account, an accurate conclusion as to whether violence is justifiable within the boundaries of this case study should be attainable.  I am aware that, “Where violence is concerned, Christians generally behave like imbecile children.” (Ellul,1970,83) and so I mean to exercise an appropriate amount of caution in my conclusions, so as to avoid this.  Further, it must not be assumed that the conclusion of this essay could then be applied to other ethical dilemmas of similar ilk, for this study, like all studies, is in some respects unique and when approaching such a complex ethical situation this must be taken into account.  Before beginning the decision-making process it would be beneficial here to articulate the term ‘violence’ used within the study.  It is self-evident that killing is not necessary in this situation, for it seems that only minimum amounts of violence would be necessary to postpone the attack long enough to enable a hasty escape for the individual being attacked.  It is this minimal violence which is termed ‘violence’ throughout the rest of the essay.

Scripture

Initially then, what should be of primary concern for the Christian are the demands of scripture and the life of Jesus as an authoritative reference point for making ethical decisions (Hauwerwas, 1986, 75-76).  What has scripture to say and what is the nature of man and how does violence enter into it?  The anthropological presuppositions of the Christian worldview are wholly relevant to this area of the discussion.  Scripture tells of how the human is created in God’s image (Gen.1:27), and so we are to have respect for our fellows.  Indeed, Christians are to “respect and restore human wellbeing and that of the rest of creation” (Cahill, 2007, 11) and “creation sponsors an ethics of responsibility…” (Cahill, 2007, 14).  Thus human individuals are in some sense responsible.  It is required then to never forget the importance of the human being and his/her right to self-respect (Stott, 2006, 200).   Impartiality in decision-making is stressed (Lev.19:15).  Matthew 5 is incredibly valuable when looking at this topic.  Jesus says, “Do not resist an evil doer.  But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…” (Mt.5:39) and following this, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Mt.5:44).  Paul tells the Christian “not to repay evil for evil” (Rom.12:17) and commands that, “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom.12:18).  Thus violence and hatred are condemned, one is to respect an enemy and not retaliate violently and being peaceable is praiseworthy.  Is being peaceable, therefore, the only moral obligation of the Christian?  No, for it is clear that the Christian has further obligations.  It has been noted that humans have to some extent a degree of responsibility, especially for other humans.  This is chiefly where the conflict of the dilemma lies as there is now a divergence of equally great obligations.  Believers are to, “Give justice to the weak…maintain the right of the lowly and destitute.” (Pss. 82:3-4).  This demand to protect the weak and stand against evil is reflected throughout scripture and specifically in the life of Jesus of Nazereth himself (Lk.4:18).  But the call to non-violence is also stressed in the person of Jesus of Nazereth (Ellul, 1970, 9), in giving himself up for others. Thus, “We feel pulled in different directions by our various roles and convictions…”(Hauwerwas, 1986, 6).  I am responsible to God for others (cf. Mckenney, 2007, 242); I have two obligations fighting for precedence.  In some respects, this case study provides a perfect example of a scriptural moral paradox, a tension between the obligations to justice and non-violence. It seems that scripturally then, the case concerned meets a deadlock. Violence is disagreeable, yet not ruled out, condemned but not eliminated as a possibility.  The benefits of this approach highlight the fact that there is no easy answer to the question and that the dilemma cannot be solved on scriptural evidence alone, indeed this should probably be expected (Holmes, 2007, 78). 

           

Casuistry and differing theological perspectives

It might be wise to proceed with an experiment in casuistry.  If I were to step in with violence, what would be the consequences?  I would be outnumbered, and therefore probably be beaten myself, but in the process giving time for my friend to get away.  If I did not respond with some form of violence and let the attack proceed, my friend would be beaten severely.  It is clear however, that whatever is done, it must be done out of love (1 Cor.13:1-3) and in obedience to God.  The idea that, “ there is nothing worse for the aggressor than to allow him to get away with his aggression, for this simply reinforces the harmful tendency within him…for the love of him, he has to be stopped.”

(Harries, 1986, 107) is therefore quite persuasive. If this ‘realist’ perspective is true, then violence is clearly justified. But is it true?   Hauwerwas (1986, 141), being a pacifist, argues that this view is incorrect.  He calls for Christians, “to live in a manner appropriate to God’s kingdom that has been made present in the life of Jesus…” (Hauwerwas, 1986, 141).  It should not be denied that this is what Christians should be seeking to do, but this view seems to also forget the fact that the kingdom is not yet fully consummated.  Indeed, it was present in Jesus’ ministry (Mat.12:28) and is gradually breaking in, but it is still not yet fully here.  And so, the ability to be realistic is required, in a period of eschatological tension it has to be acknowledged that the best way for the Christian to act now will not necessarily be the way in which he/she will act when the kingdom is consummated (Harries, 1986, 116). Thus violence, or at least some form of coercion, may in some cases be necessary despite being not in any way ideal (Ellul, 1970, 140).

Conscience

  It seems to me then, that for the moment I will have to rely on conscience.  First, it would be logical to articulate what I mean by conscience.  I am inclined to agree with Barth (1981, 477), that conscience is in some sense “to have a share in the dignity and truth of the Word of God…” and in some way it’s “voice is that of the divine command” (Barth, 1981, 478). Proceeding from this, in understanding that violence may indeed be unavoidable, I have to ask how I should proceed.  Following my understanding of the consequences of a ‘realist’ perspective my conscience tells me that using violence in order to protect my friend, even if that means sacrificing myself to be beaten, is better and more loving towards both parties than letting the attack proceed.  The person in support of non-violence might now protest that, “conscience in and of itself is a variable, unsure and often defected guide.”(Holmes, 2007, 61). Nevertheless, I feel more drawn, on the basis of personal experience, to Bonhoeffer’s (1969, 55) articulation of the matter when he says that, “…it can never be advisable to act against one’s own conscience.”  Indeed, due to the highly frustrating conflict of seemingly equal obligations and the silence of the natural law, I have nowhere else to turn but conscience.  In large part I feel that conscience is crying out in reaction to what I feel my human nature is calling me to do, which is to do ‘nothing’, out of a cowardly selfishness and a yearning to protect myself.  By no means am I here saying that those who react in non-violence are cowards, conscience may be calling them to do the opposite of what conscience is calling me to do. Indeed, I acknowledge that the pacifist will find this point highly disagreeable, however I continue to agree with Bonhoeffer (1969, 56) when he says, “Responsible action which did violence to conscience in this formal sense would indeed be reprehensible”, in that I still feel responsible for my friend and that this is validated by conscience.

Culpability and incorrect decisions

My conscience then, justifies the use of violence in this situation. But what justifies my dependence on conscience?  Clearly not the fact that it is the only option available.  How do I know that I am right to think that violence is justifiable in this case?  Conscience has been defined in its ‘Barthian’ sense here, but can I without a doubt, be correct in trusting the judgement given to me by conscience?  I have acknowledged that there is ambiguity in the ethical decision based on conscience and that due to the fallibility of humanity there may be inconsistency.  But either way, both in the violent and non-violent positions concerned in this study there is in some way a reliance on conscience, and one of the two has to be chosen.  On top of this, it remains that some form of moral knowledge is attainable through conscience and scholars acknowledge this (Byrne, 1999, 23), and thus I feel I am justified in putting some stock in conscience as well. It is not to be denied on the other hand, that only one of the options available will be objectively right. There is reason to believe that one is justified in doing what he thinks is right, especially in areas of ambiguity, even if it is objectively wrong. Swinburne (1989, 34) writes, “an agent is praiseworthy for his subjectively good acts, i.e. in so far as he tries to do what he believes is good.”.  What I believe is right and good, that of intervening with some deal of violence, is justifiable because I believe it to be right.  It sounds almost circular, but it must be remembered that this only justifies the action.  This line of reasoning does not make a judgement on whether this decision is objectively right or wrong.  However, both violent and non-violent positions also inherently contain some bad consequences: that of allowing injustice and that of committing acts of violence.  Can I then be blamed for the bad consequences that follow my decision?  It is a detestable necessity in that whatever I do I shall be at fault.  Swinburne (1989, 36) states, “the agent is surely not culpable if he does his best in a situation.” and that is what I am seeking to do.   Thus I cannot be blamed for the wrong that follows from my decision, in that I have done what I think is best. 

Conclusion

From scripture it is understood that love is of great importance in any Christian decision.  It is hoped that the decision would be exercised with love, with the same holy love as that expressed in the life of Christ.  It is clear however that the varying Christian obligations to God do indeed conflict in this particular case study.  There is a stalemate between justice and peace that has to be decided on extra-biblical grounds. The need to be realistic and yet ethically sensitive is stressed. Conscience laid upon us by God is the deciding factor in this moral decision, and the conscience is to be acted upon in this situation in that it does not conflict with my responsibility to do good.  From the knowledge of the nature of culpability also, we know that one is justified in doing what one believes to be right, whether that involves being objectively right or not. In conclusion then, yes, the use of violence in this case study is justifiable yet undoubtedly not morally ideal.  Violence is indeed detestable as is letting the weak suffer, and both should be condemned by the church despite both being in certain situations unavoidable.  Christians are to herald violence as an abomination and repent when they commit acts of violence, yet not rule violence out as a legitimate possibility.

Word Count: 2004

Bibliography

Barth, K. (1981). Ethics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd.

Bonhoeffer, D. (1969). The structure of responsible life. In J.M. Gustafson and J.T. Laney (Ed.), On being responsible (pp. 39-74). London: SCM Press Ltd.

Byrne, P. (1999). The philosophical and theological foundations of ethics. (2^nd ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Cahill, L.S. (2007). Creation and Ethics. In G.Meilaender and W.Werpehowski (Ed.), The oxford handbook of theological ethics (pp.7-24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellul, J. (1970). Violence. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Harries, R. (1986). Reinhold Niebuhr’s critique of pacifism and his pacifist critics.  In R. Harries (Ed.), Reinhold Niebuhr and the issues of our time (pp.105-121). Oxford: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd.

Hauerwas, S. (1983). The peaceable kingdom. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Holmes, A.F. (2007). Ethics: Approaching moral decisions. (2^nd ed.). Nottingham: Inter Varsity Press.

Mckenney, G.P (2007) Responsibility. In G.Meilaender and W.Werpehowski (Ed.), The oxford handbook of theological ethics (pp. 237-253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stott, J.R.W. (2006). Issues Facing Christians today. (4^th ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Swinburne, R. (1989). Responsibility and atonement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

All Biblical citations taken from the NRSV.

THE PSYCHICS: CAN THEY HELP YOU?

Tim: More and more I see the influence of spiritualism and psychics rearing their heads in our post-modern culture.  Often there are psychic nights at the local pub.  Now whether I believe in psychic powers I don't know.  However the article below is of great importance to anyone thinking about this subject and how it relates to Christianity.  It can be found at www.christiananswersforthenewage.org.  I hope this is helpful and informative, it was for me.


THE PSYCHICS: CAN THEY HELP YOU?

Television psychic hotlines and shows featuring psychics have become more popular. Psychics (sometimes called clairvoyants) will tell you that everyone has psychic ability which can be developed. Just who are these psychics to tell us what is normal? Shouldn't we examine their practices, ideas, and claims, and see what God has to say about all this first?

How They Do It

Psychic ability is developed by learning to get into an altered state of consciousness (a light trance) and opening one's mind and self to supernatural forces. The most common way one learns to do this is through certain forms of meditation or visualization (normally preceded by relaxation and/or breathing exercises) or through the use of occultic tools such as an astrology chart, a crystal ball, a numerology chart, etc., which seem to spontaneously trigger such altered mind states. In psychic development classes in which the writer once participated, students are taught to practice various techniques of meditation, focus and visualization; sometimes this includes contacting a 'spirit guide' from another dimension. Some go deeper into this state and become a medium or channeler. They lose conscious awareness and allow a supernatural entity to take over their body and speak through them (a medium thinks the spirit is a dead person; a channeler believes it is a being from another realm, or possibly a space alien). A psychic normally maintains awareness while receiving the information. Once these techniques are mastered, it becomes very easy to 'slip' in and out of such a state at will. Visiting the county library, this writer found several books on the occult that give instructions on how to use a crystal ball, read tarot cards, etc. The instructions emphasize going into a meditative or trance-like state in order to more effectively use these tools. Where do psychics think the information comes from? Not all psychics agree, but generally they believe one or more of the following:

-They are tapping into an energy field which contains the information.
-They are accessing a type of psychic central records division called the Akashic Record which contains all information about the past, present and future.
-They are receiving the information from the client's 'higher self' which has access to information pertinent to that client.
-The information is coming from the psychic's spirit guide or from God.
-There are psychics, such as the late Jeanne Dixon, who discover this ability as a young child. Interestingly enough, these discoveries are often made after visits to psychics, palm readers, or perhaps playing with a Ouija Board. Or there are family members who have been involved in the occult and introduce the child to it. It is rare that such discoveries are made in complete isolation from other occult activity.

A Warning

Well, if the information is correct, what is wrong with consulting a psychic? After all, don't we hear about the police using psychics in investigations? God tells us very clearly to seek Him, not psychics, mediums or channelers for advice. "When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God?" (Is. 8:19a) The apostle Paul, in Acts 16, casts out a fortuneteller's demonic spirit who was giving her this power. Having correct or helpful information does not justify disobedience to God. We do not know the true success rate of the police use of psychics; usually only the successes are publicized by the psychic herself/himself. The police are obligated to listen to clues from anyone, even psychics. If psychic ability is a gift, it is not a gift from God; God does not give gifts he also condemns ("Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows," James 1:17).

The White Light Barrier

When one takes steps to develop telepathy, ESP, or other psychic abilities, one is opening the door to dangerous forces. As this writer's psychic abilities expanded, so did the frightening experiences. Many of this writer's friends and associates in the occult often had similar experiences. In fact, it is common practice for a psychic to call on benevolent protective forces or to visualize 'white light' (supposedly for protection) before practicing a psychic technique, doing a reading or spirit contact. What do they think they are protecting themselves from? By doing this, the psychics acknowledge the existence of evil or harmful beings, but how do they know these beings are not disguising themselves as benevolent spirits or guides? What law says a white light is a barrier to evil entities? Why would such a light keep out any spirits? Maybe the evil entities have been laughing all these years at this flimsy 'protection' as they fed false information to the psychics and pretended to be helpful. And why shouldn't they? What would they have to lose? God already called this one when He wrote that Satan disguises himself as an "angel of light," (2 Corinthians. 11:14).

Prophecy and the Acid Test

What about Biblical prophecy? God's prophets were not using psychic ability, but were given the information directly by the Holy Spirit or in God-given visions. The prophets did not use techniques or seek out ways to develop supernormal powers. Most importantly, Biblical prophecy glorified God and proclaimed His words and messages. Psychic power is Satan's counterfeit of God-given prophetic ability and does not lead those involved towards Christ, but rather further away, often denying Christian doctrine.
Psychic power in the Bible is described as having a familiar spirit, being a medium, being a soothsayer, or being a fortune-teller, among other terms. The Hebrew and Greek words for these terms are different from the Hebrew and Greek words used to describe prophecy or speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit. Divination, the art of retrieving hidden information with occult methods or paranormal powers, is linked with psychic ability and strongly condemned throughout the Bible. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31, 20:6; I Chronicles 10:13-14; Is. 2:6; Daniel 2:27-28a).
God gives us the acid test in Deut. 18:21-22 to use for prophecy: If the prophecy is not 100% accurate, the prophet is not from God. This writer, who once was involved in the occult and in psychic activity, was often told by psychics that a really good psychic on their best day might be about 85% accurate. No psychic claims 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Another test: If someone gives accurate information or foretells an event from dreams or visions, but then leads you away from the Biblical God, you should reject that prophet or visionary (Deut. 13:13). There is no way around it: when psychic ability is put to the test, it falls on its face.

Who Really Knows?

Consulting a psychic, in person or by phone, for 'fun' or out of curiosity, according to the principles God gives us, should be avoided. You may discover that, in the long run, the information seems helpful only temporarily, and you will start using the psychic to make up for your own inability to cope and make decisions. You may also start relying on the psychic as a counselor to listen to your problems. The prophet Daniel said it best, "No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries," (Daniel 2:27), for it is God who "alone has all wisdom and power," who "reveals deep and mysterious things and knows what lies hidden in darkness, though he himself is surrounded by light," (Daniel 2: 20, 22). And Jesus, the God-man, who is "the wonderful wisdom of God," (I Corinthians 1:24b), said ,"I am the bread of life....I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6:48,51). Jesus has wisdom that encompasses the universe, which he sustains (Hebrews 1:3). What psychic ability compares to this?

The writer previously participated in psychic development & similar classes which taught spirit contact, meditation, seeing auras, communication with the dead, psychic healing, & telepathy, among other things.

Link to site: http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Psychics.html