~The Geneva ReviewAMonth&PuMbtxm● &GesBeva MinMrks

N- 48 e 198s ~n&”-”28 A@ 1988

A T r i b u t e t o M o t h e r s

Michael R. Gi/strap

Her children riwher husband also,Proverbs 31:28

up and cdl kr blessed;and he praiws her —

As she leans against the back of the heavy door,through which she had just thrown her son out of herhouse, Monica weeps uncontrollably. She can’t helpthinking, “I screamed at my WIN Ovemme withpain, all she can do is stumble into her moq ftidown on her knees, and begin to ~y.

A thousand diflkmnt thoughts run through hermindasshe pours herheat outto God. Lurkingamong the team and anguish is the temible though~“Have I done the right thing? Will I ever see himagain? Will the stand I’ve taken do any good?”

Afewhours later, sitting onti-w silloverlooking the gade~ Monica is still on the vergeOfteam’r hebmathtakingv iewofthe Setting sunisunnoticed. Her grief would not be greater if she shedtears forthebodily death ofherson, rather thanhisspiritual death “How could he have done it?: shecries.

Aurelius had anived a week ago firm his tawh-ing position at Carthage Monica hew he washiding something, but had no idea it would be thisbad. At first sheassumed hehadmtagir~tiwasembtumssed and unsure of how to discuss the sub-ject with his mother.

But then, as she was cleaning his mom thisrooming, she noticed the book by the eastern mystic,N@ni. hmediately she confronted her son. ‘Whydo you have this book?”, she - “Have youdenied the faith?’ Stunned by his mother’s discQv-ery, Aurelius repli~ “But. , . but. . . mother, youdon’t undatad”

“Is Christianity now a myth to you?”, she said asshe moved toward him “Are the Bible stories I toldyou when you wem a child only fables? Is Jesus justa great teacher?”

seeing the bathing and anger in hiS mOth&Seyes, Aurelius tried to explain, but it was no use. The

morehesaid theangriershe btxxune. Finally Monimexploded. Losing ccmtrol she screamd at her SOL“B*-!”, ~ pushed him out the fkont door.

Now, sitting on the window ~ she couldn’tbelieve what she had done Monica just knew shehad lost her son former. Being mamd austerely in aChrkian home, she clung tenaciously to traditionalpractices. His blasphemous rejection of CMstimitywasmnething shecouldnot abide, but. ..oh, howSk 10Vd her Son!& ~ flOWd ever rllOxe fiedy.

Sleep did not com easily that evening. Her heartwas bmkenandt hepainw asal.umst~than shecould bear. &xmXirm during the nigh~ hOW(W(Z,while shewasckep asleep, shedreamedadmamhherdmm Monica wasstanding onawoodentie.Comingtmvardherwasayo ungmanwithahaIo.Hksmikdatherinjoy.A sheappmachedherhea ske&‘what’s Wrong? why do you C@”

she Rplied, “I weep fbrmy dead son. He’s deadinsin. . . he left the fhith.” W@ing away some of hertears, the young man replied that she should takeheam Ifshelooked ca&ully,she wouldsee thatwhemshe~themwas hersonalso! llndwhenshe

wntiwed nexl pzge

# ..Tabie ‘of .Conteiitsi “’”’ ::.:..:.x. . .A Tribute to Mothers “.i...==;i~=;i;i:;=;i:’:’~[c~~’ R; ;~i,~~.. , ~~ . ,:;.:.:.. ;,,:;.::.Eucharist and ..Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . ...3.

Bter”” Leithiik”” “ ’The End ofth&”World “’ ““’ ““ ““ 4‘. . . ..*.. nmma*mam*mm

Jw?’li?s B. hnknOvervkw of’ the RestoredChristian Curriculum 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6

Michad R. GilstrapBook Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.**8

The Geneva Rdew p. 2 April 1988

\

lool&shesaw Audiusstanding lxsideheronthesame fllk

Upon awakening the next *g, Monicavividly ~herdream Shewassumitwasamessage bmthe Lod RealMngtherulewhemsheand Audiushadbemstanding wasthe’Yuleoffai~’ Monica took great oomfbrt in Wht she be-lieved Ciod was tiding k. Aurelius my deny thefaithtoday, butonedayhewillmpentandcombackto ChristL

Monica hekionto thatdmam fmnine yearn,because it would be nine years before Aureliusconverted to ChWanity. During those nine yeas,however, Monica’s fhith never wavered As Aur-elius was to remark many years later, “she pursuedmelikea hound &xnheavem”

Andwecanall thank Godthatshe~becauseMonica’s fidl m is MOnica Augustinu& Hkr wcAurelius Augustinu& is better known to us as Au-_BMqofHi~ti-mostmuhhistorians regatdas oneofthe most influentialfigures inthehistqof Christianity.

Augustine wasconverted nineyearsafier hisfalling away, andheweslt onto become oneofthecentral pillam upon which our entire Western civili-zationis buik Timemaga&eno tedinitsber 29,1986 issue that Augustinq in emhcenturies since his conversion, has Contimd mexert a “ma. intelleztut& spiritual, and culturalf~’’AsaChumhfhther, &vmXenxxethanl~total w- including 242 books. Today in NorthA&a them is little of Augustine’s world le~ andeven less of his religiorL but he is still mfd tolocally as Rm* Kizbir-’T’he @at Christian.”

ItmaytmtMbllybe argued thatapartfk)mJesusChrist and Pa&them isnonmmimpmtant afigumin Church I&my than Aurelius Augustinus, son ofMonica YeG if it wezen’t fm Monica’s doggeddetermination toseeherson bmughtto Christ . ..ifit weren’t for Monica’sdream to see her son work forthe Kingdom of G@ there never would have beenan Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

“.

{ A Mother’s Love“A hound km heaven” isn’t a very fhtexing

description, but I thinlc every mother can ident@with Monica’s love fm her son. That dogged deter-mination and unflinching commitment to her son ledMonica to follow Augustine hdfhy xm)ss theRoman Empinz It’s a kind of love that’s unique toMothers.

We f- have a tendency to txy to settlematters too quickly. If our solutions (iOn’t work, we

get fiustratied andgiveup. tiattitude ingenualisthatour sonordaughter needs togetoutinto theworld and take his or her lumps. It’ll do ‘em good!We love our children deqiy, but we love them asfathers. I%omwhere Isi~there’sa~t deal of

summding a mother’s loveArnother’s alotlike abearwithhermbs.

Thmatenone ofhdaMmnda Uyou’regoingtoseeamteeth andclaws— and you won’t see that fmlong! Put one of her children in danger and she’ll flatput your lights out!

Monica looked at Augustine’s apostasy like amother. She saw Manicheanism asathmat to herson’s well-being. She didn’t take it persondy, buther love drove her to lash out at the danger.

. ..a Mothez Unselfishness,undying love, and a depth of

commitment to her children thatmarveIous to WIt/leSSm

Asafather, Ihavetobehones~ Idon’tthink Iwouklhave responded inthesameway. Surq Iwould havepitched himoutwith alotofsmamingandyellingLa& rIwouldhaYewep tfmmysonaswell.kwouldhave deeply grieved ~~seemysontumawaytim Chris& butdeepdowninside, IthinkI would have viewed Augustine’s apostq as abetrayaL Heturned away fiomme — my sonrejected my authority. My response would have beenmixed with anger at the personal humiliation I fdtbecause mysodeftthef tithofhisfathere

Butthatwas not Monica’srespo~ and Iven-tumtosay thatwould nothavebeenany Chris@nnXXher’sn5spome. shewasangLy mbemangryat her son and his stupidity. But more importmtly,she was fiemely angxy at the source of danger. Shethought not of herself even in the slightest way. Herattention — the enti f-s of her lwe — wascentered on Augus~ and what she must do to saveher Ssl hrn danger. Monica would do anything tohelp her son

Tl@ mom than anything else, chmcterh aMother. Unselfishness, undying 10VQ and a depth ofcommitment to her children that is mamelous towitness. An Oti yiddish pIWI’b SfiJK, “M couldnot be eveqnvhem, so He made mthers.” Thetheology’s lousy, but the sentiment Mgs true: Moth-e~fmda’ t)we. As a ftianda son, I can only

.

April 1988 p. 3 The Geneva Review

Eucharist and JudgmentPeter J. Leitkut

Through the centuri~ a rich store ofeuchiuisticlegend has developed within the church catholic.Aheady in his 9th-century Eucharistic contmvemywith Ratramnus, Ra&rtus was able to cite incidentafter incident in which umepentant sinnezs W=punished hlllXiitltdy and sevtzdy fa UllWOlthyparticipation in the Sacramen~

During the Middle Ages, it became a widespreadpractice for the Eucharist to be used even in civilordeals to test the guilt of the accused. Chegory ofTours tells of a Count Eulalius who had been ac-cused of killing his nagging mother while she was atprayer. ‘Ihe Count was cut off ibm the Sacmmen Lbut he protested that he had not received a fhir trialIn response, Cautinus, Bishop of Clermon~ agtwxito admit u but issued this warning as Eulaliusapproached the altzm

Itis CCmlnOn tancamong people tiyoumyourownmxlKz Idonotknow wMherormtyouK!ally COmnimd thiscrime. Ithemf&ekaveittoGod... tojudgethislnat&If youanXallyly-asyoumlillG@ CtlznVm, takeyourpOr&xl Of theCmsaawi tread andplaceitinyourti GodWill belooking rntothe ckepestcmtinesof whem (H.. @ tk Fnanks, X.8).

Eulalius ate the bread without inciden~ and thecharges wem apparently dropped

Bishop W* of Utmchg who excommuni-cated Pope Gregory in 1076, f- less well in theEucharistic ordeaL At the end of the excommunica-tion rite, “he audaciously took the HOSG [and] itturned to fire within him, an~ shrieking ‘I bum! Iburn!’, he fell down and miserably died” (HenryCharles Leiz The Ordeal ~hiladelphku Universityof Pennsylvania Press [18661 1973, p. 105). Thecivil use of the Eucharist is attested as late as theseventeenth century.

The medieval use of the Eucharist judgment was~icldy overgrown with layers of supemtition. The@charist was evidently viewed in quasi-magicalterms, and the medieval chroniclers, not unlikemodem jotists, were attxacted to the bizam.

Still, we should not dismiss the medieval prac-tice lightly, nor automatically assume that the leg-ends are utter falsehoods. In facg these rites indicatethat the medieval church understood an importantaspect of the Eucharis~ one that does not appear tobe particularly prominent in modern evangelicalpiety. We hear the echoes of Paul’s warning to the

GMthian chumh in Cautinus’S solemn adjurationto Eulalius (1 b. 11:27-32). Even a cursmy glanceat these verses, which contain pd’S rmst extensivediscussion of the Supper, shows that they are repletewith judicial language. Whoever eats and drinksUrl-y is gw”~ of the body ~ bkxi of theLad Whoever eats without judging the body “eatsanddrinks”

P!mat to himself.” If we @&e our-

selves righ y, nthe Sacmmmtbecomesa~ofdiscipline, andweare notjudgedwith theworld.Clearly, fm P@ judgment was not an incidentalaspect of the Eucharist. He undersmod the fh~ asa judgnxm~ as an instrument refining and purgingthe chuwh and the individual believer, and thereforeas a very serious discipline.

what is the thdOfiJy behind thiS undmtandingof the Eucharist? It may be viewed from sevemldifferent angles I%SG the Euchzuist is a fmte oftheetiemal ldngdom of thecommmaa“on. It is atoken and “earnest” of the iinal wedding feast Butthefinalkingdomcormsin judgmentaswellasi.nre-creation. Two feasts am prepamk the Supper of theLamhandthef-ofthe &dsofpmy, whof~onthe slain bodies of the ties of the Beast (Rev. 19:9,17-18). Thus, if the blesdness of the final ldng-dom is provisionally pesent in the Euc- the fireof God’s judgment maybe said to be present also.

Second we can view the Eucharist as a repet-ition of our baptismal oathand mdeaLThis is theview adopted by C.F.D. Moulq who calls self-examination and the Eucharist a “fresh acceptanceof God’s vedict on sin.” We saw in the last essay inthis series that baptism is an acceptance of judgnxmt.Similarly in the Euchariq we take judgment uponourselves. This judgment is unto destruction if weare unworthy, and unto restoration if we are Iepen-tant.

Them is significant pmctical value in under-standing the Eucharist in judicial terms. As we haveemphasized in several earlier installments of thisseries, an emphasis on the judicial aspects of theol-ogy helps to prevent an unbiblical subject.ivism fromentering into our thinking. A judicial understandingof the sacraments has the same effect We Protes-tants tend to allow the qualijicatkm of sacramentaltheology to undermine the theology itself. We tendto speak f= mom of what baptism does not do, andwhat is not present in the Eucharist than about whatthe sacraments do accomplish. This emphasis wasdefensible and necessary in the sixteenth century,but its relevance in the twentieth century is debat-able. In tiny w+% a judicial understanding of the

com”nued page 5

The Geneva Review p. 4 April 1988

The End of the Worldstudle81tl G61wSlS one

Jmes B. W&in

Then Godsaid, %ettkre be lights in tk@wnwlt@Meawnstos~mh@Porn the night, dkkt them beforsigns, andfor qppointed tiina, and for dbys, and foryears.” (Genesis 1:14)Theastxal bodi~are signs oftitimoftie

wori~ fm they themselves are said to “go=” &yand night (Gen. 1:16, 18). Acccmiingly, w moon,andstars am found ontif@ymd-d-yofthe nations of the w- including our O- More-over, since the astml bodies am also clocks, theysymbolize the tires of the natim~ The f~ of stare,thedmkeningofsm timoo~mbtio~nma sign of the collapse of a given nation.

We saw last time that in Isaiah 13, Babylon’sstars ceased to shine, while Egypt’s were occludedby God’s cloud (Ezk 32). This fits with the mst ofwhat the Bible teac~ and with what we know ofthe ancient near east The Babyl*s womhippdthestars,andtiy-~m~~E~~htiexperienced Divine dmkening before, at the ExO-dus, so that is what they were threatened with again.

Similar language is used prophetically concern-kg~~buttitiati~Itkkti~h~&Joel that we find this most clearly set out Joel beginsby reminding Ismel of a recent plague of locusts. Inhis first chapter, he describes the horrors of thelocust invasion. Then, in chapter two, he hreatensthe people with another locust plague, this time aninvasion by human locusts. Such an invasion will bea man&station of “the day of the LOIQ” that is, theday of judgment (21).

The expression “day” of the Lord refem to therising of the sun — the sun of God’s searching lightthat shows up sin and brings judgmen~ the sun ofGod’s blazing heat that destroys sin. Yet for Israel,this “day” will be a “day of dadmess and gl~ aby Of CIOUdS and thick darkness” (2:2). The meta-phor is ‘6mix@” bit apnpx When G& brings His@y, and evaluates their sin, He will cast them into&rkness.

Accordingly, when God’s locust army comes tojudge Ismel, “before them the earth quakes, theheavens tremble, the sun and the moon gmw dark,‘and the stars lose their brightness” (2: 10). This is areference to the collapse of Israel as a body politic.After all, Abraham had been told that his seed would

be like the stars of the heavenq and we have ex-Pl~ w hgcxy in pvious lessons. Here we seean application of i~ It is possible though not prov-able, that the quaking earth refers to the Ismelitecitizenry, the trembling of the heavens to the Levitesand priests (since the Temple was a symbol ofheaven), and the darkening of the astml bodies to theroyal court and other IuIem in IkmeL

If the people repen~ however, God will return to* ~mstore them(2:12@. Godpnmks *magmatfbture. He~+timti*goftiHoly spiriL

“And it will come about after this that I will pourout My Spirit on ~ mankind and your sons anddaugh= ~ p r o p h e s y [ - g Num lLN],Yourold menwill-myayomg -will see Vision& And even on the male and femaleservants I Vd POur Out My Spirit in thOSe &yS’s(228-29). We know fim Acts 21(L18 that thiswas Willed at Penteco6~

“AndIwilldisplay wondem in the sky andon theearth” (2:30). This is connected with Pentecos~ andwas therefore a warning to the Jews of Peter’s day.Wondemin the*donti *is whatisforetoki lilmverse(n’(k %’, tiwmofbd:“Blo@ * and columns of snmke.” These m thephenomena Ofwar.lller ewillbewar. ktikyet another invasion. This was fhlfilled when theRomans invaded Palestine and destroyed Jerusa-1~ A,D. 66-70.

Wonders in the * am also fmtold “the sunWill beturned into btitiemn intoblo@ before the great and awesome &y of theLORD comes” (231). What is of intexest here is theexpression “moon into bloocL” In a solar eclipse thesuntumsblaclq i.nalw=tipwti~n~tiThus, not merely a general darkening but an eclipseofpowersis spokaof~. But~titi@tieturning of the moon to “blood” points, I believe, tosomething particularly Jewish: the sacrificial sys-tem If they will not accept the blood of Jesus Chris~the final Sacrifice, then they themselves will beturned into blood. ‘They will become the wcrifhxThat is what the prophesied war is all abou~ That iswhat the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was allabout.

But Joel is issuing a warning. Those who listencan escape. “And it will come about that whoevercalls on the name of the LORD will be delive~ forUust M Obadiah had already told you] ‘on MountZion and in Jerusalem there will be those whoescape’ (Obad. 17), as the LORD said, even amongthe survivors whom the LORD calls” (2:32). Just as

April 1988 ●ps The Geneva ReviewIsaac escaped death on Mount Zioq because of thesubstitute ram that God provided (Gem 2214), sothose whotrustin the LambofGodwilksc apethedestruction of Jixusalem in A.D. 70. Such is Joel’swarning, reiterated by Peter on the day of l%ntecost

And also reitemted by John. Prophesying thissame even4 the destruction of J~ Johnwrite% “And I looked when He broke the sixth@andthere wasagmat earthquake; and the sunbecame black as sackcloth made of hair, and the wholemoon became like bloo@andthe stars of theskyfellto the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs whenshaken by a great wind” (Rev. 612-13). The fig wis a standard symbol for Israel, especidy in thiscontext (Matt. 21:1% 2432-M, Luke 21:29-32).Both sackcloth and blood remind us of the IAticalsystem, the blood for saaifkes, and the sackclothfor the mouming associated with leprosy and un-cleanness. (On this passage, see David Chilton,Days of Vengeance.)

In this way, the astral symbols are given peculiarcoloring dependm“ g on context The Babyloniansworshiped the stars, and so they are extinguished.The Egyptians worshiped the sun, so God darkensi~ The Jews wem to maintain the sacrifices, so themoon istumed to blood

To round out this dkcussi~ we need O~y lookat two mm passages, briefly. After promising thecoming of the Spirit and the judgment upon apostateIsrael in Joel 2, God goes on to say in chapter 3 thatHe will shakedown all the nations of the wod~ andbring them to their knees. Speaking of the nations,Hesaysthat’’the sunandmoon gmw~a.ndtistars lose their brightness” (Joel 3: 15).

Spealml“ gofthesame evengour brdsaidt hat“immediately * the tri Won of those dam thesunwill bedarkened, andthemoon willnotgiveitsligh~ and the stare will fd km the heaven, and thepowers of the heavens will be shaken” (Mare 24:2Xcf. Mark 13:24-2S; Luke 21:25). This is not areference to the destruction of Jerusalem because itcomes imrneakzzely @er that event It is rather areference to the shaking of the nations (Hag. 2:6

; Heb. 12:26). We notice that the language of blood isabsent It is simple extinction of these lights that isprophesied.

Failure to take carefid note of context has misledsome expositors into thinking that Matthew 24:29 isspeaking of the destruction of Jerusalem but as wehave seen, it cannot be. This is particularly clear inthe parallel account in Luke 21, where we mad thatthe Jews “will ffl by the edge of the sw~ and willbe led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will

be trampled undafbot by the GentiIc until the timesof the Gentiles be fidfille&4ndthe mwill besignsinsunandmoonand stars, andupontheearthdismayamong nations, in perplexity at the rearing of the seaandthewav~ men fainting fiomfe arand theexpectation of the the things which am coming upontheinhabited ear@ fmthepowers of thekvawill be shaken” (Luke 21:24-26).

“WmwdkWy alter the d3sttz4ctkm ofAtusakq God@gan shaMhgdoimthenationq dmkenihg their suns and moons,and mpliacing them with the Ilght of the

Sun of Righi&ousness, whose tiingbdngs heafing in His wlnga”

In conclusiOI& the symbolism of universal col-lapse, the extinction of the suQ moom and stare, hasrefmnce to the fti of nations and empires In theOld Testamen~ it was used for Babyl~ fm Egyp~fm Isxael, and for the nations in general. In the NewTestamen~ it was used fm Ismel and also fm thenations in general. At the destruction of kusal~the Jewish sun went into black ecli~ mouming insackclo@ and the Jewish moon went into redecli~ the blood-red of samifm% hlmt!ditttdy afkerthe destruction of Jerusal~ God began shakingdown the nations, darkening their SUnS and moo~and ~placing them with the light of the Sun ofRighteowmes, whose rising brings healing in Hiswings (NM 42).

~iblbgraphy UnformnateIy, the best stuffirlprint on Matthew 24 misses the point of verse 29.ThU$ on this particular matter I disaglee with Mar-cellus Kik’s An Eschato@y of Victtvy and withDavid Chilton’s inteqxetation in his three books.Rushdoony, in Thy King&m Come, has a shortchapter on Matthew 24, and he does see verse 29 asthe shaking of the nations. Otherwise, I can reco-mmend my eleven-tape series on Matthew 24, avail-able fium Geneva Ministies fa $44.(X).]

Leitkrt, conlinuedfiom page 3

Eucharist reminds us that the Eucharist is not a mere“aid to devotion” or a sentimental ritual. In theSupper we m judged and purged, and if we partakeunworthily we are condemned and punished TheEucharisG in shm is not something to be takeneither lightly or inkquentIy.

The Geneva Review●p 6 April 1988

Restoring theClassical

Curriculum

Overview of theRestored Curriculum I

Now is an appropriate point in our discussion togainsome criticaMi stancesoastoseewk thewriting model is placed within the curriculum Also,such a distancing approach is useful to see howintegration among the V*OUS disciplines and sub-jects is Xhiev@ and to discover hOW thdOgy.undagds themall .hidditiorq itistimetopawand reflect over the imminent sections of the re-stored CuIIiculum — thus far, the writing model —andgraspthesi “-cc of- the Gmscen&ng orWhok$ picture.

whatdoh neanbyimminence and~-dence?In acertain se~~-tomantima transcendent position He is above all as the&atOr, someign King of the univeme There arecertain traits which God alone ~ and theol-ogy has typically classified them as incommuni-cable attributes. Though incommunicable they amnevertheless capable of being discussed in a limitedway (or else systematic theology would be impos-sible!).

God is also immkt Jesus Christ dwelledamong menandconv-tithti HeredeemsHis elect in a personal way, calling them to salvationbef~ the foundation of the world was laid. Simi-larly, the Holy Spirit applies the work of mkxnptionto us today and convicts us individually of sin.

Consequently, there is no conflict between God~ being imminent and tmnscenden~ He holds both~ aspects in harmony, each being equally uitimate.

This f~ulation is fbund in all the major creeds ofChristendom Could we then also say that cnation— embossed with the very image of God — akomanifests these same categories of transcendenceand imminence, although lesser in degree?

It seems reasonable fm us to answer affirma-tively and to apply this obstmmion directly to ouracademic concerns. Remem&r, Scripture com-

mands us to follow the heavenly blueprint (transcen-dence) in establishing pattms on earth (immi-nence). In our earthly contelc~ w can equate kkxzsand theolies as mmcedem categories, fa theyf- US to gf@C With ‘%igha” ~ evenprosing us to re+valu prompting us to k con-tinually mfbrmin .0 Ac@mk mudkk or diagrmsp=nt us with &s tflUISmxKknt visiosx the “bigpicture”

Itcanalsobetiti~m=~ttic-tion leads to a multiplicity of appliaat&w (immi-nence), concrete correlations of ideas and theories.Accordingly, a curriculum is construd to be a tran-scendent * with pedagogy and specific coursesbeing the imminent application.

We can illustrateT~these categories inthe figure below (seefigure 1).

This figure doesnot represent a con-tillll~ but rather,an illustration of thetwo Categda that

~ono areheldtobeeqlallyultimate all times.

Although onemaybe~*ti over theother, them is never a time when one is eliminated atthe expense of the other.

our~toredcmiculm -~tii,n~la-tion to these two categories by superimposing ourcreative model (including writing), discussed in

I Rkhriess““ Ildaaf *bl#:nn

Figure 2

previous installments, over a ~rtion of the model.&tangle (see figure 2). -

Rightness is moving towti the transcendent

April 1988 p. 7 The Geneva ReviewdistinctionJscu ewemalwayshoping togetthe“big pictur&’ and to see it ethically righ~ Plumlisticeducation climimta this nxwement because it hasno finngmund in~rmrality, tuXl ye&weknow it is Mispensibb the very foundation ofleamin~ SL Augustine made b ethical-theologicalthat basis tihistigon oratory (onchlistkmDoclnine, Book III).

R&new nmves latemll along the imminentKdistinctim fa it deals with e matdals of Cxeatiw

thinking. Aswasexplainedin previous”mstdhrmtsof this seri* the static+&namic-Aative triad isused through writing in evay come and concen-trates on expandm“ g the student’s horizms.

Ifyoucanconceive of these twopeq%mdiclllarlines as being thctwoaxesofac~ any pointplotted within them would have a rdationship toRightness (the y axis) and Richness (thex axis). Theteacher’s goal is to lmve the StuCkxlt Ve?lidfy(ethically maturi~ and theological orthodmy) andhterauy (creativity). Creativity is useless if pursuedin the wrong “direction,” I believe this is a crucialaspect ofanylamlillgmodel .moms. dikmmasofourday scomthis &tinctionHnost AIDs I’eseamh which completely igmes the Rightnas axiswhile pursuing thel?ichnes saxisatafwaish~,and the libelal’s penchant fa coupling orthodoxywith “deadne#, which in this trinitzuian model,places thelibexal atthevery bottom of thevedcalscale!

Thus, we can ~se CoumeS over these.

dagmmmd thinking pmcewws. Thedbgy corm-spends to Rightness, for it is a unique discipline,seeking toapply the Wordof GodtioeveryaxeaofMe. It is always endeavoring to express the fidlcounsd of God, and therefore, must be continuallyrefoiming. Its uniquemss as the “mismss science”is represented by its vertical positioning.

Rhetorical arts, which (again) are not strictly“subj~” are the very ftic of learning, since theyaid the student in seeing new insights and new per-spectives that are created through writing. These arts

~o~pw:~:e== =W&3~h -t ~

other two angles to complete the %ctangle?” The~ onet ~ding to * s~ticd_c-~~-tive on the imminent side is gmmmardiakctic-rhetoric on the tmnscendent si&. It is not a course,but a scale that registers the age of the studen~expresses his academic capabilities, and even tellsthe teacher how sophisticated his pedagogy shouldbe.

The last side contains the “Quadriviw” as the

nxdkvalCMs tiancufriculumter ndiCorwhatiscontempomd“yknown as’’su@jectd’ Each of thesubjects isanalyzed viatherhetmid ~which_ along the imminent -OIL n pointsdownwadb ecauset heysubjectsm ustneva gain

ndarxyover other susthattezritoryis thesole province of Theology. Like the ‘I&km distinc-tion, itisnot asub~but awayofdividing thedisciplines.

Awholespectmm ofcomeamof&ed withinthe Trinitarian ~ I’ve listed only a fbw. Thereinohiemmhyo fsubjectsi mpliedherw inothea_ Sciences am not posited as superior sub~tsto Literature sub~ Ideally, if we had a threedimensional pagqthes ubjectswouldl ineupparal-lel to one another, thus representing depth ( below).

Next mon~ a concluding &x&ion of ourmodel.

WwwI . . . ,. . . ,,.’:.@ iiii@’’EiiF@5 ,“:;{,, ,. ,, ,:. :. .,,, : ,,. :.:,”

... ...,, . . . . . . . . . .

~

,.. .

‘“?{b ;&l

in.’:’t

~ “!. . .3-s

, IIWuft’lm I

The Genew Review P. 8 April 1988

Pa&% _ ti bibIiogmphy. @b). Re-vkwed by Gary H@er.

contributing to the Consismcyofthe Fbunda-tions of Contempomy Intepewtion series is Trem-per Longman III’s excellent Litemry Approaches mBiblical I&vpretwiim. This volume mmks thesecond of thenewbmti~ editedbyMoises Sk and also mpments volume III of the‘Run&ions” sec a dixussion of I&q7 ~ti~REthodsu sedin-gtheM -

Theuniqwmis se fiesthusfi trkmtigtiof astounding. In volum ~ Moises Sib/a’s Ha theChurch Misread the Bibk? (reviewed by MichaelGilsttap; The &neva Revkw, I%brumy 1988), theseaieWd itorraisC%$so metit- ques-tiOilS R?#ding biblical interpretati~ Oudining theIXUZUXE- ~ inquhy and problems encountered intwentieth century inteqmath bngman followson the coattails of Silva’s literary questkming bysurveying Iiteriuy dtical methods that have been

introduced into biblical hermeneutics, all the whiIe~~g ~ titig such methods biblicallyand in hymn’s language.

Imngman’s presentation is rcfkshing. Most lit-erary approaches to biblical concerns usually end updefending the litemry school of inteqmtation at theexpense of the text’s integrity. JAand Ryken’sadletypal criticism advocated in H&V 0 Read theBible as Litemture, as good as it & is still submittedto !XXUtiny h- with fkuitfid msuks.

rnaddition@ ngmanisathominbi n--tative - He points out that nmst theologiansonly half-heatedly study a litemry theory befmthey begin applying it in their exegesis, chieflybecause of the monunxmtal diflkulty of masteringtwo fields —theok)gyan dlitefarytheory---redly results in a superficial study of the latter.Longman shows that it can be done profitably,however, by noting the limitations of each criticalschool befbre stmsshlg the reading processes in-volved in literary “madhlgs.” In this sense, the bookis not simply another cxitiqp~ but an affhmation of* ~~~, M -Wed within the pur-view of inemmcy.

So often Cbr&iam think that litemryreadings ofScripture imply a depreciation of both it and itsnxssage. But CS. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers~~ ~, hgUWl Continues in this finetxadition.

—