Ready Or Knot (12 Conversations Every Couple Needs To Have Before Marriage) Order Printed Copy
- Author: Scott Kedersha
- Size: 5.18MB | 172 pages
- |
Others like ready or knot (12 conversations every couple needs to have before marriage) Features >>
Restoring The Christian Family
The Abcs Of A Beautiful Marriage
How To Learn To Love, Get Guidance, And Get Out Of Debt
Counselling Recipes
Passing It On
What Every Kingdom Needs
Raising Kingdom Kids
Things I Wish I'd Known Before We Got Married
The Meaning Of Marriage: A Coupleâs Devotional
The Bride Makes Herself Ready
About the Book
"Ready or Knot" by Scott Kedersha is a guidebook for engaged couples, offering practical advice on 12 important conversations every couple should have before getting married. The book explores topics such as communication, finances, conflict resolution, and more, helping couples build a strong foundation for a successful marriage.
Sophie Scholl
Sophia Scholl was a German student, active in the White Rose â a non-violent resistance group to Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1943, she was caught delivering anti-war propaganda and, with her brother Hans Scholl, was executed for high treason. Sophie Scholl has become an important symbol of anti-Nazi resistance in Germany.
Sophie Scholl was born in Forchtenberg, Germany on 9 May 1921. She was the fourth out of six children. Her father Robert was the Burgermeister (Mayor) of Forchtenberg am Kocher, in Baden-WĂźrttemberg.
She was brought up as a Lutheran Christian, and her childhood was relatively happy and carefree. However, in 1933, Hitler came to power and began controlling all aspects of German society. Initially, Sophie was unaffected, but her father and brothers were critical of the Nazi regime and this political criticism filtered through to leave a strong impression on the young Sophie.
At the age of twelve, she joined a pseudo-Nazi organisation, the League of German Girls. Initially, Sophie enjoyed the activities of the group, and she was promoted to Squad Leader. However, after her initial enthusiasm with the activities of the group, Sophie became uneasy about the conflict between her conscience and the creeping Nazi ideology of the organisation. In 1935, Nuremberg Laws were passed which increased the discrimination against Jews, banning them from many public places. Sophie complained when two of her young Jewish friends were barred from joining the League of German Girls. She was also reprimanded for reading from the âBook of Songsâ by the banned Jewish writer Heinrich Heine. Scholl indicated her rebelliousness by replying, that Heine was essential for understanding German literature. These incidents and the bans against Jews led to Sophie taking a much more critical attitude to the Nazi regime. She began choosing friends more carefully â people who were politically sympathetic to her viewpoint.
In 1937, her brothers and some of her friends were arrested for participating in the German Youth Movement. This incident left a strong impression on Sophie and helped to crystallise her opposition to the Nazi regime. In 1942, her father was later sent to prison for making a critical remark about Hitler. He referred to Hitler as âGodâs Scourge.â
Sophie was an avid reader and developed an interest in philosophy and theology. She developed a strong Christian faith which emphasised the underlying dignity of every human being. This religious faith proved an important cornerstone of her opposition to the increasingly all-pervading Nazi ideology of German society. Sophie also developed a talent for art â drawing and painting, and she became acquainted with artistic circles which, in Nazi terms, were labelled degenerate.
In 1940, after the start of the Second World War, she graduated from her Secondary School and became a kindergarten teacher at the Frobel Institute. However, in 1941, she was conscripted into the auxiliary war service working as a nursery teacher in Blumberg. Sophie disliked the military regime of war service and started to become involved in passive resistance to the war effort.
After six months in the National Labour Service, in May 1942, she enrolled in the University of Munich as a student of biology and philosophy. With her brother Hans, she became associated with a group of friends who shared similar artistic and cultural interests but also developed shared political views, which increasingly opposed the Nazi regime they lived in. She came into contact with philosophers such as Theodor Haecker, who posed questions of how individuals should behave under a dictatorship.
The White Rose Movement
The White Rose was an informal group who sought to oppose the war and Nazi regime. It was founded in early 1942 by Hans Scholl, Willia Graf and Christoph Probst. They wrote six anti-Nazi resistance leaflets and distributed them across Munich. Initially, Sophie was not aware of the group, but when she found out her brotherâs activities, she was keen to take part. Sophie participated in distributing leaflets and carrying messages. As a woman, she was less likely to be stopped by the SS.
The leaflets of the White Rose contained messages, such as
âNothing is so unworthy of a nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by a clique that has yielded to base instinctâŚWestern civilization must defend itself against fascism and offer passive resistance, before the nationâs last young man has given his blood on some battlefield.â
However, there was a pervasive police state which kept a high degree of surveillance on any resistance activity. After leaflets had been found at the University of Munich, the local Gestapo stepped up its efforts to catch the resistors. Hans, Willi and Alex also began painting anti-Nazi slogans on buildings in Munich.
On 18 February 1943, Sophie and other members of the White Rose were arrested for distributing anti-war leaflets. The leaflets were seen by Jakob Schmidt, a local Nazi party member. Sophie and Hans were interrogated by Nazi officials and, despite trying to protect each other, just four days later were sent to court. The trial was presided over by Roland Freisler, chief justice of the Peopleâs Court of the Greater German Reich. Freisler was an ardent Nazi; with great vigour and a manic intensity, he frequently roared denunciations at the accused.
Despite the hostility and appearing in court with a broken leg after her interrogation. Sophie replied to the court:
âSomebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just donât dare express themselves as we did.â
She also said:
âYou know the war is lost. Why donât you have the courage to face it?â
No defence witnesses were called and, after a very short trial, the judge passed a guilty verdict, with a sentence of death. The sentence was to be carried out early the next morning by guillotine.
Walter Roemer, the chief of the Munich district court, supervised the execution, he later described Sophieâs courage in facing her execution. He reports that Sophieâs last words were:
âHow can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause. Such a fine, sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us, thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?â
The guards were impressed with the courage of the resistors and relaxed the rules to allow Hans, Christoph and Sophie to meet before their execution.
After the execution of Sophie, Hans and Christoph, the Gestapo continued their relentless investigation. Other members of the White Rose were caught and executed. Many students from the University of Hamburg were either executed or sent to concentration camps.
Legacy of Sophie Scholl
In a poll to find the greatest German, Sophie and her brother were voted to be fourth. Amongst the young generation, under 40, they were the most popular. On February 22, 2003, a bust of Sophie Scholl was unveiled by the government of Bavaria in the Walhalla temple. In 2005, a movie about Sophie Schollâs last days was made featuring Julia Jentsch (Sophie Scholl: The Final Days)
Motivations of Sophie Scholl
Several factors inspired Sophie Scholl to take part in this highly dangerous resistance. Firstly, her family shared a dislike of the Nazi regime. Both her brothers and father had been arrested for making critical comments. Her father said to the family:
âWhat I want for you is to live in uprightness and freedom of spirit, no matter how difficult that proves to be,â (link)
She lived in a family environment which encouraged opposition to Hitler.
Sophie had a strong Christian faith and was motivated after hearing speeches by anti-Nazi pastors. She read two volumes of Cardinal John Henry Newmanâs sermons which made a strong impression on Sophie, especially his sermon on the âtheology of conscience.â During her interrogation, she referred to this ideology as a defence.
âI am, now as before, of the opinion that I did the best that I could do for my nation. I, therefore, do not regret my conduct and will bear the consequences that result from my conduct.â
Official examination transcripts (February 1943); Bundesarchiv Berlin, ZC 13267, Bd. 3
Her boyfriend Fritz Hartnagel was on the Eastern Front; he reported to Sophie the dreadful conditions of war, the German failure at Stalingrad and also witnessing war crimes undertaken by German and SS forces.
Reports of mass killings of Jews were also widely shared amongst members of the White Rose. This features in the second White Rose pamphlet.
âSince the conquest of Poland 300,000 Jews have been murdered, a crime against human dignityâŚGermans encourage fascist criminals if no chord within them cries out at the sight of such deeds. An end in terror is preferable to terror without end.â
Sophie Scholl and other members of the White Rose remain a potent symbol of how people can take a courageous action to resist, even the most brutal totalitarian regime.
Citation: Pettinger, Tejvan. âBiography of Sophie Schollâ, Oxford, UK â www.biographyonline.net. Published 12th Aug 2014. Last updated 8th March 2017.
An Excellent New Book on Justification
If a thoughtful layman asked me what he should read to understand the doctrine of justification in relationship to the New Perspective on Paul, I would send him to Stephen Westerholmâs new book, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme (Eerdmans, 2013). I enjoyed this book so much I found it difficult to put down. It is constructive. That is, it builds a clear and positive view of what justification is, rather than simply criticizing other views. For that reason, it provides a good introduction to the doctrine of justification itself for those who may not be clear on what Paul taught. According to the New Perspective But it is obviously written with a view to explaining and criticizing the so-called New Perspective (including Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, J.D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright). The gist of that perspective is that the Judaism of Paulâs day was not a religion of legalism but of grace, and so, contrary to the historic view of Paul, legalism can hardly be what Paul found wrong with Judaism. His doctrine of justification must have had a different target. Therefore, the New Perspective says, justification âwas not about how sinners could find a gracious God (by grace, not by works), but about the terms by which Gentles could be admitted to the people of God (without circumcision, Jewish food laws, and the like). A new Perspective was bornâ (26). The problem, Westerholm points out, is that the views of grace in contemporary Judaism did not exclude the merit of works alongside it. E.P. Sanders himself shows that the Rabbis âdid not have a doctrine of original sin or of the essential sinfulness of each man in the Christian senseâ (33). It follows, Westerholm argues, that âhumanityâs predicament must be more desperate than Jews otherwise imaginedâ (33). Desperate for Grace This means that Paulâs âdepiction of humanityâs condition required a much more rigorous dependence on divine grace than did Judaismâsâ (34). Therefore, to show that Judaism had a doctrine of grace âis no reason to deny that Paul could have understood justification in terms of an exclusive reliance on grace in a way that was foreign to the thinking of contemporary Jewsâ (34). Therefore, Paulâs doctrine of justification did target not only a Jewish view, but any human view, that presumes to make good works any part of the ground of our being found righteous before God. âFor Paul, Godâs gift of salvation [i.e., justification] necessarily excludes any part to be played by God-pleasing âworksâ since human beings are incapable of doing themâ (32). âPaul sees the only righteousness available to sinful human beings to be that given as a gift of Godâs grace, âapart from worksâ (Romans 3:24; 4:2, 6; 5:17) â distinguishing grace from works in a way other Jews felt no need to doâ (98). What the Doctrine Means In a statement that summarizes the whole book, Westerholm writes that this historic view of justification, shared by the Reformers and most Protestants, cannot be dismissed by the claim that the ancients were not concerned to find a gracious God (how could they not be, in the face of pending divine judgment?); or that it wrongly casts first-century Jews as legalists (its target is rather the sinfulness of all human beings); or that non-Christian Jews, too, depended on divine grace (of course they did, but without Paulâs need to distinguish grace from works); or that ârighteousnessâ means âmembership in the covenantâ (never did, never will) and the expression âworks of the lawâ refers to the boundary markers of the Jewish people (it refers to all the ârighteousâ deeds required by the law as its path to righteousness). (98) And, Westerholm observes, it is, of course, right to âemphasize the social implications of Paulâs doctrine of justification . . . in his own day and . . . draw out its social implications for our ownâ (98). But we should not identify the meaning of justification with its social implications (for example, table fellowship between Gentiles and Jews in Galatians 2; and multi-ethnic implications today). No. âThe doctrine of justification means that God declares sinners righteous, apart from righteous deeds, when they believe in Jesus Christâ (99). Confusing the root with the fruit will, in the long run, kill the tree. Article by John Piper Founder & Teacher, desiringGod.org