GIP Library icon

The 3 Battle Grounds The 3 Battle Grounds

The 3 Battle Grounds Order Printed Copy

  • Author: Frances Frangipane
  • Size: 922KB | 174 pages
  • |
Continue with
Google Twitter
LOG IN TO REVIEW

Inspiring, I was much impacted.

- diana ekiru (a month ago)

About the Book


"The 3 Battle Grounds" by Frances Frangipane discusses the three main areas where spiritual warfare takes place: the mind, the church, and the heavenly places. The book offers insights and practical strategies for believers to engage in spiritual battle and overcome the enemy in these areas. It emphasizes the importance of surrendering to God, renewing the mind, and walking in unity with other believers to experience victory in spiritual warfare.

Sophie Scholl

Sophie Scholl Sophia Scholl was a German student, active in the White Rose – 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-Württemberg. 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 ‘Book of Songs’ 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 – 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 “God’s Scourge.” 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 – 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 brother’s 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 “Nothing is so unworthy of a nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by a clique that has yielded to base instinct…Western civilization must defend itself against fascism and offer passive resistance, before the nation’s last young man has given his blood on some battlefield.” 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 People’s 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: “Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don’t dare express themselves as we did.” She also said: “You know the war is lost. Why don’t you have the courage to face it?” 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 Sophie’s courage in facing her execution. He reports that Sophie’s last words were: “How 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?” 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 Scholl’s 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: “What I want for you is to live in uprightness and freedom of spirit, no matter how difficult that proves to be,” (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 Newman’s sermons which made a strong impression on Sophie, especially his sermon on the ‘theology of conscience.’ During her interrogation, she referred to this ideology as a defence. “I 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.” 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. “Since the conquest of Poland 300,000 Jews have been murdered, a crime against human dignity…Germans 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.” 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. “Biography of Sophie Scholl”, Oxford, UK – www.biographyonline.net. Published 12th Aug 2014. Last updated 8th March 2017.

What Is Life’s Ultimate Good

Dear Dan, I agree; any view that has God as the foundation of morality — like the Christian view I described in my last letter — will have further, serious issues to address. In fact, your two objections get at the most central ones. Let me respond to both. What Makes God’s Laws Good? Your first objection has a great pedigree and can be traced all the way back to Plato. Namely, what makes God’s moral laws — his moral values — good? Does he like these laws because they are good? Or are they good because he likes them? Either way seems to spell trouble for Christianity. Take the first option. Are God’s laws good because they meet some separate standard of good, one “outside” of God? If so, God has to defer to — is beholden to — some higher authority. And that’s impossible, according to Christianity. But the alternative seems just as bad. If God’s laws are good because he likes them, it makes morality seem arbitrary, dependent merely on his personal tastes or whims. After all, what if he had preferred things like murder, rape, and torture? Would these therefore be good? Do we really want to define “good” as “what God likes,” similar to the way “coolness” is just whatever the cool kids like? Wouldn’t this rob statements like “God is good” of all significance, reducing them to saying merely that “God is the way he is”? Again, neither choice looks very promising. So, which horn of the dilemma should the Christian choose? Goodness Is Godness I think the second option is the right one: God’s laws are good because he likes them. That is, anything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness. So then, is the phrase “God is good” nothing but an empty tautology, saying no more than “God is God”? “Anything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness.” Well, no. In this specific context, where we’re defining “good,” “God is good” tells us something informative — namely, that God’s values are what make things morally good. But in most other contexts, when we say, “God is good” we can generally take for granted which properties or characteristics go on the “good” list. In these ordinary cases, “God is good” expresses something different — for example, “Here’s what God is like: he hates lying, murder, stealing — things we all agree are bad.” But then, if goodness is defined as whatever God likes, doesn’t my view mean that murder and rape would have been good if God had liked them? In a sense, perhaps; at least their advocacy would have been included in his moral laws. But remember that we’re currently defining “good,” and I think some of the rhetorical force of the wouldn’t-rape-therefore-be-good objection comes from ignoring this context. After all, it seems that regardless of what we say ultimately “makes” something good, if that “good-maker” were different, good would be different. And in any case, the traditional Christian view of God holds that he couldn’t have liked these things, that it’s logically impossible for God to be different than he is, just as a square couldn’t fail to have four equal sides. It turns out, therefore, that things aren’t as nearly as bad as the objection initially implied. Why Follow God’s Moral Law? Then there’s your second objection: why should we follow God’s laws? Is it because, if we don’t, he’ll submit us to everlasting punishment? Should we follow God’s laws simply to avoid pain? Does it turn out, after all, that morality is merely a matter of might makes right? Well, I think Christians should acknowledge that avoiding pain and suffering is a good reason to follow God’s moral laws. Moreover, I concede that this would be a genuine problem — if this were the only reason for obeying God. And as I said, even this reason isn’t without its virtues. After all, if we think of God as a parent — which the Bible encourages us to do — it’s a perfectly good reason, morally as well as rationally. As children we often obeyed our parents, in part, to avoid discipline. In fact, this was the reason for discipline in the first place — to help motivate us to obey. But of course, our obedience wasn’t merely motivated by a fear of discipline. We also obeyed our parents because we loved and trusted them. We knew that their requirements were an integral part of their deep love and affection for us, that they gave us these rules to benefit us. Their laws were evidence of our parents’ love. This interweaving of love and law, this close relation between our love for our parents, their love for us, and their moral values (that is, their moral loves) usually resulted in us adopting their morals; their values naturally became our values. We liked these values. And it didn’t stop with moral values; we sometimes adopted our parents’ values about sports teams, movies, and music — again, sometimes simply because we loved them. So, according to my view, we ought to follow God’s laws because, ultimately, we want to — and the main reason we want to is that we love him. In this way, morality is ultimately personal and grounded in what we love. Meaning of Life The personal aspect of value isn’t limited to moral value; it’s a component of all value, including life’s ultimate value. What we might call life’s ultimate meaning or purpose is perhaps the most important topic of all. So, what is our ultimate value, meaning, purpose, or goal in life? Well, suppose you’re right that there’s no God. The meaning of life, then, would be like all value in a godless cosmos: subjective and relative. And because each person has his own values, there would be as many meanings of life as there are persons. In such a world, there would be no objective meaning that life has. But according to Christianity, humans have been made for something, for a purpose. Moreover, this purpose does not depend on us, and so, in this sense, it’s objective, human-independent. And because we were designed for a specific purpose, humans will only truly flourish and thrive by fulfilling this purpose. Fulfilling God’s purpose for us is life’s ultimate meaning. That doesn’t mean that, in a world without God, humans could not find some measure of meaning or value in things like family, work, art, gardening, or whatever. But unless these individual goods are put into the context of the much larger, overall purpose, they will never be as meaningful (to us) as they could be. Only by fulfilling this ultimate purpose is our meaning of life maximized. What Are Humans For? What is this larger context or purpose? What were we made for? We find a hint by noticing that, for many of us, relationships and community are what we most value, where we find our greatest fulfillment. We flourish best in community with people we love. And this fact is entirely in line with the Christian view that our ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself. Christianity is of one voice on this. As one famous confession says, our ultimate purpose “is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Indeed, God is a loving relationship, as odd as that sounds. The mysterious doctrine of the Trinity says that the Godhead is an intimate community of three (divine) persons. That’s what he is. (This is one reason why monistic religions can’t truly make sense of the view that God is love: Who was God loving before he created persons other than himself? Such a being couldn’t essentially be love; at best, he would need creatures in order to love.) “Our ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself.” Notice that the centrality of relationships is also evident when Jesus sums up all of God’s laws in just two: love God and love your neighbor. The moral law — and, not coincidentally, life’s ultimate meaning — is about relationships, both human and divine. God, then, created humans for his own purpose. Our purpose — the meaning of life — is also importantly objective, just as morality is: it is human-independent. Yet it’s obvious that we can and do reject God’s purpose for us. In fact, the gospel message — and the entire Bible — is predicated on such rejection. But God has given us another chance to truly flourish, to find ultimate meaning through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He has made this possible at an immense cost to himself. Dan, I get why you would reject Christianity, viewing it as you do from the outside. I hope you’ll continue to consider all this and at least begin to sense that genuine atheism might be a lot different from your current “kinder, gentler” version. I also hope that in the process you’ll reconsider Christianity’s claims — in particular, Jesus’s offering of himself and the relationship you were made for. Article by Mitch Stokes

Feedback
Suggestionsuggestion box
x