~CSB RG, 344-45, 351-55, 359-61
~Amos 1-4 = CSB, 1265-70
After reading these passages, read one more: Amos 5:21-24 (CSB, 1271). Verse 24 contains that famous line from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech (August 28, 1963. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs, 10:32 ff). How does your knowledge of Amos’ message prompt you to interpret Dr. King’s message? How does Dr. King’s particular indictments of northern and southern states mirror Amos’ criticisms of Judah and Israel? How do Dr. King’s appeals to the “promissory notes” of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence mirror Amos’ Deuteronomic/prophetic appeal to Israel’s covenant with God? (Note that for Dr. King, the violation of America’s promise makes the “nigro…an exile in his own land” (3:06) and will eventually be “fatal for the nation” (6:20).) How do Dr. King’s appeals to these foundational documents exhibit the kind of “conservatism” of which Terrence Fretheim speaks in the article you read (“The Prophets and Social Justice: A Conservative Agenda”)? My knowledge of Amos’ message makes me to interpret Dr. King’s speech as a strong display of spreading peace towards everyone. Amos and Dr. King both used faith & religion to spread the word of God and to drive forward an agenda of moral change. Dr. King’s indictments of northern and southern states mirror Amos’ criticisms of Judah and Israel both had inner conflicts between each other that needed to be fixed. Dr. King tried to find a solution of ending the racial segregation that was taking place between the northern and southern states. Amos on the other hand tried to display prophetic messages toward the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Dr. King’s appeals to the promissory notes of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence mirror Amos’ prophetic appeal to Israel’s covenant with God because both argue the idea that all people regardless of who they are should have freedom whether it be in religion or equal rights.

~Micah 1-6 = CSB, 1281-88

Chapter 6 is probably the most well-known and oft-cited in Micah. How does this chapter fit the pattern of a “covenant lawsuit” (see CSB RG, 360; cf. 352)? What has God done for the tribes of Israel? What two kinds of service are demanded of Israel in return (think two “tables” of the Law/Decalogue)? Which one is emphasized here? Can the former service (faith/worship) be acceptable to God without the latter (good works)? Which do you think is more important: right worship and belief (orthodoxy) or right ethical commitments and actions (orthopraxy)? (Hint: this last sub-question is a trick question.) This chapter fits the pattern of a covenant lawsuit because of the event of Yahweh accusing Israel of breaking the covenant through their lack of justice and honesty, after the pattern of the kings of Israel. God granted a good measure of prosperity for the tribes of Israel. The two kinds of service are demanded of Israel in return are to believe in God and worship his word. I believe worshiping his word is more emphasized because it encourages people do what God says and spread his word rather than mindlessly believing in God. The former service (faith/worship) can not be acceptable to God without the latter because it would do any justice to God if you were to believe in him without preaching his faith. I believe both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are just as important as eachother.

In this and your other readings for this class session, what did you find to be the most unclear or problematic (one or two) point(s)? (Please cite the reading(s) for the point(s).)