APRIL 2012

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the April 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper!

This month we eavesdrop on Jefferson and Hamilton as they discuss how to interpret the Constitution. We highlight some 2012 superhero flicks that we're looking forward to, and we examine the “Messianic Secret” in Mark 16. Also, Is guilt a sin or an emotion or both?

As always feel free to send any of your thoughts and opinions of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com. Also, please give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and feel free to post comments on any of our articles there.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: Politics and Culture

We have done several articles on the beliefs of Emerging or Emergent believers regarding their affiliation with post modernism, their understanding of epistemology and authority and their problems with creativity and interreligious engagement. In this installment of “Emergent Concerns,” we discuss the political steps and missteps of Emergents.

Emergent believers usually affiliate with social liberalism (Kevin Corcoran, Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look At What’s Emerging, p. xv). This is often only because of liberalism’s alleged concern for social justice and the poor and needy and it’s utopian sense of mankind’s ability to solve the world’s problems through social activism and governmental processes. Unfortunately, some Emergents sometimes mistakenly assume that the Democratic party has the monopoly on social concern for the poor and needy, but, just as unfortunately, both conservatives and churches have not been as proactive in these areas. Emergents align themselves with the anthropological naivety of political liberalism’s aspirations for a “civil society” or a “global civil society” rather than starting with the reality of Biblical orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Even prominent Emergent writers exhibit confusion and contradiction regarding politics. Consider the following from Scot McKnight’s 2007 article “Five Streams of the EmergingChurch”:

I have publicly aligned myself with the emerging movement. What attracts me is its soft postmodernism (or critical realism) and its praxis/ missional focus. I also lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don't think the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don't support abortion--in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don't believe homosexuality is God's design.

McKnight recognizes the constant pull in the emergent church toward the social gospel, which he conceeds creates an imbalance that has historically minimized “Christianity's ability to summon sinners to personal conversion” (note our July 2011 article about the difference between the social gospel and the socialimplications of the gospel). He thus concludes: “I ask my fellow emerging Christians to maintain their missional and ecclesial focus, just as I urge my fellow evangelicals to engage in the social as well.” That is, he wants conservative evangelicals to be more cognizant of the church’s privilege and responsibility to meet social needs, but he reminds emerging believers not to leave the gospel behind as they strive to do so.

As the politics and theology of Emergents blur together, they tend to confuse neutral socio-political categories with those that are not so neutral. For instance, Peter Rollins starts with the neutral parings in Galatians 3:28 (Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female). He then provides an “interpretative translation” of this verse that replaces the morally neutral categories with non-neutral ones. He imposes his politically-driven interpretation on Galatians 3:28 that includes gays, atheists, Palestinians, terrorists, and non-Christians in his list of those who are “in Christ” (Peter Rollins, “The Worldly Theology of Emerging Christianity,” The Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look At What’s Emerging, p. 24).

The various strands of the Emergent movement begin with the cultural, religious or geographic climate it finds itself in and then works back toward Scripture rather than starting with Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy and applying that to the culture and context. The more it sidesteps the doctrinal tenants and ethical obligations of the Christian faith, the further it slides from theological liberalism toward political liberalism. Ultimately, the worst strains of the Emergent Church movement are a concoction of the sensibilities of liberal theology and the principles and methods of post-modernism. Mark Driscoll claims: “The cults of the modern world, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, sprang forth from the infecting of biblical truth by modern philosophy” (“Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” Christian Research Journal 31, no. 04, p. 20).

The emergent church should be applauded for its desire to engage the culture, help the poor, and reach out to the needy. However, as David Kowalski asserts, “Critics of the movement see these things as signs that the Church is submerging into the culture, being absorbed by it” (“Emerging Church - DistinctiveTeachings and Goals”). It will be hard to alleviate the burdens of the poor and the needy if the church also capitulates under the weight of secular culture as well.

THEOLOGY: Guilty! An Examination of the Reality and Emotional Residue of Guilt

I have had many people ask me at what point does an intention or an emotion become a sin. This question applies broadly to anger, lust, or fear. Specifically, one individual asked me about guilt. Much of the following is adapted from an answer that I wrote back to that individual, and much of it can be applied to the dynamics of other emotions as well.

Guilt is a state of being subject to God’s anger or discipline for known or unknown wrongdoing (Gen 26:10; Ex 28:43; Lev 4:3; 5:1; Num 5:31; 14:34; Deut 21:8; 1 Sam 6:3; 1 Chron 21:3; 28:13; Ezra 9:6-7; 10:10; Job 33:9; Psalm 32:5; Prov 28:17; Jer 51:5; Ezek 16:49; 25:12; Hos 5:15; 10:10). The word asham is the Hebrew word for “guilt” in the OT and it sometimes also refers a “guilt offering.” In the NT, the word “guilt” or “guilty” is aitia, and refers more to an accusation of wrongdoing, such as in Luke 23:4, 14, 22, John 18:38, 19:4 or 6, and in these instances, it portrays Jesus as not guilty. Another NT word, enochos, is used in Matt 5:21-22; 26:66; Mark 3:29; 14:64; 1 Cor 11:27; Heb 2:15; James 2:10, and also means to be “guilty” or “liable.” The emotion of guilt is not what is at issue in these cases, but, rather, most of these are a legal or technical expressions of guilt before God. There may be an emotional component, but the focus is having committed sin before the Lord.

In terms of guilt as an emotion, the Bible refers to individuals being “conscience-stricken” such as in 1 Sam 24:5 and 2 Sam 24:10 (where the Hebrew literally says that someone was “struck in his heart”). In Ps 38:18, David says that he is “troubled” or “full of anxiety” on account of his sin (the Hebrew word is daag), which clearly points to an emotional component to guilt. 2 Corinthians 7:9 mentions how some were “made sorrowful” about sin. The word here is lupeo, which is also used in John 21:17, probably in reference to how Jesus’ questions to Peter were making Peter feel sorrowful and guilty. So, while the focus in Scripture is on the legal/ technical reality of an individual’s wrongdoing before God, the Bible does acknowledge an emotional component as well. The blood of Christ is applied to the believer to cleanse our consciences from the presence and, presumably, the emotional trappings of guilt (Heb 9:14; maybe also 1 Pet 3:21).

We have all done things wrong that we feel guilty about. These feelings of guilt, like the sense of fear or anger, are very natural, and are not sin unless we either dwell on them, act on them, or allow those feelings to prevent us from doing good deeds or growing in godliness. We must confess our sins, and know that if we have done so genuinely in light of passages like Psalm 32:1-5, Prov 28:13 and 1 John 1:9, we will be completely forgiven. However, a feeling of guilt from wrongdoing may not evaporate immediately and we have to make sure that our assurance of forgiven sin is based on the work of Christ and not on residual feelings of guilt.

As consistent with Hebrews 9:14, the ongoing sanctification process both heightens feelings of guilt before we confess our sin (Ps 6:1-3; 38:3, 18), and alleviates these feelings after genuine confession has occurred (Psalm 51:12). Feelings of guilt persist if we dwell on them; and this becomes sin when we are controlled or dominated by guilty feelings rather than by the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18). Feelings of guilt can dissipate if we chose to not dwell on them, but instead chose to dwell on things that are good, noble, peaceful, etc.; Philippians 4:6-8 is especially helpful toward that end.

Also, it can often take a long time for certain feeling of guilt, fear, hurt and anger to dissipate from our hearts and minds. Guilt is like fear: it is not wrong to feel it, but it is wrong to let that feeling debilitate us and prevent us from doing what is right. When Jesus talks about fear and faith to the disciples, it is not strictly just about feeling “afraid” about something, but allowing that fear to interfere with faith and with decisions that showed their desire to follow Christ courageously (Mark 4:40; 5:36; 6:50). Guilt can have the same detrimental result if we allow it to.

So what do you think about our treatment of guilt as either a sin or an emotion? Anything else you would add or any other thoughts about this? Feel free to send us your questions or input at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

POLITICS: Jefferson Vs. Hamilton on the Interpretation of the Constitution

My interview withThomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton continued around the big wooden table. These two colossal men hardly noticed my presence, but continued bickering between themselves from opposite ends of the room. The debate inexorably moved toward the interpretation of the Constitution, and Mr. Jefferson issued the first blow.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground—that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people’ [a slight paraphrase of Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible to any definition.” <1> Mr. Jefferson saw that the federal government should not exercise powers beyond those specifically enumerated by the Constitution and that individual states should have freedom to decide for themselves on non-enumerated responsibilities.

Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson often argued about whether it was constitutional for the federal government to charter a bank, and it was clearly regarding this issue that prompted Mr. Hamilton to retort: “If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.”<2> While the arena of debate was about creating a national bank, the real crux was in how these men interpreted the Constitution and whether it granted them the right to create a national bank. Mr. Hamilton took a more elastic approach to the Constitution; Mr. Jefferson authoritatively spoke of utilizing a strict interpretation of it, and disagreed that the establishment of a bank was within the federal government’s powers: “The second general phrase is ‘to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers’ [referring to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution]. But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.” <3>

Mr. Hamilton argued that the collection of taxes, the regulation of trade, and providing for the common defense made it “necessary” to establish a bank to help the government carry out these tasks. “‘Necessary’ often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. . . . [a] restrictive interpretation of the word ‘necessary’ is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction: namely, that the powers contained in a constitution . . . ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good.” <4>

While I could see the value of a national bank, the idea that the Constitution could be “construed liberally” made me nervous. Mr. Hamilton’s talk of “implied powers” in the Constitution made me wonder if there would be any limit of such implications and loose interpretations. Mr. Jefferson gave voice to my unspoken concerns and he deftly retorted: “It has been much urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true; yet the Constitution allows only that means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for [there] is no one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience, in some way or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one phrase as before observed.” <5>

In my own day, many dreamily perceive that the Constitution is a living, breathing document to be reinterpreted in light of social change and cultural evolution. While this sounds ennobling, it is really debasing to the Constitution; it assumes that the U.S. Constitution is more significant for the interpretation that modern people bring to it rather than for what it actually meant in its initial context to the original framers. At some point, the elasticity of loose interpretation becomes unsustainable and dangerous, and, as Jefferson asserts, it allows a government to assume for itself non-enumerated powers of convenience rather than to minimize the scope of the federal government to specific, enumerated responsibilities. Loose interpretation allows the federal government latitude to intrude onto the rights of the states, the free market, and individuals. It seems far preferable to maintain a strict interpretation of the Constitution; this protects the American citizenry from a federal government that could otherwise manipulate this grand document to imply whatever powers they wish to grant to themselves.

1. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Washington, 15 February 1791.

2. Alexander Hamilton, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States,” 1791.

3. Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion against the Constitutionality of a National Bank,” 1791.

4. Alexander Hamilton, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States,” 1791.

5. Thomas Jefferson, “Opinion against the Constitutionality of a National Bank,” 1791.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17! – Part 4: The Reversal of the “Messianic Secret”

For those of you who have been turned off by all the technical stuff in this series so far, this is a great time to jump into this study. This is the second-to-last article in this series that examines implications of the ending of Mark’s gospel and why Mark wanted his readers to be Mark chapter 17.

We have established quite conclusively based on both external evidence and internal factors that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8. The remainder of the chapter, Mark 16:9-20, was written by a later author. In fact, as we suggested in the last article, this passage may actually have been penned by Luke or maybe even by Paul to create a smoother bridge between Mark’s gospel and the book of Acts.

But the question remains, Why would Mark end so abruptly and awkwardly at 16:8? Many have suggested that the rest of Mark is lost; he had a “better” ending, but something happened to it, motivating someone else at a later time to write 16:9-20. I believe, however, that Mark was much more calculated than that, and that he had grander intentions for ending with a cliff-hanger at 16:8.

Here’s the context: The woman (the several Marys mentioned in 16:1) go to Jesus’ tomb after Sabbath to prepare his body for permanent burial. When they arrive a “young man” (probably an angel, v. 5) announces that Jesus is no longer in the tomb because he has risen from the dead! The man instructs the women to “go tell” Jesus’ disciples about his resurrection (v. 7). But rather than tell anyone, the women left the tomb, filled with fear, and they said nothing (v. 8).

Mark is making a stunning statement here, and rather than wrap up his story with a nice happy-ending, he decides, instead, to leave his readership with an uncomfortable reality. In fact, the fear and silence of the women is a complete reversal of a secret that Jesus had been trying to keep throughout the book of Mark. This literary device is often referred to as the “Messianic Secret.”

Frequently throughout Mark, Jesus performs a miracle and then instructs witnesses not to tell others about it, even though they frequently do go and tell others. Jesus forbade demons from revealing his identity (1:34; 3:11-12), and he put the same prohibition upon those whom he healed (1:42-44), on the crowds in general (7:35-36), and even on his own disciples (8:29-30; 9:9). In a marketing-laden society like ours, we struggle to understand why Jesus would turn down the attention that his actions would naturally generate. It is probably an attempt to avoid the kind of sensationalism or misunderstandings that would (and did!) ensue about Jesus. He didn’t want to be known as a healer, or a teacher, or a miracle worker, but as a Savior (Mark 10:45).

This silence about Jesus’ identity changes when Jesus rose from the dead; he did want people to “tell” about him after the resurrection (Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:7; Acts 1:8). And yet, once the resurrection becomes known, the very first witnesses to it are filled with fear and decide not say anything about it. “The women respond with silence in the period after the resurrection, a time when secrecy is no longer appropriate” (Joel F. Williams, “Literary Approaches To The End of Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, [March 1999], 31). One book summarizes the irony of Mark’s ending well: “Throughout the story, Jesus commanded people to be quiet, but they talked anyway. At the end of the story, the young man commands the women to go tell, but, in an ironic reversal, the women are silent. The irony perpetrated on the reader thus becomes a challenge, a challenge to proclaim the good news courageously in the face of persecution rather than be silent like the women” (David Rhodes, Joanna Dewey, Donald Michie, Mark As Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, Second Edition [1999], 61).

The fatal irony, is that after the resurrection, these women are commanded to proclaim the news about Jesus' resurrection, however, they are too immobilized by their fear to say anything. Romans 10:14 says “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”

The rhetorical impact of this sudden and disturbing ending in Mark 16:8 is in how the author drops the idea of faith and fear into the lap of the reader and forces us to make a choice. Will we take the message of Christ’s identity and resurrection to a dying world or will we be too immobilized by fear to tell the Gospel? Mark leaves the reader hanging, and demands that we pick up where the story left off and not commit the same mistake that the women in 16:8 made.

AMERICAN PANTHEON: 2012 Superhero Flicks

The last few years have seen a significant resurgence in the superhero genre in cinema. Between 1991 and 2001 only about one superhero movie reached the top 100 grossing movies each year. Since 2002, that average has gone from one to three superhero blockbusters every year. One wonders if turn-of-the-millennium anxiety and perhaps even the events of September 11, 2001 created such a surge in this genre.

This average has gone up even in the last few years. Four of the top 100 movies in 2008 were superhero flicks, three of which were in the top four (The Dark Knight at #1, Iron Man at #2 and Hancock at #4). The year 2011 similarly saw five superhero films in the top 100 chart, including Thor (#10), Captain America: The First Avenger (#12), X-Men: First Class (#17), Green Lantern (#24) and The Green Hornet (#32) (figures based on the yearly lists from Box Office Mojo).

The year 2012 also guarantees to be a very promising year for fans of superhero flicks. Below, we highlight some upcoming superhero movies as well as a few others that fall slightly outside of the superhero genre, but are still of interest to fellow dorks and geeks. There are, of course, some that I simply and completely don’t care about, such as Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (I just never got into this franchise), G.I. Joe: Retaliation (after the panning the last one took, perhaps this sequel should be called G.I. Joe: Regurgitation!) and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (and the sequel to that movie could be, Rutherford B. Hayes: Zombie Slayer?). Anyway, here are the top five movies that I am really looking forward to this year:

The Avengers (May 4). OK, folks, this is the big one! I have frankly been amazed at how well the movies leading up to this one (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America) have maintained continuity (are there any movies that Samuel L. Jackson wasn’t in during 2011?). The cohesion and discipline of this franchise has been remarkable, and The Avengers is the pinnacle of those daring and careful efforts. The real draw for some of a more Browncoaty persuasion is the fact that Joss Whedon is directing; I personally hope that The Avengers will draw people’s attention to previous Joss Whedon works --namely Firefly and Serenity! From all of the trailers that I’ve seen for The Avengers, the effects and plot look awesome. However, I believe that ultimately the character interaction will make or break this movie, and Whedon is a master with pulling together divergent characters in very endearing ways.

Men in Black 3 (May 25). Some franchises just have a limited life, no matter how often you appeal back to the original premise, personalities and humor. At some point, it just looks desperate. I wonder if we’re at this point with the MiB franchise. The first outing was charming, though a bit quirkier than I expected. The sequel was fairly forgettable, making one wonder about the resurrection of the franchise in a third installment. MiB 3 has a time travel element, which though a tired cliché, is one that I am a frequent sucker for. Speaking of time, the fact that ten years has gone by since the last installment is actually a good thing (as opposed to cramming in one sequel after another every other year), and I am hopeful that they have come up with a good script in the duration.

The Amazing Spider-Man (July 3). I generally enjoyed the playful Sam Raimi/ Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies, though probably more for Sam Raimi than for Tobey Maguire. I liked the first, loved the second, and was a bit less enthusiastic about the third, but that is typical of the dynamics of a trilogy. Those movies were charming, self-referential, campy at times, but they had some solid substance to them. I was therefore surprised when Columbia Pictures decided to reboot the series so soon. This looks to be a much darker and more-nuanced version than Sam Rami’s Spider-Man. Also, it appears to cover more of Peter Parker’s back story and to provide something more than just a flick about a kid that gets bit by a super-spider. The previews look great, and even the progress that computer graphics has made in the few years since Spider-Man 3 looks like it will be well utilized in this new rendition.

The Dark Knight Rises (July 20). I’m in a bit of a minority in the thought that nothing beats Tim Burton and Michael Keaton’s 1989 Batman. I just love the flavor of that movie and I don’t care that it’s a bit inconsistent at times. Because I’m a big Batman anything fan, I have liked the new Christian Bale series, but I also think that it has completely demystified the character in a way that holds far less appeal to me. This newest Batman series is like finding out all the tricks that a magician does; you feel good about yourself, but you no longer have much respect for the magician. Anyway, as I’ve mentioned before, I enjoyed Batman Begins but I was simply not as impressed by The Dark Knight as many others were. It struck me as a cross between the most boring moments of Godfather with the cheesiest James Bond movie that you’ve ever seen (and should I feel guilty that I cheered when Maggie Gyllenhaal blew up? . . . No? . . . OK, good!). At times it even ran like a pedantic episode of Law & Order; there was far too much politics and far too many plot rabbit trails (after watching the movie several times I still feel like the entire excursion into Hong Kong was a complete waste of time). I can only hope that The Dark Knight Rises will either provide a more true-to-character, numinous Gotham Crusader, or that this series will take its cue from Spider-Man and reboot as soon as possible!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Dec. 14). OK, I know that this one isn’t really in the “superhero” genre, but Tolkien characters are heroes to me (yes, I know, that sounds, pathetic). I absolutely loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I can’t wait to see this first of two installments that cover The Hobbit. Peter Jackson (and, thank God that he’s back at the helm!) has a monumental task on his hands, namely to make a far less epic The Hobbit seem as acceptably epic as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As with other prequel attempts, another challenge is how to make tie-ins meaningful, but not cheesy (I still do not accept that Darth Vader built C-3PO!). I was thrilled at the decision to turn The Hobbit into a two part movie series; but in hindsight, but it is too bad that they didn’t do that with each of the LOTR movies (which would have been easy, for instance, with the extended version of ROK weighing in at 251 minutes!). They would perhaps have had time to include segments beloved by Tolkein aficionados such as the Hobbits’ stop at Tom Bombadil’s house or the Scouring of the Shire episode. Anyway, my expectation and anticipation for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is high and I doubt that Jackson and crew will disappoint.

So, did we miss any big films for 2012? Feel free to sound off on anything above or to suggest any other great 2012 movies you are looking forward to by sending us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com. Also, give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a "like" and you can post comments there, as well!