APRIL 2014

    As a Christian who grew up in the heart of Salt Lake City, Utah, the “Mecca” of Mormonism, one is always confronted with various approaches to bridging the cultural and spiritual divide that exists between Christianity and the Latter-Day-Saint faith. One has to be careful even with the term Christian because Mormons take offense when they are not categorized as Christians. They are quick to remind Christians that their name is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. They would prefer categorizing themselves as Christians, but not Evangelical Christians, who in their opinion hold to historic Christian beliefs, which they do not. Given this conundrum, ministry to Mormons can be both overly confrontational or overly syncretistic.    We are called to speak the truth in love. Some Christians choose to speak the truth confrontationally by holding up placards and chanting at Mormons as they attend their twice-a-year General Conference meetings on historic Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. Some Christians choose to stand together with Mormons against a common enemy, the cultural malaise against human rights, human dignity and human flourishing that we now see confronting us in this dangerous age. Such is the case of R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He delivered a lecture at Brigham Young University on February 25, 2014. This was the second time in less than 100 days’ time that he spoke at BYU. His lecture was entitled, “Strengthen the Things that Remain: Human Dignity, Human Rights, and Human Flourishing in a Dangerous Age.”

    In his first address in October 21, 2013, he had said, “We may not go to heaven together, but we may go to jail together.” He said this in the context of Christians and Mormons both holding to the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. While some may disagree with Dr. Mohler speaking at BYU, in the larger context of standing against sin, it is acknowledged that Christians and Mormons do stand together against a common cultural worldview that is against Scripture. It is however, important to make distinctions. In the book On The Level: Discovering the Levels of Biblical Relationships Among Believers, the father and son co-authors Richard I. Gregory and Richard W. Gregory make the case that believers stand together as salt in the restraining of sin. Believers of many different denominations can and should unite against corruption, being a preserving power against cultural sin. The authors suggest that Christians should stand together against abortion, same-sex marriage and ideology, and cloning/genetic issues. Should they stand together with Mormons against these same issues?

    Perhaps Dr. Mohler should tread carefully, but as a Christian who has interacted with Mormons in Salt Lake City all my life, I was not personally offended by Dr. Mohler’s interface with BYU. The full text of lecture can be found here, but here are some highlights:

    Because we are living in a civilization of unprecedented change, those with ardent beliefs should have an honest conversation together. The secularization of society is everywhere. While in Europe this secularization was brought on by an antipathy to theism, in America the root causes are pluralism and relativism. The majority of Americans claim to be theists, yet their theism is severed from their morality and they way they live. It’s tolerable to believe in God, but this belief is subjective and shouldn’t encroach on the way one lives life, especially if one uses God to foist one’s own morality on another.

    There are three values that are being downgraded in our culture: human dignity, human rights and human flourishing. While secularization affirms human dignity as the current pinnacle of Macro-Evolution, it actually undermines dignity since we are but an accident of adaption to our environment. Our dignity does not stem from our achievements in artistic expression and technological advancement, but actually from being created in God’s image. In rejecting this we have the conclusion of “Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, [who] has gone so far as to argue that the pig might well have [a] more substantial claim to a right to live. He has also stated that infanticide, the killing of young children after their birth, might well be justified under some circumstances” (this quote and those that follow are from Mohler’s address). 

    Abortion and infanticide, indeed even the holocaust make social evolutionary sense if human dignity is based on human achievement and not on God’s image.

    In addition, basic human rights are devalued by secularization. The 1948 United Nations Human rights document affirms “freedom and equality and dignity and brotherhood,” but one of the drafters of that statement, “French intellectual Jacques Maritain, one of the leading Roman Catholic philosophers of the century . . . [admits he cannot defend the document:] ‘We agree upon these rights, providing we are not asked why. With the ‘why’ the dispute begins.’”

    Without morality, we cannot declare rights impeded, without theism we cannot defend the defenseless.

    As humans, we also have the need to flourish, the need for security, stability and structure. At the center of culture is society, at the center of society is family, at the center of family is marriage, at the center of marriage is children. Twenty years ago no nation had legal same-sex marriage. Yet now “[w]e lack the fortitude to state clearly that erotic aspiration and romantic legitimacy must be directed toward marriage and made accountable to it. We sowed the seeds for this lack of fortitude by our acquiescence to so called ‘no-fault’ divorce and the idea of unfettered personal autonomy.”

    Every previous culture rightly understood marriage to be pre-political. If marriage is only an experiment or social construct or evolutionary behavior or pleasurable pursuit then government is entirely within its rights to re-develop it as society desires. But if marriage is a Creator-ordained relationship, then Christians have the responsibility to protect and exemplify the man-woman procreative actuality that is far from an experiment. In Ephesians 3:15-16 Paul links the Fatherhood of God with prayer: “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” The family relationship finds its basis in the very nature of the Triune God, Father, Son and Spirit. 

    Al Mohler then bookended this lecture by saying, “We may not go to heaven together, but we may go to jail together, and we may go sooner even than we thought.” He then concluded his lecture with an iteration of the historic truths of the Christian faith, many of which the LDS person would disagree with. While as a Christian we can stand with other persons of faith who affirm the value of family and human dignity, rights and flourishing, we can stand as salt to preserve against the corruption of our present society. However, the Christian cannot stand as “the light of the world” together with a Mormon; for we do not share the same light, the same gospel, the same Christ.

        So what do you think: Can and should Christians and Mormons cooperate on certain social issues?  Let us know at feedback@eclectickasper.com.  Also, check out Jesse Hornok's other article “The Simplicity of the Gospel” in the November 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

HISTORY: More From Marburg: The Colorful Martin Luther

    *** Warning, this article is PG-13 ***

    Readers of The Eclectic Kasper are aware that I have done some research on the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, and we did a series of articles called, “Why Marburg Matters.” The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting between Martin Luther, the Swiss theologian Ulrich Zwingli, and other Protestant Reformers to resolve some of their differences and attain unity. Unfortunately, that did not work. Having read much of Luther, I contended that his acerbic tongue and his general inability to “play nicely with others” was the primary cause preventing unity and agree-ability at this meeting.

    Having done much research, I ended up with a series of Luther’s . . . eh . . . less gracious statements. Many of them could not fit in some of the other papers and projects that I did, but fortunately, I have my own web journal!

    Below are several quotes from Luther mainly from three treatises written in 1520 that demonstrate his more acerbic side. These quotes are in one sense amusing, and clearly intended for rhetorical effect. But are some of these statements too strong, and in some cases, unnecessarily so? We present these for your entertainment, but also to challenge you to think about how Christian dialog should – and perhaps should not – be conducted.

    In a treatise called To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), Luther had some not-very-kind words for Catholic priests, but mainly he aims his vitriol at the pope. Proposing that the church was engaged in overreach he says: “How is it that we Germans must put up with such robbery and extortion of our goods at the hands of the pope?” (page 29). He suggests that the pope is so evil and satanically-inspired that he “would have to be called a destroyer of Christendom and an abolisher of divine worship” (38). He later comments that the pope “is the worst thief and robber that has ever been or could ever come into the world, and all in the holy name of Christ and St. Peter!” (44). Railing against the pope and all the priests complicit in the indulgences Luther says: “Thus these people go to the sacrament with such consciences that they become irregulars and even worse. O blind shepherds! O mad prelates! O ravenous wolves!” (69).

    Later that year, Luther wrote his famous The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He rails justifiably against the Medieval Roman Catholic leaders, but again, one wonders if he sometimes goes too far with his rhetoric. Referring to the friars who defended the sale of salvation via indulgences, Luther said: “I saw that they were nothing but impostures [sic.] of the Roman flatterers, by which they rob men of their money and their faith in God” (124). In response to the writing of one such church leader, Isidoro Isolani, Luther says of him, “The wiseacre imagines he is adoring his drivel with the multitude of his quotations. The rest I will pass over, lest I smother you with the filth of this vile-smelling cloaca” (129). Of the priests and friars in general, Luther comments: “Being wolves, they masquerade as shepherds, and being Antichrists, they wish to be honored as Christ” (195). Another quote on page 226 cannot repeated here, because it would turn this “PG-13” article into a solid “R”; suffice it to say, that Luther makes several references to both male and female genitalia.

    The year 1520 was quite a year for Dr. Luther. He wrote another treatise called The Freedom of a Christian. In a preface written specifically to Pope Leo X, Luther says: “I have truly despised your see, the Roman Curia, which, however, neither you nor anyone else can deny is more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom ever was, and which, as far as I can see, is characterized by a completely depraved, hopeless, and notorious godlessness” (268). He further suggests: “Is it not true that under the vast expanse of heaven there is nothing more corrupt, more pestilential, more offensive than the Roman Curia? It surpasses beyond all comparison the godlessness of the Turks so that, indeed, although it was once a gate of heaven, it is not an open mouth of hell, such a mouth that it cannot be shut because of the wrath of God” (270).

    In the April 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper we used several choice quotes from a 1527 treatise and a 1528 work to demonstrate other instances where Luther spoke with unnecessary crudity and vulgarity in discussions with other Reformers regarding the Eucharist (WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Tone). Of Reformers who espoused the memorial view Luther states: “May God repay you, Satan, you [explicative] wretch, for the shameful and cocksure way you ridicule us!” (“That These Words,” 48). He says of his opponents: “I am through with them . . . lest Satan become still more frantic and spew out still more lies and follies” (“Confession,” 162). After describing one of Zwingli’s arguments, Luther comments, “The children should pelt it with dung and drive it away!” (“Confession,” 212). Of his opponents, he remarks, “They are exactly like a person who, just as I was about to greet him, would turn around thunder with his backside and then walk away. Well, they will not run off so insolently and leave their stench behind them, if it be God’s will!” (“Confession,” 349).    

    Luther was many things, but he was hardly ever a diplomat. Not to be preachy, but it does raise the question of civility in discourse, especially in theological discourse, among church leaders. On one hand, we can appreciate Luther’s bold ferocity against the atrocities of the medieval church. On the other hand, we may also feel that some of these statements are vulgar, and below a church leader. Many have said “Oh, that’s just how they talked back then!”, but I think that is a superficial response. I have read volumes of works by Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, even Karlstadt, where the authors are clearly frustrated, firm, and they regularly assert that their opponent is from the devil. But my research convinced me that Luther was far more acerbic and vulgar in his discourse than most of his other Protestant amigos. Others rarely descend to the level of crudity and petulance of Luther’s personal attacks. Some scholars see similarities between Luther and other harsh communicators like fellow-reformer Thomas Müntzer or contemporary French author Francois Rabelais. But these similarities do not demonstrate that Luther’s rhetoric was normative, but rather, they verify that he was exceptionally harsh in both a theological and cultural context, like Müntzer and Rabelais.

    So, this brief survey leaves us asking some very relevant questions about Luther and about us: When in the 1500s or now, does boldness and bravery in speech cross the line into evident, sinful slander and unnecessary name-calling? At what point does “courageous” communication become speech that defies passages such as Colossians 4:6, 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and 1 Peter 3:15 and that is clearly condemned by Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:29, and 5:4?

    It seems to me that the line between bold communication and sheer ungodliness was crossed by Luther far too often, and—as in the case of the Marburg Colloquy of 1529—to disastrous effects.

        So, what do you think about Luther?  Was he too harsh, or did his situation and his opposition justify a harsh response?  Send your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com.  Also, you can check out our other articles about Luther and the Marburg Colloquy in our Eclectic Archive under the heading WHY MARBURG MATTERS. 

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK -- FUN MUSIC GROUPS: E Muzeki

        Originally from the February 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper

    While listening a few years ago to a Celtic station on Live365, I heard a few songs from a group called E Muzeki. I quickly found myself thoroughly enjoying the sumptuous texturing of eclectic sounds from Celtic, Eastern European, and middle-eastern traditions.

    Based in San Antonio, TX, E Muzeki showcases the amazingly diverse talents of Mark Varelas and Jenny O'Connor, who wrote much of the music that they perform. The variety of styles, influences and instrumentation is incredible, and a delight to anyone with an eclectic sense about them. Mark and Jenny are kind enough to make some of their songs available for free download, and I have picked up some of their other songs as well.

    E Muzeki somewhat defies categorization: Acoustic, folk, instrumental . . . none of these does their diversity justice. The most predominant influence is from Eastern European or “gypsy” traditions, as in their songs “Dorelia,” “Syrtaki Kofto,” “MacSuibhne's Trill.” These songs are exotic and rich, pulsating with the intentional bustle of a Hungarian, Arabian, or Greek marketplace. In addition to the gypsy style there are songs of a Celtic ilk (“Catharsis,” “The Butterfly,” “Rites of Man”), and tunes that have more of a south-western feel to them (“Sedona Melody,” “The North Jetty”). Some pieces demonstrate a Spanish flare (“Biserica Neagra,” “Guadiana,” “The Victor,” “Desert Song”), and others resonate with a middle-eastern style (“Roxanna Of Illyria,” “Arabian Horseman”) or even a Persian sound (“Sindh,” “Patsheeva”). One of their albums even includes a gypsy-style version of Led Zepplin’s “Kashmir.” Thought it’s really hard to narrow it down, my favorite tracks include, “Sindh,” “Sedona Melody,” and “Aroania.” You can find out more about E Muzeki at www.emuzeki.com and most of their songs and albums are still available on Amazon. I highly recommend that you check them out. 

    Alas, all good things come to an end. In 2008 after eight years of performing and recording together, Mark and Jenny decided to go their separate ways. However, they continue to create eclectic music in their new directions, Jenny with a group called Circa Paleo and Mark with a band named Wine and Alchemy. I have not looked into these other groups too much yet, but I hope to, and maybe we will spotlight them in the future.

        Check out some of the other fun music groups that we have spotlighted, such as Cantiga in the April 2011 edition and Chinese erhu player Lei Qiang in September 2011. Do you know of other fun music groups that we should investigate? Let us know about them by sending a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: A Dubious History

    Previous articles in this series on cessationism and continuationism include an introduction to the series in our January 2014 edition and an article called, “It’s a Trap!” from the February 2014 edition.

   Again, a brief refresher on terms: Continuationists basically believe that all the spiritual gifts listed in the NT continue to be operative today. The cessationist (of which, I am one!) believes that some sign gifts, such as tongues, healings, and prophecy, ceased to be used soon after the first century.

    As this series progresses, we will look at specific passages that discuss the issue of continuationism and cessationism. When presenting this material recently, however, I found it very enlightening to explore the basic history of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement, which is usually associated with the continuationist position. I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, and the following streamlined retelling may be unsatisfactory to some. But I felt that, frankly, the dubious nature of the history of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement is one of the greatest arguments against it.

    For starters, we can simply affirm that, it is dangerous when a segment of Christianity suddenly explodes with an overemphasis on one theological concept, as did the Charismatic movement around the beginning of the 1900s.

    But let’s back up even more; doctrinal formation must be understood in light of the greater historical context. We’ll briefly touch on what the early church and then the Reformers believed and emphasized about the Holy Spirit and we’ll then accelerate up to present.

    There were a few charismatic-type groups in the early church, the most prominent of these were called the Montanists. This sect was founded by Montanus who alleged himself to be the Paraclete who would usher in the return of Christ. The Montanists were characterized by their prophecies (most of which didn’t come true) and their ecstatic utterances. Most of these kinds of groups seemed to atrophy and fade away. But since the early church, the Holy Spirit has always been recognized as fully divine, and has been associated with certain activities, such as the inspiration of Scripture and the regeneration and sanctification of believers.

    The Spirit received perhaps even more attention during the Reformation; His personhood, role, and activity was simply recognized from straight-forward passages with minimal elaboration. French reformer John Calvin emphasized that the Spirit works through the teaching and study of the Bible. English theologian Charles Wesley highlighted the Holy Spirit’s role in sanctification. Thus we see a maturing of doctrines related to the Spirit, but within the proper contexts of other important doctrines as well.

    Not until the end of the nineteenth century were doctrines related to the Holy Spirit given extensive, and some may argue, disproportionate, attention. But any doctrinal formulation during the late 1800s must be considered with caution in light of the pioneering mentality of the period. The physical frontier was mirrored theologically. New doctrines and practices sprang up on the American landscape and often in isolated, rural areas apart from the mainstream. But tendencies other than just innovation were typical of American religion in the 1800s. Theologian Millard Erickson notes, “The revivalism of the American western frontier placed great stress on conversion and an immediacy of experience . . . . A rather strong emotional coloration did mark these evangelistic meetings” (Christian Theology, p. 871). American Christianity in the 1800s was driven by a desire to count conversions, to see dramatic manifestations of the supernatural and by anti-intellectualism.

    The pioneering mentality in America gave birth to a variety of deviant religious groups that sprang up during the 1800s. Some such groups appeared earlier in the century, such as Mormonism (1830), and Seventh Day Adventists (1861). But theological pioneering accelerated as the century continued, including such groups as Christian Science (1875), Theosophy (1875), Jehovah’s Witnesses (1878), and the Unity School of Christianity, or the Unity Church (1889). Initially, one may wonder why so many teachers broke from Christian orthodoxy. The answer is more simple than we would generally like to admit: this theological pioneering was both engaging and lucrative.

    This mentality of theological pioneering must be kept in mind when one considers three key foundational events that gave birth to the modern Charismatic, continuationist movement. The first is the Shearer Schoolhouse Revival, which occurred in 1896.  This revival took place near Murphy, North Carolina, a rural and isolated town that even as of the 2010 Census, had a total population of only 1,621 people. These revivals lead by Methodist and Baptist ministers allegedly featured speaking in tongues and gave birth to one of the Church of God movements, specifically, the one that was eventually associated with Cleveland, Tennessee. My critique of this event is that I am concerned that it was too remote and disconnected—both geographically and theologically—from mainstream traditions or from the accountability of evangelical schools or denominations.

    The Bethel Bible College Student Revival in 1901 in Topeka, Kansas is a second event often associated with the beginning of the Charismatic movement. In 1900, Charles Parham founded and was the first president of Bethel Bible College. He had dabbled with some Pentecostal-style theology previously and he taught that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the tongues of fire described in Acts 2 should be a normal event for believers after conversion. He fanned the flames of a student-led revival that culminated in January 1901 with a young lady, Agnes Ozman, who allegedly began speaking in tongues, and several other students followed suit. This is seen by some as the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement. My concern about this event is the influence of a revival that began with students and that did not have the mature guidance of older church leaders (other, of course, than Parham). And, as with the Shearer Schoolhouse Revival, the geographical and theological isolation of the Bethel Student Revival is problematic, as well.  It is probably worth noting also, that Bethel Bible College closed in 1901, after a long run of less than two years.  

    Then, in Los Angeles, 1906, we have what is known as the Azusa Street Revival led by William Joseph Seymour. Seymour was the son of former slaves, and he did not have the benefit of much education. He attended Charles Parham’s school (a different one in Houston) for only one year and then went to LA where he struggled to find traction in different churches for several months. Seymour’s fortunes reversed, however, when an earthquake struck just a few days after he relocated his ministry to the Azusa Street site. He leveraged this PR to lead growing groups of people in revivals that lasted from 1906-1909. These revivals were allegedly accompanied by tongues, miracles, and other manifestations of the Holy Spirit under Seymour’s ill-equipped guidance.