APRIL 2020

In this edition . . .

If you’re in Coronavirus lock-down, you’ve come to the right place!

Welcome to the April 2020 edition of The Eclectic Kasper!

This month, we discuss lessons we can learn from the Coronavirus pandemic, and we continue our verse-by-verse voyage through the book of Romans. We mention a few more concerns about a book that discusses the rapture, and we have some great feedback from previous editions.

We love your feedback! Send your thoughts and critiques about any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com. Or you can give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and feel free to drop some feedback there.

We want to make sure you are aware of our “The Eclectic Kasper” Media page on Soundcloud with a variety of sermons and Bible lessons that I (Matt Kasper) have presented over the last several years. There are also topical series such as Old Testament Survey, the deity of Christ, and a series called “How To Argue Well.”

Thanks for reading, be safe out there, and stay eclectic!

NEWSBYTES APRIL 2020: Corona, Bernie’s Decline, and WHO Do You Think You Are!?

by Matt Kasper

The Coronapocalypse

As you may have heard, there is a bit of a bug going around.

No, not the usual kind of Spring flu bug, but a global-pandemic, national-shut-down, apocalyptic-style kind of bug.

We here at The Eclectic Kasper would be doing our faithful audience a disservice if we didn’t offer some social and cultural analysis during this time, and we do so in our article below, “Lessons from the Coronavirus, Part 1.” Hopefully these will represent a variety of lessons that we can learn and retain to make us safer and happier in the future.

But here in the “NewsBytes” section, I’ll just mention a few things. First, this has changed life for many of us, between slightly to severely, between washing our hands more often, to people contracting the disease, losing jobs, and suffering economic hardships. I think that we will bounce back from this, but not without a large toll. Even in a strong nation and economy like ours, it is amazing to see how fragile we really are.

Second, it is encouraging to see how the markets are remaining strong during this process and despite the fact that many businesses have closed down, temporarily or permanently. The economic optimism is already demonstrated by the way the markets are recovering from the steep decline in March and the nadir on March 23. Despite the deceptive language of having a “closed economy,” many people are still working, serving, shipping, and hiring. Additionally, I have great confidence that in a month or two when restaurants, stores, and entertainment venues reopen, we will see a huge surge in the economy, perhaps like we have never seen before.

Finally, it is amazing the amount of misinformation that we are hearing about this from all sides. The severity, the spread, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of certain protective equipment, etc. It is amazing, though predictable, how this viral weapon is being used as a political weapon, too. The point is, be careful what you read and hear about this pandemic, be careful what you post, repost, and retweet. And, frankly, just be careful!

Bernie’s Social(ized) Distancing

Bernie’s out of the presidential race, or to put it in our new Corona vernacular, he has socially distanced himself from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Was he edged out by the DNC when others began to drop out? Did he loose support when the mainstream media backed Biden? Did something happen “behind the scenes” like the way the nomination was handed to Hillary in 2016? We may never know.

Even if something sneaky did occur, I prefer to consider that Sander’s political decline is America’s referendum against socialism. Of course, many of the other democratic contenders had planks in their platform that were as socialistic as Bernie’s; its just that Bernie was far more outspoken about it, and I don’t think that sat well with the American public.

Also, many of his followers were younger, and they will replace older voters in the elections cycles to come. But this may be a false “silver-lining” for the socialist cause; while these younger generations are smart and savvy, the reality is that socialism sounds less and less appealing once you have a good full-time job, a family, and a mortgage. Age, experience, and wisdom tend to move people along the spectrum toward capitalism and conservativism, and away from the naivety of socialism. While I sometimes struggle to find glimmers of hope for the future of our country, Sander’s decline is one ray of sunshine. It seems that Bernie’s brand of socialism only connected with people in California and his home state of Vermont; almost 6% of votes from Vermont went for Bernie in the 2016 presidential race even though he wasn’t on the ballot. But his vision for the future had far less resonance in the other forty-eight states. Lord willing, socialism will be exposed for the fraud that it is, and more people will appreciate the benefits of capitalism and conservative principles.

WHO’s On First

We have tremendous medical capacities and incredible university hospitals in our own country.

Why, then, are we funding, heeding, and granting so much authority to the World Health Organization? Why are we treating the WHO like their opinion should be first and foremost?

The WHO has a tremendous impact on much of our health care system. We apparently take many of our medical diagnosis codes from them. We send them ridiculous sums of money, about $110 million per year for the last ten years. In the February 2020 budget proposal, Trump’s administration asked that we reduce what we send them from $122 million down to $57 million. That is still more than twice what is paid in by China ($28 million) and almost three times what third place Japan contributes ($20 million).

I support the Trump administration’s decision to dramatically reduce the money we send to WHO and I also appreciate his recent threats to drastically reduce this even more.

I recommend that we send WHO a token amount, maybe $10,000 per year, just to let them know we acknowledge their existence, but otherwise, don’t need them or care about them. Then, we should reallocate some of that $57 million, perhaps about a third, toward medical research in our own country. And what about using the rest to help pay down the national debt? When we are talking about American resources, efforts and funds, I think that it should be America first, and not the WHO.

ROMANS: Promises, Promises, Romans 4:13-17

Today promises are cheap. But other promises that we have received are really important.

For instance, we typically receive an inheritance based on the fact that we are the descendants of someone. These are things that have been promised to us, and we appreciate the love and grace of those who make these promises.

Here in Romans 4, Paul emphasizes that our entire religious system is by grace through faith, and is not based on works, rituals, or law. We can have works, rituals, and law, but we are not saved or sanctified by them. Neither is our glorification affected by them. Our future hope is not based on works or rituals, but it is based on believing on the grace of God.

Specifically, in Romans 4:13-17, Paul is reminding his audience that the promises made in the OT, specifically, to Abraham, were related to Abraham being the father of many nations. Therefore, those promises were not just for the benefit of the Jewish readers, but for Gentile readers, as well.

In v. 13, Paul argues that the promises of God were given to Abraham independently of the Law, and, in fact, were given years before the Law. The content of those promises to Abraham is that he would be the heir of the world. This notion is probably in reference to the idea that all nations would be blessed through Abraham (Gen 12:3) and that he would be the father of many nations (Gen 17:4). The influence of Abraham and his seed – both physical and spiritual – would be global, and indeed, it has been. Again, however, Paul’s focus is on how that promise was achieved through faith, and that righteousness was bestowed independent of the Law.

Paul points out in v. 14 a fundamental problem with the way some in his Jewish audience understood the Law. They believed that they were heirs by Law; but if that is the case, faith is not necessary. The word kenoō means “to deprive of power, make of no meaning or effect.” It is used five times in the NT and only by Paul (also in 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3; Phil 2:7). The promise, which Paul has argued, was a product of faith rather than law, would be “nullified.” Thus, faith and law are in many ways mutually exclusive as a means of receiving the benefits of the promises to Abraham.

The Law does not produce righteousness; it should encourage righteous behavior that is consistent with the law, and it reveals God’s perfect will for human conduct and endeavors. However, in light of humanity’s inability to perfectly follow the law (Rom 3), the law produces wrath from God, or deserved punishment for expected infractions (4:15). Law is supposed to encourage godliness, but instead produces wrath, not because God is cruel nor because His expectations are too high, but because humanity is not able nor willing to obey special revelation. And if there is no law, there is no violation; the word parabasis, literally means “overstepping” something, or committing a sin or “violation.” The presence of a boundary means that it will be crossed and overstepped. Because of the presence of the law, there is greater expectation that the law would be obeyed, but there are also more chances that it would not be obeyed. Thus, those who have laws are more culpable than those without.

This, of course, does not mean that non-Jews are off the hook because they were not under Mosaic law. Everyone is under law of some kind; humanity is “without excuse” because of the truths that God provided through general revelation (Rom 1:20) and they are both a law to themselves (2:14) and have a sense of the Law through their consciousness (2:15). Thus, whether one has Mosaic law, human law, or internal law, to have it is to overstep it, and to earn the wrath of God.

Paul continues to argue that salvation is by faith, not law (v. 16). He made the point in v. 15 that the law brings wrath, but salvation is through faith according to grace. The “promises” are therefore guaranteed not by someone’s works or compliance to the Law, but on the integrity of God, in whom we place our faith. To put it another way, the promise is “confirmed” or “guaranteed” because it is based on faith in God’s unchanging grace, not based on faith in one’s ability to fulfill the law, which nobody can do (Rom 3).

This promise, therefore, is confirmed to “seed” or “descendants.” The referent here however, is to figurative seed, both those who are “of the law,” a reference to Jews, but also those who are not under the law, but who have believed by faith, primarily referencing the Gentiles. Paul again repeats that Abraham is not merely a physical ancestor of the Jews, but, more important to Paul, he is a spiritual descendant of those who have placed faith in God for salvation (4:11).

Paul asserts in v. 17 that this calling of Abraham was consistent with what was originally said to him in Gen 17:5. In that verse, God adjusts the name “Abram” to “Abraham.” Key to this name change is the explanation that is quoted in Rom 4:17, that Abraham will be the father not merely of a Jewish nation, but of “many nations.” This is true biologically, in that he was also the father of Ishmael, the progenitor of many Arab peoples (Genesis 25:9-18), and the grandfather of Esau, the ancestor of Edom (36:1-5). And, by the way, he had other sons and daughters with his second wife Keturah (Gen 25:1-4; 1 Chron 1:32). But Paul points out that this has a spiritual dimension in that any Gentile can claim a tie to Abraham by believing in the provision of salvation that only God could provide.

The reference to making what was dead alive, and of calling into being that which did not exist surely points to the supernatural power of God, but has specific reference to the ability of the aged Abraham and Sarah to bear children and descendants. But it also reminds us of the power of the resurrection of Christ. Christ said that He would be put to death by Jewish and Gentile leaders, but that He would raise three days later. The resurrection guarantees that all the promises that God has ever made will come true.

In light of these other promises that God has made, we can be assured that the promises that God has made to us, for salvation, sanctification, provision, and eternal life, will be kept by Him, as well.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Lessons from the Coronavirus, Part 1

Even in the midst of inconveniences and suffering because of the Coronavirus pandemic, it is incumbent that we learn and grow, and not just react and survive.

Lessons from the Coronapocalypse are plethora. In fact, we want to invite you to send in your own thoughts about what you’ve learned during this time, either personally, economically, or spiritually (send your lessons from the Coronavirus to feedback@eclectickasper.com).

In the meantime, here, in no particular order, are a few things that I hope that Christians, citizens of our great country, and people in general can and should learn during this time. You may not dig all of them, but at least we’re trying to learn and grow through this, so, give us a break!

We should be grateful for what we have. I’m starting off a bit preachy, but honestly, this incident should make us grateful for many aspects of our lives. We can be thankful for what we still have, like faith, family, much of the information, services and media that we can get online, our possessions, working utilities, books, and for many of us, our jobs. We can also be grateful for what we know we will get back after this, like gathering with friends, or going to movies, concerts, and ballgames. I have told many people that I wouldn’t want to be going through this pandemic in any other country. We have much to be grateful for, and hopefully this will make us more thankful and less spoiled.

Rich guys aren’t as evil as we have been led to believe. As it turns out, some of the most gracious and generous people right now are rich people. They donate to charities, they are promoting cures, and they are building or retrofitting factories to make medical equipment. Professional sports players and franchise owners have contributed millions to continue to pay arena workers when the sports seasons were suspended. Entertainer Tyler Perry surprised thousands of people, mainly senior citizens, in Georgia and Louisiana by paying for their grocery purchases. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, has invested millions in finding a cure for Covid-19. Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow, adjusted several of his factories so that they could make masks, and they were soon producing over 10,000 masks a day. Unfortunately, because he is a Republican and said nice things about Trump, Lindell was excoriated by the press, and accused of making masks as a PR stunt.

Sure, these wealthy people have an underlying PR motivation to what they are doing. But what a wonderful country we live in where we can leverage the PR instincts of a company in ways that can benefit society as a whole. And what if these rich guys genuinely wanted to help out during this crisis? (By the way, for more about this misguided hatred of the rich, see our article on the dangers of “richophobia” from the June 2016 edition.) Perhaps the rich have that much more of a stake in our country doing well and getting through this pandemic. Bottom line: maybe they are not as evil and greedy as we have been told that they are.

The church is more than a building. We already knew that this was true, but we have come to realize what the church can do without a physical location. It is better, of course, to have a physical place to meet. However, not having one is not a constraint in any way. We have also learned how valuable it is to meet together on a regular basis, something that we have surely taken for granted.

When churches start meeting again, it will be interesting to see what remains from before and what gets sieved out. I hope many worshipers will see that lasers, smoke machines, and flashing lights are not as important to worship as purity, Biblical content, and a thankful heart. Hopefully, worshipers will see that our worship is more about how we respond to God every day, and less about whether the songs we are singing are new or old.

Maybe – and this is a long-shot – individual pastors will learn that they are not as critical as they thought they were. For instance, Virginia pastor Gerald O. Glenn announced that he would defy social distancing guidelines, and that his church would continue to meet despite the Coronavirus outbreak. He argued in a March 22 message: “I am essential, I’m a preacher — I talk to God!” On April 12, the church announced that Pastor Glenn had died from Covid-19, and that several of his family members had it, as well. Maybe pastors will learn to be less bombastic and narcissistic; Lord willing, many will produce sermons that carefully and prayerfully work through texts of Scripture and feed their people with God’s Word and not their own ego. Maybe it takes a pandemic to teach pastors and Christians some humility.

The government in general doesn’t handle crises well. I legitimately believe that the Coronavirus was not created to be a weapon. I do believe, however, that the politics around the virus and responses to the virus are being weaponized. The democrats used stimulus efforts for political gain rather than helping working people; they promote projects like using $25 million to renovate the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts or trying to mandate a $15 minimum wage. President Trump also used this crisis to assert to reporters that he has “ultimate authority” to reopen the country, and that his authority is “total” and “very powerful” (April 13, 2020 Presidential Press Conference/ Coronavirus Task Force Briefing). Even in context, these are dangerous words, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on!

Speaking of the stimulus efforts, I am amazed and a bit disturbed about these business loans and payroll protection measures. Of course, these kind of stimulus measures are better than the “shovel ready” projects in Obama’s stimulus package that weren’t even close to being shovel ready. Stimulus works best by putting this money directly into the hands of businesses and citizens.

I am also surprised by those who say that checks mailed to people from the government is socialism. They obviously have no idea what socialism is! The government giving us back our own money in a time of need is not only not socialism, but it epitomizes the capitalistic system. In fact, this kind of mercy from the government is far more likely to occur in a capitalistic and republican society than in a country run by a socialist dictator.

Trusting God and acting wisely are not mutually exclusive concepts. The fact that we didn’t appreciate this truth before the Coronavirus reflects poorly on the church and on our Biblical and theological illiteracy. Nonetheless, God gave us a great illustration of the duel and non-contradictory nature of faith and wisdom.

The faith part is that we pray to God for mercy, trust in Him for our well-being. We know that our health and sickness, wealth and poverty, and life and death are in His magnificently-capable and benevolent hands.

Yet, we wash our hands about five times more often and more carefully than usual. We use hand sanitizer and we social distance. We can trust God and live wisely. Not only are these two concepts not contradictory, but, actually, they are complimentary. Just because we wear seat belts doesn’t mean that we don’t believe God any less. Trusting God is not an excuse for living foolishly or carelessly, and this extends to every area of our lives.

Is it bad that we needed a pandemic to remind is of this?

ON MY BOOKSHELF: Is the Rapture Real? Part 3

I am forcing myself to write only one more article about David Currie’s book Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind. Currie is a former Fundamentalist who converted to Catholicism, and he decided to take on several doctrines about the last days, especially the rapture. He believes that the rapture is not Biblical and that most of the events in Revelation were fulfilled in the first century AD. We wrote two articles in response to his book in the February edition. I will write only one more article about this book’s poor scholarship and bad theology.

Odd Bible Study Methods. It is amazing that someone who has adopted all of the un-Biblical fluff that has crept into Roman Catholicism (papal succession, church hierarchy, Purgatory, papal infallibility) would lecture others about being un-Biblical. In fact, it’s amazing how much a book called Rapture doesn’t even talk about the rapture. He mentions 1 Thess 4:13-17 on page 34, but other than that, he really doesn’t interact with this critical passage at all. How, then, can he assert that the Bible never and nowhere teaches about the rapture? For that matter, he doesn’t really deal much with Matt 24:40-42 or 1 Cor 15:51-53, either. You can’t claim that the Bible doesn’t address a topic by just ignoring the passages that discuss that topic.

There are other odd interpretative methods that Currie uses. For instance, he insists that Zechariah 14:1-2 does not refer to an eschatological siege, but it could only refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. This is because these verses refer to taking spoil, and dividing plunder, which is what happened in Jerusalem (page 445). But almost every siege involves spoil and plunder; that is the whole point of a siege! This would be like saying that Lamentations predicted World War I because there was death and blood in WWI.

Commentary on Romans

See other articles in our ongoing verse-by-verse commentary on Romans here in our “Eclectic Archive.”

Also, if all of Revelation takes place in the first century and mainly describes the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then Revelation greatly oversells the siege. By way of contrast, Lamentations, even though containing some poetic metaphor and exaggeration, accurately describes the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC. If Revelation only describes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then why does it use language that is so cosmic, dramatic, global, and so different in scale for an event that is really very similar? The Problem with Preterism. Currie espouses a way of reading Revelation called Preterism, a view that seems to be gaining popularity. Preterism believes that most of Revelation describes events that took place during the first century AD rather than predicting events that will take place at the end of this age. He suggests that an early date of writing before the First Jewish War of 67-70 AD is plausible because there were only seven churches (Rev 2-3), whereas by 96 AD -- a date posited by those who believe John wrote Revelation toward the end of the first century -- there would have been many more than seven churches (457). This is a weirdly sloppy argument that doesn’t take into account all of the churches that were started in Acts.

If Currie just wanted to write a book about Preterism, he just should have said so. But more broadly, and as we mentioned in “Part 2,” Currie’s unwillingness to interact with great evangelical scholarship that blossomed right before Currie’s book came out in 2003 is staggering, as well as academically and theologically irresponsible. He neglects the debate on the preterist, spiritual/ idealist, and dispensationalist views presented in Steve Gregg’s Revelation: Four Views (1997) or the Counterpoints book Four Views on the Book of Revelation (1998) edited by C. Marvin Pate. In fact, Currie should have dialogued more with other works like Paul N. Benware’s Understanding End Times Prophecy (1995) or the book by three evangelical scholars discussing the timing of the rapture in the Counterpoints series book entitled Three Views on The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation, edited by Gleason Archer, Jr. (1984, 1996).

Scholarship/ Academic Problems. In fact, we’ll talk a bit more about Currie’s scholarly woes. Toward the beginning of his book, Currie mentions many individuals who are not in the Protestant evangelical mainstream, like Jack Van Imp, Harold Camping, Chuck Smith and John Hagee, and acts as though these wierdos are representative of evangelicalism. Hal Lindsey, though immensely popular during the 1970s hardly represents the large body of dispensational and eschatological scholarship that has been produced over the last half-century. Better to interact with Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Darrell Bock. When Currie does interact with these individuals, it is staggeringly dishonest, such as suggesting that Walvoord admits that pretribulationalism is not taught anywhere in the Bible (272). This betrays Currie’s minimal appreciation of evangelical scholarship regarding apocalyptic literature and the theological discipline of eschatology.

There are other errors of a more academic nature, which contribute to the book’s shaky scholarship and fallacious conclusions. For instance, Currie seems allergic to footnotes or end notes. He sometimes just gestures vaguely at a source or document, as though I am supposed to read the entire thing just to find the point that he is referring to. He lazily refers to dispensationalists without citing anyone in particular, and he frequently (and often erroneously) refers to what rapturists believe without citing a specific work or statement. His sloppy scholarship erodes his credibility as a theologian and writer.

Wrong and Naïve Assertions about Roman Catholicism. The bias toward Roman Catholicism contaminates Currie’s work and sullies his exegesis. He wants to cram a pro-Mass and pro-Eucharist theological agenda even where these are not present in a text of Scripture (304). When answering the question of what believers should do while we wait for the eschatological events to take place, Currie suggests that “the one method that surpasses all others” is that “We should be faithful in Eucharistic celebration!” (416). Now, I appreciate communion (the memorial version, not his transubstantiation view), however, I am amazed that he ranks Eucharist as a higher answer to this question than discipleship (Matt 28:19), edification (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 4:12, 16), proclamation (1 Pet 2:9) or evangelism (Acts 1:8).

His pro-Catholic bias comes though in other ways. He asserts that a Pope could never be the Antichrist because a Pope will “never teach error” (213). He asserts that only the Roman Catholic church is the Bride of Christ (368). He declares that the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, or that the Bible is the only spiritual authority, “actually prevents the rapturists from understanding the Bible as clearly as the Catholic can” (383). I would counter that much Catholic interpretation has been obscured by a variety of wrong human interpretations that move people further away from Scriptural authority. He cites the high view of Scriptural authority promoted by Vatican I (1869-1870), but conveniently fails to mention that this council also conclusively defined the horrific doctrine of ex cathedra papal infallibility.

Fundamental Problems. While Currie has problems with Fundamentals, I have fundamental problems with Currie.

It is difficult to take Currie seriously when he doesn’t even seem to understand the Gospel of Christ. When answering the question “What is the Gospel?” he responds that “the choices we make in this life determine where we will spend eternity” (416). Scripture seems clear, however, that salvation is not the product of our choices, but that it is through our faith that we receive grace for salvation (Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 5:2; Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 5:13). Historically, Catholics have not been too keen on this Scriptural truth.

He mentions that the authority of the church and the authority of Scripture is a false dichotomy in Protestantism: “When faced with a accepting a reliable Church [by which he means the Roman Catholic church] or a reliable Bible, many will choose the reliable Bible” (396). Well, the answer is that, yes, we should always choose the Bible over any ecclesiastical organization or body, none of which possess the properties of inerrancy and inspiration like Scripture does. Furthermore, Currie is the one who injects falseness into this dichotomy, because the Roman Catholic church is not as reliable or truthful as Scripture.

Summary. Currie believes that the rapture is unbiblical and that there will be no rapture in the future. He asserts that almost everything in Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, the Gospels, and Revelation all point to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and has thus has already come to pass (182). “There is no future Battle of Armageddon awaiting the world. This prophecy was completely fulfilled by Titus [in 70 AD]” (318). Currie and others of his Preterist theological bent almost completely deny the futurist elements of Revelation, and end up largely misreading whole swaths of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Matthew, as well. Currie fills a big book with many words, but most of them inaccurately portray eschatology, deny the doctrine of the rapture, and wrongly handle the Word of truth.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK: MOVIE/ TV: A Gratifying Endgame

*** Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the movies described. ***

Avengers: Endgame was released a year ago, in April 2019. In many ways, it was the conclusion to one of the most amazing series of films in cinematic history. We wanted to honor that movie and franchise by presenting our review of it from the June 2019 edition again in this edition.

What a tremendous and gratifying ending to the first stage of a spectacular franchise. Avengers: Endgame accomplished everything that we had hoped it would, and even managed to fit in a few surprises along the way.

So, let’s start with some pros: What were the strengths of the film? After the startling ending of Infinity War, Endgame was appropriately emotionally resonant. The first third of the movie slid back-and-forth between hope and regret in a way that seemed very authentic to the franchise, and authentic to real life.

Some of the strongest parts of the movie were the scenes when the remaining Avengers go back in time. The sub-plot where Captain America, Hulk, Ant-Man and Iron Man return to the scene at the end of Avengers 1 was clever. It was an interesting twist then, when Cap and Tony travel even further back in time to retrieve the Space Stone and more Pym particles. That said, I think the scenes between Tony and his father Howard Stark we’re too long and drawn-out, but we’ll circle back to that below. The final battle was majestic, and the use of the infinity gauntlet at the end was both brilliant and heartbreaking, but in a strangely gratifying way. Also, while many characters were involved in this plot, they properly proportioned attention to the characters that we like the most, mainly Cap, Thor, and Iron Man.

So, time travel. Introducing travel into a franchise raises all sorts of problems, but there was really no other way of reversing what happens at the end of Infinity War. Endgame causally bypasses some fairly complicated issues regarding time travel, and some of the characters even joke about it, citing examples of time travel in popular movies. I’m not completely satisfied by how they handled time travel, especially marginalizing the ramifications that changing the past could have on the present. But if you give them some leeway and don’t over think it, then it’s probably not too bad. Additionally, the possibility that changes in the past create alternate realities in the present may be a significant part of MCU’s future.

So what about cons: What were some shortcomings of the film? In a way the three hour runtime was commendable; it is amazing that Hollywood got away with it in our increasingly “tl;dr” society. Yet, there were times when the movie seemed to drag a little. One wonders if 15 to 20 minutes could have been cut out of the length just by increasing the pace of a few of the scenes and maybe cutting out some of the dialogue that didn’t seem as relevant or interesting (again, the scenes between Tony and his dad come to mind).

Some have suggested, too, that Captain Marvel was overpowered, and that this caused some inconsistencies. She effortlessly destroyed Thanos’ ship, and yet, when she was handed the infinity gauntlet, she struggled to escape Thanos’ army. Why doesn’t she just take it and fly off to another planet? Or, better, why doesn’t she just put the gauntlet on and destroy Thanos’ forces with a snap? She could probably handle the effects of this better than Tony, for whom these effects were fatal. There is just a distracting inconsistency with how she is used in this climactic battle.

One more strength of the film: It didn’t have the social agenda that increasingly contaminates some films and franchises. Americans don’t want to watch sci-fi or action movies that preach social justice; we just want to watch great movies. We want great plots, humor, compelling characters, but we don’t need the liberal agenda crammed down our throats every other scene.

So, Endgame did insert a little bit of social agenda. There was a subtle reference to a homosexual relationship (by an unnamed non-Avenger character), and, of course, the big heroine presentation toward the end of the movie. I personally felt that this was overdone, too blatant, and not realistic (wouldn’t these gals be spread out across the fighting field?). Endgame touched on, but didn’t dwell on a social agenda. The little bit that was sprinkled in didn’t distract from the plot or lead to cringe-worthy scenes (I’m looking at you, The Last Jedi!).

So, how does Endgame compare to Infinity War? Infinity War was a stronger movie for a variety of reasons. It brilliantly integrated all of the previous characters, it had great tension, great fight scenes, and better humor. It was also full of surprises, not the least of which was the stunning ending. On the other hand, most of us knew that Endgame would somehow reverse the ending of Infinity War. We suspected that there would probably have to be some kind of time travel/ quantum realm scheme. We knew we were most likely going to lose one or two of our favorite heroes, or at least that one or two of them would bow out of the franchise in some way. That is, we went into Endgame expecting quite a bit, whereas Infinity War treated us to a whole array of surprises, which helped make Infinity War an overall stronger viewing experience.

That said, the Russo Brothers still had some surprises up their sleeves. It was a huge shock when Thanos destroys the stones and gets beheaded only about twenty minutes into the movie! The subsequent appearance of the words “Five . . . Years . . . Later” was chilling, though, I wish they would have stressed the post-apocalyptic feel a bit more. I also really liked the plot twist of a pre-Infinity War Thanos using Nebula’s memories and then invading a post-snap Earth.

We know that there will be more MCU movies; they’ll keep milking this cash cow as long as they can. However Endgame was a definitive transition point especially for this incarnation of characters that we have come to love and appreciate over the last decade. The franchise will go on, and yet there’s a sense that it will not quite be the same. Nonetheless Endgame was a thrilling movie, balancing the predictable with the unpredictable, and providing satisfying conclusions for characters who served as the backbone of this franchise.

Now the franchise shifts toward some newer characters, some of whom are even more interesting, as we enter not only a new phase, but a whole new era of MCU. Fans have undergone some “franchise disappointment” lately, such as with Star Wars: Episodes VII and VIII, or the in regard to the way DCEU has been handled. In light of those we can say “Bravo!” to MCU, and especially for how the franchise hit an unprecedented climax with the duology of Infinity War and Endgame. We are grateful for MCU’s tremendous cinematic efforts, their careful treatment of cherished characters, and their genuine desire to honor and gratify their fan base.

PROVERBS TO PONDER: Sweetness of Speech, Proverbs 16:21

Proverbs 16:21: The wise in heart will be called understanding,

And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness (NASB).

Communication is key in today’s world. The problem is, there seems to be plenty of talking but not enough communicating; many opinions, but very little persuasion.

So, how can we make our communication more effective? Proverbs 16:21 suggest that a bit of sweetness of speech will help!

The first half of this verse reflects a notion seen frequently in Proverbs, but really is referring to how that individual is perceived. The person who is wise in heart “will be called” understanding, or, a person of understanding. That is, someone who is wise, will be perceived as the kind of person who understands issues, navigates relationships well, and makes good judgments.

The verb is the usual word for “to call” or “to read aloud” (qara). Here, this verb is in the Niphal stem which reflects a passive nuance. That is, the verb indicates that someone is “proclaimed” or “called” something by someone else. Thus, the focus of this phrase is more on how other people notice and recognize someone’s wisdom rather than just the reality that the person acts wisely. But the two are certainly related.

The second phrase is fascinating, and builds off of the idea that others will notice or be affected by our wisdom. In fact, one’s wise ability to utilize winsome speech will increase the potential that we can teach, communicate with, and persuade others.

The focus of this second phrase is the word “sweetness” (metheq); it is placed at the beginning of the phrase for emphasis. The word here is used mainly in poetic books, but a few times in some prominent stories in narrative literature (Exod 15:25; Judg 9:11; Job 20:12; 21:33; 24:20; Ps 55:15; Prov 9:17; 16:21; 27:9). The contrast in Exodus 15:25 between sweet water and water that is undrinkable, and perhaps even poisonous water, is important. In fact, the use of the word metheq there perhaps sets a precedent for how it will be used later. There is sweetness on one hand, and poison bitterness on the other.

In Proverbs 16:21, the point is that one can leverage one’s wisdom and understanding by speaking and presenting knowledge in such a way as to generally maximize pedagogical goals. Interpersonal and instructional verbal “sweetness” may include grace and kindness to the learner, as well as the clever use of content, story, insight, and perhaps even humor. And this understanding and sweetness needs to be contextualized to specific situations. In some cases, diplomacy may be necessary, while in other contexts, bluntness may maximize the impact of our teaching and exhortations. But again, this depends on the situation, the emotional temperature, and even the size of our audience; whether we are addressing a classroom or a group, or whether we are conversing one-on-one. The impact of one’s speech will be optimized by understanding and strategically deploying these methods of “sweetness” in our conversation and instruction. Or as Paul summarize in Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.”

Proverbs talks several times about the power of persuasion. In fact, two verses later, the sage notes: “The heart of the wise instructs his mouth and adds persuasiveness to his lips” (Proverbs 16:23). In Ecclesiastes 10:12, Solomon notes that, “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him.” In an I-tells-it-like-I-sees-it kind of world, we can stand out for our efforts to communicate in a way that strategically personalizes our speech and tone so as to maximize its impact on the listener.

For the Christian, part of our ethic and Christ-likeness is reflected not just in our behavior, but also in our speech. Again, the Apostle commands in Ephesians 4:29: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” Perhaps as we encourage other believers and reach out to unbelievers, a little sweetness of speech may help us to be better communicators amidst the cacophony of noise and opinions.

ECLECTIC FEEDBACK: Feedback about Church and Rush

In the February 2020 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we started a new series about what the Bible says about church. Our first article was less theological and more pragmatic: “Reasons Not To Attend Church (And Why Those Reasons are Dumb).” One reader gave us another reason, or excuse, why many people don’t attend church:

Great article!

#1 I hear the most I think is... “it’s boring.” I’ve heard this over and over. Which in part is a stigma but also in part because of many churches being reluctant to change whatsoever. “We’ve always done it this way”. Without even questioning “why are we doing it? Is it working? Is it relevant”?

Times have changed from 200 years ago. The Word has not but society and technology has. It would be like the film industry being resistant to change because “we’ve always done it this way”. No color TV. No improvements with special effects etc.

We’ve also strayed away from the values we once held. How important church is.

People aren’t attending regular like in the past. One week here. One week there. The church isn’t the only hub for information/news like it used to be. Now that information is a click away. Also, online services have become quite popular. We’ve also become a much less social society.

In the February edition, we also had an article about the unfortunate opposition Rush Limbaugh received after he announced that he had advanced lung cancer and after he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In response to our article, “Rushing to Judgment,” one reader simply replied: “Thank you for your thoughtful commentary on Rush.”

Back in the February 2019 edition we had an article called “Andy’s Theological Adventures” about some comments Andy Stanley made relative to being “unhitched” from the Old Testament. One reader commented on that article: “Good article, and I agree with all you said, but in my simple mind, I don’t want to ‘unhitch’ from the OT, if for no other reason than the fact that the OT contains so many verses which tell us what God likes and what He doesn't like, and therefore, what we should like and not like.”

Thanks so much for the feedback. Feel free to post your thoughts and comments on any of our articles on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page. And you can send your thoughts and responses to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We’ll print your feedback and replies anonymously in a future edition.

More Proverbs to Ponder

Proverbs are full of useful wisdom, and we have tried to unpack many of the verses in that book. Check out our series called “Proverbs to Ponder” in our “Eclectic Archive.”