AUGUST 2012

In this edition . . .

Eclectic; adj \e-ˈklek-tik,

1) selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles

2) composed of elements drawn from various source

If that word “eclectic” describes you, then you’re at the right web journal! In fact, you’re in the right edition!

Welcome to The Eclectic Kasper, a monthly web journal about everything. We’re back from our brief Summer break, and this is one of our most eclectic editions yet! There’s something for theologians, political junkies, superhero fans, historians, and everyone in between!

Also, we have well over one hundred article titles in our “Eclectic Archive” arranged by category and linked to where the article originally appeared in The Eclectic Kasper. Check out the categories of Bible Studies, music, politics, theology, movie/ TV, and more. Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: Classical Arguments, Part 1

There is allegedly a gravestone in a Thurmont, Maryland cemetery that says: “Here lies an atheist: All dressed up and nowhere to go.”

Despite this particular gravestone, the reality is that atheism is alive and well. Most Christians allow this fact to put them on the defensive despite the overwhelming affirmation regarding the existence of God and the tremendous foolishness that lies behind any definitive contention that God does not exist (by the way, in a few installments of this series we will investigate why the claim that “God does not exist” is a logical contradiction!). One statistic claims that 4% of Americans are atheists (Harris Interactive Poll, 2006) while another claims that only 1.6% are atheist or agnostic (From “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Religious Affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic, February 2008” by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life). Still another asserts that, “Based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (belief in a higher power but not a personal God)” (from the “American Religious Identification Survey 2008”). This last study also reflects that the proportion of Americans who do not identify themselves with a religion has doubled to 15% since 1990.

The proportion of individuals who are atheists or non-religious is, predictably, higher in academic circles, especially scientific academic circles. A 1998 survey of National Academy of Sciences members indicated that only 7% believed in a personal God, which was down fourfold from a similar survey done in 1914 (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature; 394 [1998], p. 313). Along these lines Francis Bacon once wrote, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s heart to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion” (from his article “Of Atheism” in The Essays of Francis Bacon, p. 37).

These “classical” arguments for the existence of God that we will discuss in this series are mainly the product of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-1274) as they applied either Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy and methodology to Christian theology. To these arguments, we will add a few more as this series progresses. Note that we will use the phrase “arguments for” the existence of God rather than the more subjective word “proof.” It is no more possible to “prove” the existence of God than it is to disprove his existence. Besides, proof mitigates against the need for faith. However, there are still overwhelmingly compelling arguments that verify the belief that God exists. These different arguments have been formulated in various ways, and combined or separated by different authors; there is not necessarily an official list, but the arguments presented in this in this series broadly affirm the reality of God’s existence.

The Cosmological Argument is, in a way, the foundation of many of the other rational arguments. The Greek word cosmos refers to the “world,” “universe,” or more philosophically, the totality of all things that exist. The Cosmological Argument basically goes like this: Everything that we see was caused by something else. But those things that caused something were themselves also caused by something else. For instance, a child was caused by two parents, but each of those two parents were themselves caused by two other parents, and so on. As one works backward through this series of causes, one simply finds more things that were caused. However, eventually, as one traces back through this line of causality, one will discover an initial cause that was not caused by anything else.

This initial cause must either be a “something” or a “someone.” It could not have been a “something” without purpose or sentience, because, nothing that exists in the material order was uncaused. Therefore, the initial point of causation could not have been a “something” but must be a “someone,” who possesses both sentience and self-existence. That is, that first cause must have caused all other things, but was not himself caused by anything else. The Cosmological Arguments can be stated even more concisely: The sequence of cause and effect in the universe implies an ultimate cause who was not caused himself. This “Uncaused Cause” is God. Scripture clearly reflects the truth of this argument (Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Psalm 102:25; John 1:1-3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 3:4).

The idea of infinite regress, that is, an infinitely long line of causes with no initial cause, is rationally and philosophically untenable, not to mention, clearly unbiblical. No matter how far you trace back through the line of causality, there will eventually be some cause at the beginning that caused other things, but was not itself (or “Himself”) caused by anything else. In fact, in Francis Bacon’s essay “On Atheism” mentioned above, he continues, “For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

This is also why any explanation for origins that vaguely resembles the Big Bang Theory (the scientific hypothesis, not the TV show!) completely misses the point. That is, the notion of a Big Bang (which I do not agree with, but will assume to be a possibility here for the sake of the argument) does not answer the question of initial causality, but simply theorizes a specific unexplained effect that still demands a previous cause. It is like a series of dominoes; one can start from the last domino that falls and work back through the chain of causality all the way to the first domino. However, even then, one has not arrived at the initial uncaused cause, but only the initial cause of a limited chain. In fact, seeing the downed first domino only begs more questions: Who arranged the dominos before pushing that first one over? Why were they arranged in the manner that they were? Similarly, the Big Bang Theory is not a hypothesis about origins, but at best, only points to an ancient cause. Besides, as we have already established, material things do not cause themselves. There still must be a conscious, intelligent, and self-existent uncaused Cause. In the next article in this series, we will continue to explore these rational arguments for the existence of God that both build off the Cosmological argument and even explore the fields of purpose and morality.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: “Racism” . . . A Definition, Please?

It is difficult to try to have any measure of civil discourse when the definitions of words shift continually. Some nebulous words enshroud one’s own feelings of disenchantment or disenfranchisement, whether real or imagined, and they do not carry a meaningful or helpful definition. Unfortunately, some words have become pejorative, carrying feeling and venom, but not actually transmitting anything plausible and rational. Words like “bigot,” “birther” and “woman-hater” are tossed around with frightening fluidity; they evoke emotions, but not thought, and the drought of thought is slowly suffocating our society.

Similarly, the term “racism” is a tenuous time bomb of divergent ideologies that exploded once again with the Trayvon Martin case. I am not so interested at this point even in the primary participants of that event itself as much as to note how this case blurred the definition of racism even further and verified the unfortunate prejudices of those shouting “Racism!”

I will appeal to the Merriam Webster online dictionary for a definition of the word “racism” to establish that it can indeed be used other than as a cheap slur when one is losing an argument. M-W says that racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” The next definition suggests that racism it is a racial prejudice or discrimination, which sounds merely redundant from the first definition. Here’s an interesting side note: as I was looking on M-W to find the definition for “racism,” a little box popped up that said, “Racism is currently in the top 1% of lookups and is the 237th most popular word on Merriam-Webster.com.” How interesting that many others are confused enough about the definition of racism that it would be in the top one percent of all look-ups!

I want to take this definition and examine those who manipulated the Trayvon Martin event for political gain and personal strutting, specifically media hogs like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. It is amazing how these individuals pop onto the national scene to genuflect before their god of racism when it suits their purposes and then they disappear when people start talking about facts. Lest you think that my accusation is racist, even former NAACP leader C. L. Bryant said that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin case. “His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” said Bryant in a March 26 interview with The Daily Caller. Bryant claims that the worst epidemic of violence is not white on black, but black against black; yet those problems are buried in light of cases that have a higher potential to be manipulated by the media.

Unfortunately, the definition of racism has been stretched or ignored. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, commented on far-fetched attempts to paint the opponents of President Obama’s agenda as racists by saying: “The word racism is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything” (World, July 14, 2012, p. 22). Many would consider it racist to point out that although African-Americans account for only 12.6% of the US population according the 2010 U.S. Census, they have a disproportionately high incarceration rate of 39.4% (about 905,800 out of a total of about 2,297,500) according to a 2009 Bureau of Justice study. Whether one attributes this verifiable fact to an unfair judicial system, or to profiling, or to issues within the black culture in America is irrelevant: this particular statistic, and drawing attention to it, is not racist, but factual. One only makes it racial by using it (or misusing it) to make generalized statements about the alleged superiority of one group over another.

Racism is not pointing out strengths or tendencies of certain cultures, as Reggie White was excoriated for doing. In March 1998 testifying before the Wisconsin state legislature White punted to several stereotypes when he said that Asians are gifted at “creativity,” blacks are gifted at worship and Hispanics are gifted at “family structure.” Were his generalizations accurate? Maybe. Were they appropriate? Probably not. Is he a racist for what he said? Absolutely not!

More recently, triple jumper Voula Papachristou was kicked off the 2012 Greek Olympic team on account of an allegedly racist comment when she tweeted: “With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!” Was it a “racist” comment that asserted the inherent inferiority or superiority of one race or another? Not at all. I’m defending her, nor assessing whether it was right or not for her to be expelled from the team. I’m just saying, let’s call the comment what it is, namely stupid, inappropriate, unnecessary, classless, rather than call it something that it is clearly not, namely, racist.

Speaking of the Olympics, how about the flack that NBC received for what some consider a racist segue? Commenting on Gabby Douglas’s gold-medal efforts, Bob Costas summarized, “There’s some young African-American girls out there who tonight are saying to themselves, ‘I’d like to try that too’.” The next commercial features black hands reaching up to a pair of gymnastic still rings, and as the camera pulls back, it is revealed that those hands belong to a monkey. In any other context, this commercial would have been charming and completely innocuous. After Costas’ comments, the juxtaposition was a bit awkward at absolute worst. Yet the race baiters are quick to call this segue a clear sign of racism, and a YouTube post claims, “NBC Air An Extremely Racist Commercial After Gabby Douglas Olympics Gold Medal” (in the last week this particular post has been mysteriously taken down, so I’ll send you, instead, to the slightly less emphatic YouTube post, “NBC Air Racist Monkey Commercial After Gabby Douglas Olympics Gold Medal”).

To hurt or kill someone of another race is also not racism. It is murder, regardless of the intent. And let me simplify the “intent” issue: someone either kills someone else in self-defense, or because of selfishness (such as greed), or because of hatred. Therefore, why does color-of-skin even factor into the situation at all? Describing a crime as being motivated by racial hate implies that the other kinds of hate are better or more acceptable. The “racist” shouters nowadays would have us believe racially motivated crimes are worse than crimes motivated by greed or selfishness or any other vice, making “racism” the worst vice of all.

And what many simply cannot get straight is that criticism against President Obama is not racially motivated. I don’t dislike Obama as a president because he’s black; I dislike Obama as our president because of his harmful big-government policies, his inexperience, and his obvious ineptitude. He could be white, Asian, or purple, for all I care, but none of that would change the way I think about his policies.

What went on in the Trayvon Martin incident was less about race, and more about using race to strut and pose, like Jackson and Sharpton did. For those men, I have a few questions that I believe get to the core of their own racist tendencies:

Isn’t portraying your own race to be victims (again, solely on the basis of race) in itself racist?

And what about the conspicuously-absent outrage when a young white or Hispanic man is killed? Where is the “Disenfranchised Duo” then? When outrage is demonstrated only when black people are the victims of crime, isn’t that racist?

More broadly, someone please explain why reparations (yes, some are still calling for them!) and affirmative action are not simply examples of racial discrimination but in reverse! Affirmative action is racist because it gives preference to one race under the assumption that it is more inherently deserving than another race. Or worse, it gives preference to one specific race because individuals within that demographic are deemed to be inferior and unable to achieve success on their own!! I would frankly be both humiliated and insulted to be the “beneficiary” of affirmative action. Whether affirmative action is deemed necessary because it perceives one group as superior or as inferior, either way, it is racially motivated.

I know that there were busloads of people from here in Atlanta who drove to Florida to shout “racism” after Trayvon Martin’s death. I would honestly like to ask each of these people if they would have got in a bus with a herd of strangers and driven for hours if the victim were someone of Asian descent, or Hispanic descent, or of European descent? The slightest hesitation before obligatorily answering “yes” would betray the lingering presence of racism in our country, especially by those who huddle under its banner.

Call me naïve, but I would like to see people, despite their ethnic background, united in opposition to injustice, to horrific killings, to youth violence (violence done by and to young people) no matter what the color of the victim’s skin and regardless of the intent of the perpetrator’s heart.

So agree or disagree? I really would like to know what you think! Feel free to send any courteous and civil e-mails about this topic and article to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll keep this dialog going. Or, you can post on our Facebook page and get some discussion going there!

WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Issue

The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting between prominent Protestant Reformers from October 1-4 in the year 1529 (see our first article in this series in the June/ July 2012 edition for some of the historical background to this meeting). This was twelve years after Martin Luther posted his famous 95 Theses in 1517, which is commonly considered the founding of the German Protestant Reformation. The Marburg Colloquy was an attempt to forge unity among Protestant leaders, because the cohesion of the Reformation was threatened by their disagreement over one primary issue. Interpretative disagreements regarding this issue caused an especially bitter war of wors between Luther on one hand and Ulrich Zwingli, Johannes Oecolampadius and Martin Bucer on the other. Philipp I, prince of the German province of Hesse, therefore arranged this meeting at Marburg so that the Reformers could resolve their differences.

It is momentous that Luther and Zwingli and the other Reformers agreed on as much as they did at Marburg. They recognized several problems with the medieval Roman Catholic Church, such as indulgences, excessive papal authority, and priestly abuses. The Reformers championed the doctrine of salvation by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ alone, along with other beliefs such as the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers. Yet regarding this one doctrine, they could find no harmony.

The chief issue at the Marburg Colloquy was the doctrine of the Eucharist (a.k.a., Communion, the Lord’s Table). Eucharist is one of seven important rites according to Roman Catholics and one of two sacraments (or, ordinances) for most Protestants. It recalls the final meal that Christ had with his disciples before his crucifixion, and this “Last Supper” is regularly reenacted by many churches (see what is commonly considered the “words of institution” of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27). Confessing Christians partake in unleavened bread and wine (or grape juice in many denominations) to reflect the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion and death.

A view of the Eucharistic known as “transubstantiation” developed during the middle ages and was accepted as dogma at the Roman Catholic Church’s Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Proponents of this view assert that the bread and wine actually become the physical body and blood of Christ and they literally interpret Jesus’ phrase “This is my body” (Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24). Medieval churchmen who believed in transubstantiation also literally interpreted Jesus’ statement, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (from John 6:54; significantly, the context of this statement is after the feeding of 5,000 in John 6:1-13). Exegetically, the failure to see the figure-of-speech in these verses is odd; this hyper-literal interpretative method is applied inconsistently relative to similar metaphorical statements of Jesus, such as, “I am the bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:41; cf., vv 48, 51), “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7; cf., v. 9), or “I am the true vine” (John 15:1; cf., v. 5). That is, interpreters don’t believe that Jesus is actually a door and in reality a vine, and yet, they literally interpret the similarly figurative statement, “This is my body.”

Again, Luther, Zwingli and other Protestant leaders concurred on most significant points of doctrine and agreed that medieval Catholicism’s view transubstantiation was not Biblical. However, they disagreed with each other ardently regarding which view of communion the Protestant Reformation should formally espouse. In the next article in this series we will explore the multiple views of communion held by the Reformers and what additional socio-political trappings accompanied each of those views.

POLITICS: In Your Own Words

We are ultimately judged not by how others twist and misinterpret our words, but by our own words themselves.

I would like to examine President Obama’s own words, to provide some fair context to them, and then consider how these scripted and unscripted statements reveal a true and frightening picture of Obama’s ideology and ambition.

At an exclusive Democratic San Francisco fundraiser on April 6, 2008, then senator Barak Obama started picking on folks in Pennsylvania, and by extension, a large percent of the population of the United States, for whom Obama failed to hide his disdain. Describing his perception of the hard-headedness of those of us in the working class, he stated, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” I’ll allow Obama to be rightfully excoriated by Hillary Clinton herself (see video here), who in no uncertain terms, recognized that “Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them.”

Another revealing moment in the 2008 campaign was Obama’s “spread the wealth” statement. When confronted by the man now dubbed “Joe the Plumber” (a.k.a., Joe Wurzelbacher) about excessive taxation, Obama lapsed into a revealing socialist moment. Obama tried to convince Joe that under his tax plan, Joe would have saved more money sooner and built his business faster. What he says less directly, however, is that Joe would have thus entered into a higher tax bracket more quickly and thus had to be paying more taxes more quickly and that money would be going to others less successful than himself!

Obama tries to assure Joe and those listening by saying, “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.” Then he infamously states, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” This “bottom-up” mentality is not only directly opposed to Reagan’s successful “trickle-down” economics, but it is also in lock-step with the typical Marxist and socialist understanding of economics. That mentality hasn’t worked in any country, and it sure isn’t working here in ours. More of the conversation between Joe and Obama can be found here and video snippets can be found here.

These are not mere gaffes along the election trail; they are statements from Obama’s own mind, without the teleprompters, that betray an ideology that he unapologetically wanted to communicate to potential voters. In fact, Obama’s continued skepticism toward free markets and the trickle-down theory was revealed in his more recent December 6, 2011 speech in Osawatomie, Kansas (see full transcript here). He admonishes those who believe that if successful people do well that “jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.” He admitted that this “simple theory . . . speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government” (which, by the way, are ideals and attitudes embraced by our Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and by the Framers of the Constitution!). But then Obama declares, “But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work.” To be clear, the “it” to which he refers is the aforementioned theory that champions “rugged individualism” and a “skepticism of too much government.” He urges for a society that will “restore balance, restore fairness” (he uses a derivative of the word “fair” at least fifteen times in this speech!). His desire for a Marxist-style revolution is revealed when he says, “In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.” This may sound nice, but the ominous phrase, “take some responsibility” means that he intends to tax the tar out of those who have enjoyed the pursuit of freedom, personal happiness and financial success. The Obama-nation is one where, indeed, the wealthy are punished and those less successful or less entrepreneurial are rewarded, and, in many cases, where those who don’t work at all are given a segment of the wealth of those who work very hard. That is, Obama’s socialist “share the wealth” mentality was not just a mistake along the way back on the trail in 2008, but rather, it remains fundamental to how he views economic and social theory.

We have many more examples of what Obama believes in his own words. There are so many scary statements that we’re just going to have to save some of them for a future edition. The question now, however, is, Do we want four more years of someone who looks down on average Americans (and their guns and religion!) and who intends to seize the wealth of the successful and hand it to those who have not earned and don’t deserve it?

So, what do you think of these remarks that are in Obama’s own words? Let us know by sending us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com! Or, you can post on The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page and we can all interact there!

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Condition and Blessing, Joel 2:14

Who knows? He may turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, A gift and a drink offering for the Lord your God.

The book of Joel describes the destructive effects of a locust infestation in Judah. These locusts, however, merely prefigure an even worse invasion upon Judah by the Babylonian army. The Babylonian invasion is portrayed in Joel 1 as an unconditional declaration and an inevitable event that the Lord would allow to happen because of his people’s rebellion.

Yet, following the creedal recitation in Joel 2:13 of God’s characteristic love and mercy, the prophet suggests that the seemingly unconditional declarations of divine judgment, for which Joel himself had been the mouthpiece, may indeed be conditional after all. Occasionally OT people assumed or hoped that there was indeed a conditional element to a divine declaration. That is, they hoped that they could do something to turn aside God’s anger (at least temporary) and that their own repentance would serve as a condition after which God would demonstrate his mercy. Some in the OT even hoped for the possibility of reprieve from God’s judgment even when a declaration of divine judgment did not contain a condition (2 Sam 12:22; Jonah 3:9). This assumption was not based on a sense that God was whimsical or indecisive, but that God was much more interested in showering mercy upon penitent people than he was in judging the sinner (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11).

Joel hopes for condition and contingency when he recited liturgical truths about God in Joel 2:13: Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity. Again, these specific assertions about God had taken a creedal status and are used together, with minor variations, in Ex 34:6; Neh 9:17, Ps 86:15, 103:8, 145:8 and Jonah 4:2.

After referring to man’s need to repent in light of God’s judgment and mercy, Joel states in 2:14: “Who knows,” which suggests the absence of a stated condition, but the assumption that conditionality may exist. Interestingly, though Joel had been communicating God’s judgments to the Jews, the prophet himself does not know whether these utterances were conditional or unconditional. Either way, repentance is in order (vv. 12-13a). If the people repent and the destruction continues, they have at least responded properly to divine rebuke, no matter what the ultimate cost. However, when God sees the genuine repentance of his people, he may employ an unstated conditionality, and choose not to complete the destruction that he initiated.

In light of the uncertain sense introduced by “Who knows,” it is best to translate the verbs in this verse using the subjunctive mood (“he may”) rather than the indicative mood (“he will”), since there is no difference in form between the two in Hebrew. Joel suggests that God “may turn” (the Hebrew word shuv), which refers to altering his course of action in light of the response of his people. The clear meaning of this word as it was used in vv. 12 and 13 was to “repent” or “change from a course of calamity to good.” Joel is pointing out the reciprocal nature of “turning”: when believers turn to God in repentance, God may turn from destruction. Similar wordplay is used in Hosea 13 where the prophet urges his audience to “turn” to the Lord (vv. 2-3) and in response, God will “turn” from his anger. The word nacham, “to relent” or “to change one’s mind” is even stronger. Joel has just reiterated from the creedal formula in v. 13 that it is typical of God to “adjust his course regarding calamity,” and passages like Jeremiah 18:1-10 and Ezekiel 18:21-23 provide a broader doctrinal base for that assertion. Building on that theological foundation, Joel asserts that God may express mercy in this particular particular situation and cease from the divine devastation caused by the relentless locust invasion.

Having described the possibility that God may turn aside from his current course of deserved destruction upon his people, Joel asserts that God may even turn to his people in a benevolent way. Joel declares that after relenting from destruction, God may “leave behind him a blessing.” Leslie C. Allen suggests that a later passage in Joel 2:19-27 is a commentary on what that “blessing” may look like, and those verses focus primarily on material goodness related to the fruitfulness of the land (in contrast to the desolation of the land described in Joel chapters 1 and 2). The words in the next line of 2:14, “gift” (or “grain offering”) and “drink offering,” affirm the material and agricultural nature of the blessing. Yet these will be “for the Lord your God.” Joel seems to be picturing a reversal of the situation described earlier where people were not bringing their gifts and drink offerings before the Lord (1:9, 13). This itself was caused directly by the locust invasion, which was a punishment upon the spiritual condition of the people. They did not sufficiently honor the Lord by bringing offerings to the temple, so they were rendered unable to do so. Thus, the potential blessing is a reversal of this situation: instead of locusts following the Lord (2:11), a blessing will follow (2:19) which will allow the people to bring offerings to the Lord.

Even when not stated, there is frequently an opportunity for mortal repentance in God’s declarations of judgment. In Joel 2:14, the prophet appeals to that possible, unstated condition and envisions the divine compassion and potential fruitfulness that may follow human repentance.

EMERGING CONCERNS: Manifestly Lacking

I recently had the opportunity to read portions of a 2008 book entitled An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, written by a variety of emergent authors and edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. I found this book, its methodology, its attention (or inattention!) to Christian doctrine, and its epistemology to be quite lacking. What follows is not so much a book review but just some of the odder quotes from the book that are troubling in light of a work that set out to help define the emergent movement.

Consider one author describing her “conversion”: “I was always looking for ways to encounter God, to feel that luminous Presence in my life. It’s interesting that I can say I am a Christian today because of a Hindu meditation master. She taught me some things that Christians had not. She taught me to meditate, to sit in silence and openness in the presence of God. She taught me to love God, which allowed me to experience God’s love for me. She also taught me to honor Jesus and suggested that Jesus could teach me. She provided the divine touch through a human hand and showed me how to be an active participant in my own spiritual life” (Nanette Sawyer, “What Would Huckleberry Do? A Relational Ethic as the Jesus Way, p. 44). This language is disturbingly new-age-ish; I can point out dozens of contemporary new-age examples that describe interaction with God (or “god” or “goddess”?) in the same way. Similar new-age nuances from this Manifesto can be seen in the following: “Perhaps interest in theologies of the kingdom of God is related to the contemporary quest for holism, integration, and a sense of interconnection. My colleague, Dr. Linda Bergquist, has suggested that renewed popularity of the ‘kingdom’ language is related to the emerging global narrative of the deep ecology movement—a consciousness and awareness that everything matters and is somehow interdependent” (Mark Scandrette, “Growing Pains: The Messy and Fertile Process of Becoming,” p. 27).

As we have pointed out previously, emergent authors seem to have little interest in preserving historic Christianity and more interest in breaking it: “It would not be the first time that God has broken out of religion, which carries his message, and done something new. If God found it good for his followers to break out of the confines of a religion two millennia ago, why should we expect God not to do such a thing in our time? Maybe Christianity should be thinned out and broken up, spent like Christ who gave himself for this world” (Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness: Finding Our God in the Other,” p. 199). As we argued in our last installment in this series, it is not Christianity that needs to be broken, but rather, those who claim to adhere to it, but do so poorly. We quoted from this same chapter by Selmanovic back in an article in our the December 2011 edition and noted his statement: “Can it be that the teachings of the gospel are embedded and can be found in reality itself rather than being exclusively isolated in sacred texts and our interpretations of those texts? If the answer is yes, can it be that they are embedded in other stories, other peoples’ histories, and even other religions?” (p. 192).

Falsely attributed racism seems to be all the rage nowadays (see our article on racism above). Crying “racism,” whether such claims are valid or not, is a cheap way to gain attention and undermine an individual or institution. Being as linked to culture as they are, it should not surprise us to see prominent emergent leaders exploiting popular race-slander techniques. Emerging granddaddy Brian McLaren relates a “haunting question” that recently struck him: “What are we in the so-called emerging churches seeking to emerge from? . . . We are seeking to emerge from modern Western Christianity, from colonial Christianity, from Christianity as a ‘white man’s religion.’ ” (“Church Emerging: Or Why I still Use the Word Postmodern but with Mixed Feelings,” p. 149). He goes on to assert that many white Europeans are distancing themselves from Christianity because “they do not want to be part of a white man’s religion either” (ibid.). Another author in this volume describes the need for “racial penance” in American churches (Anthony Smith, “Practicing Pentecost: Discovering the Kingdom of God amid Racial Fragmentation,” pp. 284-286), which, to me, sounds like a baptized version of reparations. Again, McLaren declares: “Here in the United States we see large sectors of the Christian community associated with American hyperconfidence, white privilege, institutional racism, civil religion, neocolonialism, and nationalistic militarism” (p. 148).

These are astonishing and disturbing statements that bear little resemblance to the facts. A poll of 35,000 people conducted by the Pew Research Center (released in 2008, the same year the above ignorant statements were published) demonstrated that 78% of African-Americans identify with a Protestant church of some kind and another 5% identify with Catholicism. The study also finds that 79% of African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives whereas only 56% of U.S. adults said the same thing. These cheap shots about racism seem especially silly in light of the fact that an African-American man, Fred Luter Jr., was just elected as president of the largest protestant branch in America, namely, the Southern Baptist Church (a denomination originally founded in 1845 on racial premises that it has long since abandoned). I do not deny that racial issues exist in every aspect of our society, including in churches. However, I resent that a prominent emergent leader would look at Western Christianity and see only a “white man’s religion” from which he longs to escape.

In light of all my criticism of emergent authors, I was very grateful to read the following in this Manifesto: “We can hold certain beliefs as truth and not feel arrogant or close-minded when we do. Yes, there is mystery and, yes, there are a lot of unknowns, but we can still confidently say we do know certain things that God revealed to us (see John 8:32; 14:6). Holding to doctrine is critically important . . . . I am not ashamed nor do I feel ‘unemerging’ in saying that I hold to and will even defend some core or fundamental beliefs” (Dan Kimball, “Humble Theology: Re-exploring Doctrine While Holding On to Truth,” p. 223). Emergents seem to think that strong doctrinal affirmations signal epistemological arrogance (see our article “EMERGENT CONCERNS: Epistemology And Burgers” in the September 2011 edition). Kimball strives for a balance that allows believers to adhere to orthodox doctrine firmly, yet humbly, and yet still be able to explore it, question and constantly evaluate it according to Scriptural truth.

I had access to a digitized version of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, so I decided to search for how often certain words were used. (The astute reader will remember that we discussed a similar statistical method to evaluate texts used in worship in both the September 2011 and the October 2011 editions). I found that the word “Trinity,” one of the most significant and fundamental teachings of Christianity, was only used once (practically at the end, on page 298). The word “cross” was used 10 times, but several of these instances were in the phrases “cross-cultural” and “cross-dressing,” and the word “Calvary” was not used at all. The term “propitiation” was not used, and the “atonement” of Christ was only mentioned 4 times (pp. 198, 210, 216, 222). Three of these occurrences were supplied by the same author (Dan Kimball, mentioned above); it is somewhat sad that more emergent authors are not describing the atonement or propitiation of Christ, but it does give me some hope that there was at least one author in this compendium who was not ashamed of Biblical doctrine. The word “inspiration” is used 5 times in this book, but three times of an artistic or emotional inspiration. The two times the word is used of the inspiration of Scripture are again from the pen of our newest hero, Dan Kimball.

For a movement that hails its knowledge of and connection to church history (especially the ancient church), this book’s utilization of the guidance provided by historic Christianity was supremely and dangerously lacking. The Manifesto refers to the seminal Nicene Creed of 325 only three times, once neutrally, and twice by the same author positively (pp. 159, 215, 216, these later instances are by Dan Kimball). Augustine, Anselm and A’Kempis were not mentioned at all, though Aquinas was referred to once (p. 155). Martin Luther was mentioned only once, John Calvin also received one mention, though his name was used almost pejoratively. The book skips the great pastors and theologians of the First Great Awakening in the mid-1700s, such as Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield. However, the book positively mentions Charles Finney, the chief personality of the so-called Second Great Awakening (early 1800s), who promoted a method-driven evangelism and practically a works-oriented salvation. The authors in this book appeal favorably to more recent historical figures who are often considered to be theologically questionable such as Walter Rauschenbusch, William Seymour and Karl Barth.

I intend to investigate this work more, but in the end, I find this Manifesto more riddled with human philosophy and significantly lacking in Christian truth.

Have you read or heard any odd statements by emergent authors, or anything that sounds somewhat emergent-ish? We would love to hear them; send what you've heard to feedback@eclectickasper.com, o you can post on our Facebook page and we'll discuss it there!

AMERICAN PANTHEON: The Super-Craze of Superhero Films

Modern superheroes and supervillains are like the Olympian gods of our day. They are a pantheon of virtues and vices, a canvass upon which a society projects its own aspirations and fears, joys and discouragements.

In the book It’s So French: Hollywood, Paris, and the Making of Cosmopolitan Film Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) Vanessa Schwartz describes the two-way cultural exchange of cinema between Paris and Hollywood during the 1950s and 60s. Over half-a-century ago the Motion Picture Association of America saw the potential for film to create interests and meanings among broad groups of people: “The community of film spectators is a symbol of the world community yet to come” (quoted in Schwartz, p. 160). Films created an international and “cosmopolitan” film culture that was shared by many people in different countries and continents. Schwartz believes that investigating film can create a “critical axis of analysis” (ibid., p. 6) and that the movies of a period reflects broader social and cultural realities. The epic films of the 50s and 60s, such as Around the World In Eighty Days, The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, were especially significant because they created a “canon of important texts, events, and legends” (ibid., p. 197).

Similarly, superhero films over the twentieth century, and especially over the last two decades reflect significant legends and ideals in American culture and provides a critical way to analyze American society.

The impact and influence of the modern superhero genre is undeniable. Of the top one hundred grossing movies of all time eight are explicitly superhero movies (such as Batman, Iron Man, Spider-man) and twenty others feature characters that conform closely to a superhero trope, specifically, individuals with extra-mortal powers (such as in Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Matrix or The Twilight Saga) (see “All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses,” from the website Box Office Mojo). An additional twelve flicks on the top one hundred grossing movies list center around individuals with extra-normal capacities of strength, expertise, intelligence or ability such that they come close to the superhero genre (Shrek, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, Men in Black).

The last decade has seen a significant resurgence in superhero cinema. Between 1991 and 2001 only about one superhero movie per year reached the annual top 100 grossing movies. Since 2002, that average has gone from one to three superhero blockbusters per year (taken from rankings of highest grossing movies per year at Box Office Mojo). Four of the top 100 movies in the year 2008 were superhero films, three of which were in the top four (The Dark Knight at #1, Iron Man at #2 and Hancock at #4). The year 2011 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), The Green Hornet (#32). The summer of 2012 itself presents the American culture with the more Avengers, Batman, and Spiderman. One wonders if turn-of-the-millennium anxiety and perhaps even the events of September 11, 2001 created such an interest and surge in this genre since 2002. However, despite of the specific cause, this resurgence makes superhero films a significant “axis of analysis.” As with It’s So French! superhero films demonstrate how a society values superheroes and the transcendent virtues they exemplify.

So what does this new super-craze of superhero films say about us. First, it reflects the existence of a significant gap in our national psyche: We long for heroes, and there seem to be few left other than the ones that we make up and recycle. Perhaps in decades past there were enough real cultural icons whom we could admire even if we didn’t always agree with all they believed or did: John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan, Michael Jordan. Into the increasing void of meaningful civic, military, athletic and even religious champions we inject panoply of fictional characters. We suspend our sense of plausibility and accept an alien with super-powers and rich playboys who dress up either in metal suits or as bats and we embrace these stories simply because we are desperate for heroes.

The plethora of recent superhero films also tells us of the endurance of the mythology that surrounds these legends and vigilantes. From the Man-of-Steel’s first incarnation in 1938 to the impressive ten year run of the recently-concluded TV show Smallville, the Superman mythos speaks meaningfully to multiple generations of fans. And, as with the Olympian deities, these characters will always be recast to reflect the tastes and temperaments of American society, or at least, of Hollywood.

Superhero films reflect a plethora of inconsistencies about our society as well. For example, many Americans oppose the death penalty for criminals. However, rarely do antagonists and super-villains survive the climactic conflict at the end of a superhero movie. Apparently, death sentences that result from vigilantism are far more acceptable than judicially driven capital punishment. Though the death of villains is frequently the result of the antagonists’ own actions, the audience is nevertheless treated to the literary satisfaction of a completely vanquished (i.e., dead) super-adversary.

As we will discuss in future installments of “American Pantheon,” superhero movies demonstrate other social inconstancies especially about gender and race as well. Suffice it to say for now, the super-craze of superhero flicks reflects both the longings for true heroism in our culture as well as some of our society’s own quirks and idiosyncrocaties.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: You got somethin’ to say?

Hey you . . . yeah you!

You talkin’ at me?

You readin’ my web journal?

You got somthin’ to say?

Well, SAY IT!

Give me some feedback at feedback@eclectickasper.com . . .

. . . or else!