AUGUST 2015

    Robisheaux purports to write a “microhistory,” which he describes as “a method that explores events on the small scale in which people experience everyday life” (13). He suggests that this resembles a “social drama” . . . “that a small society undergoes when a crisis suddenly breaks out” (13). Indeed, the detail and research of Last Witch is extraordinary, providing a thorough presentation of this trial, the events leading up to it, as well as the broader cultural assumptions that motivated the actions of its participants.    The town of Hürden was shaken when a young mother named Anna Fessler died after she had eaten a Strovetide cake that was allegedly baked by Anna Schmieg and delivered to her by Anna’s married daughter Eva Küstner. The ensuing investigation absorbed the attentions of anatomist Moritz Hofmann, jurist Johann Wolfgang Textor, Langenburg town steward Georg Friedrich Assum, Court preacher Ludwig Casimir Dietzel, and chief counselor Tobias Ulrich von Gülchen; that is, this isolated event immediately had broad consequences in the lives of many individuals in the Langenburg area.

    The trials of Anna Schmieg and Eva Küstner consume most of this story. These trials are in many ways less about how the governing authorities provided justice and individual rights, and more about how they maintained order and “virtue.” Robisheaux frequently portrays this trial not in terms of the authorities arriving at fact, but of the process by which they confirm their assumption that Schmieg was guilty of witchcraft. “The government intended to ferret out the spiritual and religious roots of her sins along with exposing and prosecuting any crimes that might come to light” (327). This effort is incarnated in chief counselor Tobias von Gülchen who saw “the administration of the law through the lens of Lutheran penitential theology” (327). Robisheaux notes that after ongoing efforts, often including torture, to procure a confession from Anna Schmieg, “von Gülchen still did not have the answers he sought” and he reflected on the testimonies he had heard “to get at the truth that still eluded him” (212).

    Many details about Anna Schmieg’s life are revealed through her trial, including feelings of abandonment from the passing of her parents as well as deaths of seven of her nine children before they reached adulthood (110, 119). Her life was a network of difficult relationships with neighbors, as well as with religious and political authorities. The mill itself that was so central to Anna and her husband Hans’ livelihood also played a part in the drama. The state, the community, and the family all shared interest in the mill and its productivity; thus it occasionally elicited feelings of suspicion, envy and rivalry. The mill was laden with a variety of emotions, from Anna’s garden that even became important to her granddaughter Margaretha, to the social notion that the mill may have been contaminated by the morally ambiguous, and perhaps even devilish, actions of its curators.

    Whether Anna Schmieg’s confession – arrived at through interrogation and torture – was genuine or manipulated is difficult to truly know. While the mechanics of the trial seem at times barbaric and unfair, it was consistent with the legal and religious notions of leaders at the time. Anna Schmieg and Barbara Schleicher, another individual accused of witchcraft, were executed in November 1672, the last women condemned for witchcraft in Langenburg. Again, the concern of the state was not necessarily the justice of the case nor the rights of individual citizens. Authorities had a composite of political and religious concerns: to maintain order, to impose virtue, and to save souls: “The state showed its power to apply the law, restore justice, and punish the guilty. And citizens were invited to watch the drama of salvation. A public execution was a sermon in action” (303). In fact, even after her death, the description – and perhaps demonization – of her life was retold and reprinted to legitimize the state’s power and actions (327).

    The execution of Anna, however, was not the end of the troubles for the family, as both her husband Hans and her daughter Eva were brought up on charges of witchcraft and sorcery. Hans and Michael (Eva’s husband and Anna’s son-in-law) escaped from jail, though rumors and threats of their return and revenge continued to haunt the village. Eva, perhaps the most innocent one in the family, also suffered some long-range effects by being banished from the region. Robisheaux notes, however, that the memory of Anna Schmieg was resurrected by German novelists and playwrights in the first half of the twentieth century. Instead of being demonized, Anna was used to symbolize a virtuous and sacrificial woman amidst the masculine tropes of the Weimar Republic and the early Nazi regime. 

    Like Philipp Blom’s Enlightening the World, John Merriman’s The Dynamite Club or Frederic Morton’s A Nervous Splendor, Robisheaux’s work reads like a novel. And like these other works, it exhibits extensive research into archives, legal documents, and other historical and theological literature, yielding a textured and dramatic account. This book, however, really reminded me of Jean-Denis Bredin’s The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, another very gripping work about a complicated trial. As with the Dreyfus family, I had walked with the Schmieg family through both the available facts, the raw emotions, and the legal and circumstantial ambiguity they endured. I had done more than read an interesting and compelling history; I had empathized with their sad fates that may have been caused by someone’s duplicity or that may have been nothing more than an accident. 

ROMANS: Bearing Fruit Among the Gentiles (Romans 1:11-14)

    I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong-- that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish (1:11-14, NIV).

    We have already seen Paul’s affection for his audience and in Romans 1:11-14 we see his desire to be with them and his motives for wanting to bear fruit among the Gentiles.

    In vese 11 Paul expresses his deep desire to see the Romans for the sake of their spiritual benefit. The word “for” (gar) reflects the reason for this desire that was expressed in the previous verse. He says that he “longed” to see them. The word expresses a deep desire and it is used in a similar fashion in 2 Cor 5:2, Phil 1:8, 2 Tim 1:4, Jas 4:5, and 1 Pet 2:2.

    He then mentions the further reason for that longing (the Greek word ina is a conjunction pointing to a reason or purpose). The verb metadidomi means “to impart” or “to share,” and is used both of sharing material resources (Luke 3:11; Rom 12:8; Eph 4:28), as well as personal or spiritual resources (such as in 1 Thess 2:8). It seems to include the sense of obligatory as well as sacrificial giving.

    Paul continues in v. 11 by mentioning the opportunity to impart “some spiritual gift.” He provides a broader discussion of spiritual gifts in Rom 12:6-8, and an even longer discussion of them in 1 Cor 12 and 14. He encourages Timothy to not neglect his spiritual giftedness (1 Tim 4:14) and later to “fan the flame” of the gift that he was given when Paul laid hands on him (2 Tim 1:6).

    The 2 Tim 1:6 passage as well as Rom 1:11 indicate that during the early spread of the Gospel and during Paul’s ministry, spiritual gifts were sometimes given through the Apostles as a way of highlighting the Apostolic authority in the early church. Perhaps the Roman believers had not had the benefit of this impartation of spiritual gifts, and Paul is eager for them to benefit from his unique presence and authority. Leon Morris argues that even with the qualification of “spiritual,” the word charisma, “gift,” need not refer only to the formal “spiritual gifts” (Morris, Romans, 60). They could refer to general gifts of a spiritual nature, such as God’s gift of grace and eternal life (Rom 5:15-16; 6:23, and maybe 11:29); in this case, Paul would not, of course, be imparting the gift of eternal life, but he would be imparting more knowledge about it. Perhaps, Paul is even referring here to the ability to use his own spiritual gifts, where “imparting some spiritual gift” is equivalent to “imparting the effects of his own (and not inconsiderable!) spiritual giftedness.”

    Paul uses a grammatical construction at the end of this verse to indicate purpose or goal (the preposition eis before an infinitive verb). The end goal of this sharing is that the Roman believers would be strengthened spiritually. The word sterizo means “to strengthen, make firm, establish” or “to fix, set up.” It is related to the word aster, or “star,” an object fixed in the sky relative to other objects (such as the moon or planets). The verb sterizo is used in the NT of Jesus’ own resolve for accomplishing God’s will (Luke 9:51) and, similarly, of something that is “fixed” and, therefore, both unmovable and unable to be overcome (Luke 16:26). It is used in terms of some believers strengthening other believers (Luke 22:32; Rom 1:11; 1 Thess 3:2; 2 Pet 1:12), of the strengthening that believers should do for their own faith (Jas 5:8; Rev 3:2) or of God Himself establishing and strengthening the faith of believers (Rom 16:25; 1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Pet 5:10). In Rom 1:11, Paul wants this strengthening and establishing for the Roman believers, especially in light of the truths they need to learn and the difficulties that they would endure.

    Paul continues in v. 12 to assert that his desire to visit the Romans is not for his benefit, but for mutual benefit. The verb sumparakaleomai means “to be encouraged together” and is used only here in the NT. As a passive verb, it probably suggests that Paul intends a mutually beneficial interaction where the believers are able “to encourage one another.” Surely, Paul and his associates can be encouraged to see the faith of the Romans first hand, and to use their spiritual gifts in the Roman church’s midst (v. 11). Reciprocally, the Romans can benefit from the ministry of Paul and his associates so that the believers in Rome can grow in their young faith even as they encounter divisions and trials.

    The dynamic of mutual exchange that takes place between believers is to be mutually beneficial, and should deplete no believer of personal, spiritual, or emotional resources, at least, not in the long term. A healthy church and healthy interaction between believers must be reciprocally edifying and should assist, though perhaps not in equal measure, in the growth of all participants in their faith.

    Paul admits in v. 13 that he had hoped to come earlier to the believers in Rome, but was “hindered.” He again reveals one of his purposes for such a visit: to bear fruit among the gentile believers. Fruit is the external result of what is occurring in someone’s mind and spirit. Paul refers to “fruit” elsewhere in Romans (7:4, 5; 8:23; 15:28) and he also discusses how we can evidence our own yieldedness to the Spirit when we exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Paul wanted to bear fruit among the Roman believers and help them grow and flourish in their faith,and this was his attitude toward all of the Gentiles that he had the privilege of ministering to. In fact, in v. 14, he asserts that he had a spiritual debt to serve all people in light of the grace that he had been given. 

    In many ways, believers today are positioned to continue Paul’s work of bearing fruit among the Gentiles, as well as among unbelieving Jews. And where Paul was at times “hindered,” modern believers usually have greater mobility and ability to access believers and unbelievers in person and online. Believers have the opportunity to carry out Paul’s mission to an even greater degree: to bear fruit among the Gentiles by using our gifts to proclaim the gospel to them, disciple them in their faith, and help them grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ.

POLITICS: Trump’s Most Critical Quality

    I have really shocked some people lately by expressing my support for Trump as president. I suspect that some are surprised because Trump is not exactly a crusader for moral and Biblical principles. They assume that I would not appreciate Trump’s alleged ruthlessness and candor.

    But Trump brings a quality that we rarely see in presidential candidates. And I believe that this is a quality that our country desperately needs now.

    There are several qualities that we hope a presidential candidate would demonstrate. For instance, we would like an individual who is relatively moral. And while many in the evangelical camp would like to have a Bible-believing bastion of godliness as their president, the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim. 

    Another quality is that we want an individual who is driven by an ideology, and for the GOP, we want someone who understands and supports conservative principles. We want a streamlined (and less expensive!) government, a more efficient environment for businesses large and small, less taxation and government intrusion, and more freedom for states and individuals.

    There are other qualities, too, that are important for picking a president. Voters want someone who is competent; that is, not just someone who talks about what he would like to do, but who has a track record and a great deal of experience doing in other fields or smaller venues what she or he says they will do for the country. Another trait that many voters look for is charisma: a strength of character in a candidate, a passion for what they say, and humor and personality are helpful, too.    In the past, I would have been happy for a president who is a great leader with strong morals, a consistent ideology, experience, a good personality, and some humor. But given the dire situation of our country right now and the many economic and international challenges we face, I believe that what we require above all is competence. We need someone who not only knows what the problems are but who can provide good solutions and carry them out, or “execute” them (as in, the “executive” branch).

    Of course, competence must be propped up by these other values as well. Someone recently reminded me that Hitler was competent, so competence alone is not enough. The GOP candidate must also be experienced and obviously conservative. And of course, there is an electability issue, so there needs to be a measure of acceptable decency and charisma, as well.

    I believe that Trump has these things, but above all, he is competent and can help to fix some of our big problems, to make international deals that will benefit the U.S., and to project a strength that we have lacked for a long time. I believe that he, more than any of the other candidates, embodies a conservative and capitalistic ideology but also a rugged practicality.

    What does the rugged practicality of an extraordinarily competent person look like? Think about the heat Don took for his response to the first question at the GOP debate. Candidates were asked if they would thoughtlessly pledge to support whatever GOP candidate emerged and to guarantee that they would not run on a third party ticket. Trump alone had the courage to recognize that this was not only a supremely childish way to begin a debate, but it was also a ridiculous ploy to make the candidates paint themselves into a corner. He admitted in the debate that he had respect for some of the other candidates but he was not willing to agree to some kind of pledge. It was an amateurish ruse, and Trump alone was smart enough and practical enough to not fall for it.

    Another incident provides an glimpse into the impressive mind of a ruggedly practical conservative.

    For the last few weeks many have been rabidly calling for the defunding and elimination of Planned Parenthood, and I see the wisdom in this effort.

    In one interview, Trump was asked if he would defund Planned Parenthood. This was a softball question, one to which any other candidate would have mindlessly responded, “Heck, yes!” But Trump’s response was both thoughtful and humble. He didn’t jump to the extreme and say that PP should be shut down. He affirmed that he doesn’t believe that tax-payers should be funding abortions, but he wanted to see what benefits, if any, Planned Parenthood provided before he decided whether he supported defunding it or not.

    You see, we expected a politicians’ answer. But instead, Trump reflected a deeper understanding of how things works. The world is a complicated and convoluted place that sometimes deserves more thoughtful answers to its quandaries than those promoted by inexperienced ideologues like Obama or Cruz. Trump humbly admitted that he did not know all that Planned Parenthood was doing for women, and that he would explore that issue before he made a decision, rather than punt to a potentially foolish knee-jerk reaction. (I believe that the more he investigates PP, the more he will want to shut them down, but that’s not the issue.) That is, he would think through the issue, get advice on the issue, develop a solution that was in the best interests of the people and the country, and then act on that decision.

    Again, I wouldn’t shed any tears if PP was shut down entirely; but I really don’t know if there is anything even vaguely helpful or redeeming that PP does that could be salvaged while the rest of what they do is scrapped. But I do know that I would like someone who is very competent to help this country make that decision and then carry out that decision firmly and appropriately. 

    Trump’s business, media, and international experiences and successes have provided, and surely were caused by, a rugged wisdom and utilitarianism beyond what most politicians exhibit. We need more of this rugged and relentless practicality in the White House.

    We have to remember that we are conditioned to be impressed by certain metrics for competency and success which are really not that impressive. Politicians point out that they have held one or more offices, that they boldly filibustered, that they sponsored a bill, that they visited a critical area of the globe, or that they wrote a book on some issue. That is, they cannot distinguish between things that they do on one hand, and real, actual, measurable accomplishments, on the other.

    Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have a political leader who measures his success and competency by pointing to actual, tangible achievements? Trump has created a business empire, has cut numerous deals in foreign countries, has excelled in several media endeavors, and is worth between four and eight billion dollars. Those are accomplishments that are hard to argue with, and they are metrics of success that are in a different galaxy relative to the pathetic “achievements” of most politicians. Several of the political candidates tell us what they might do, whereas Trump also points to what he has done.

    We need to be honest and point out that some of Trump’s businesses have gone bankrupt. However, I do not necessarily see these as examples of his bad leadership. Trump has a great deal of experience with success and a little experience with failure; but, failure always tempers us and makes us better. Remember that when Obama came into the White House, he didn’t even have enough experience that we could point to his failures (how do we assess his alleged 129 useless votes of “present” while he was in the Illinois state legislature?). He hadn’t done anything, so he didn’t have any failure to learn from. However, Trump’s record is not about failures, but the about successes that he has had in business, in TV, in real estate and throughout the world.

    Speaking of metrics of success, his poll numbers reflect that he is resonating with people far more than the other candidates are. Americans see and appreciate his confidence and his competence. These polls, too, are metrics that are hard to argue with.

    I can support him and not necessarily agree with him on every point. For instance, I do not know if his solutions to the national debt or to the immigration problem are feasible. But, I do believe that if someone can translate a vision into an accomplishment, Trump can. I feel like those who complain that he is not “conservative enough” are failing to appreciate how much our country presently needs an accomplished and effective leader, and not just another political talker.

    And perhaps it is time to elect someone who is not a career politician or part of the “political class.” The reality that he is a not a politician and that he doesn’t act like one is resonating with the fed-up “voter class.”

    I do have to concede that I do not appreciate some of Trump’s harsh and petty statements, reactions and tweets, and I am concerned that his lack of “tweet discipline” may be his undoing.  But to a certain extent, that’s just the point: Trump is not beholden to donors, to the political class, to Fox News, or to political correctness. And his sharp statements both recently and in the past have not affected his competency and ability to create success for himself and for those who work for him.

    Also, consider this: Who would you most prefer to have representing you in a face-off with Russia’s Vlad Putin or China’s Xi Jinping? Who do you want at a negotiating table with Egypt’s President Abdel el-Sisi or German Chancellor Angela Merkel? Who do you think has the fortitude and competency to go against Korea’s Kim Jong-un or the self-proclaimed leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Who is more competent to represent the economic and political interests of America domestically and globally and to help fix these difficult issues before our nation becomes insolvent?

    These are serious, and arguably, desperate times. This country needs a turn-around, and we need it fast. The Washington Way – financial irresponsibility, personal pettiness, and political correctness – is no longer acceptable, even though it is, perhaps, one of the few truly bi-partisan elements of D.C.

    We need someone experienced and competent. A competent person not only recognizes his own success, but also knows other very competent and successful people and surrounds himself with them. The current administration, on the other hand, seems to be a colloquy of incompetents, and therefore, a collection of incompetency; I am afraid that some of our more inexperienced GOP contenders would suffer the same fate.

    Trump can provide a new attitude and competency in Washington that we desperately need. And that quality is his most critical contribution to this presidential race, and perhaps also, to this country.

    So what do you think? What quality do you consider to be the most vital for a GOP candidate? Is Trump our guy, or is he just a show? Is he competent enough or is he just a poser? Can his accomplishments in other fields translate to the White House? Let us know what you think by sending your kind and measured thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.

BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – Mal’s First Sight of Serenity

This article is originally from the April 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

        *** WARNING: The following article contains spoilers for the Firefly episode “Out Of Gas.” ***

    Do you remember when you laid eyes on your first bike? It was a vehicle that represented self-fulfillment and independence. What about seeing your first car? It may not have looked like much to others, but for you, it was a delightful moment of dawning freedom.

    A Browncoat enjoys such a moment vicariously in the episode “Out Of Gas” when Malcolm Reynolds first sees a run-down Class 3 Firefly transport, which would become his own freedom and serenity. This moment reflects one of the most important themes of the show, namely, finding one’s home and identity in a lonely and hostile ’Verse.

    Also, the spiritual fix to discouragement and frustration is not merely to rehearse humanistic platitudes that sometimes get thrown in our face: You’ll get over it . . . Tomorrow is a new day . . . Just dig down deep within you . . . et cetera ad nauseum. The believer should not rely on inconsistent platitudes, but, rather, we need to recall truths pertaining to God’s power, ability and love.    The place names in Psalm 42:6 represent the northern extremes of Israel. Mount Hermon in the far north of Israel (Deut 3:8) and Mount Mizar is probably a nearby hill. The “land of the Jordan” probably refers to the northern origins of the Jordan river. At this moment, for whatever reason, the psalmist is far from Jerusalem, far from the Temple, and far from the joy of assembling with other believers.

    The psalmist’s physical proximity to the Temple or to Jerusalem may aid spiritual growth, but is not necessary for it. Just because he is away from Jerusalem does not mean that his spiritual life-line is cut off. In fact, in this northern exile, the Psalmist can overcome the discouragement of his soul by recalling God’s loving kindness and by acting upon those truths from where he is. 

    Believers need to do a soul check on a regular basis. Often situations sweep us away from places that are conducive to our spiritual growth. Yet, wherever we are, by choice or by circumstance, we can still remember God and allow our joy to spring from truths about Him even when our soul is bowed down by the conditions around us.

IN CASE YOU MISSED THEM . . .

    Below are a few of our recent The Eclectic Kasper articles that have generated some comments and interactions; we wanted to make sure that you didn’t miss them!

• SOCIETY/ CULTURE: The Race to Ferguson (January 2015)

• ROMANS: Concerning Christ (Romans 1:3-5) (March 2015)

• SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Clueless! (March 2015)

• POLITICS: Cruzing Toward Amnesia (May 2015)

• ARCHAEOLOGY: The Benefits and Limits of Biblical Archaeology (May 2015)

• SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Homosexuality, Hate, and the “Heart” of the Issue (July 2015) 

    What do you think about these articles?  Do you agree or disagree with them?  Which one is your favorite?  Send your comments, compliments or critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com.