DECEMBER 2017

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the December 2017 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

While this is a relatively “normal” issue of our web journal, we do include a little holiday flare that you will enjoy.

In this edition we examine more issues about religious liberty and commercial freedoms and we also rank the Star Wars films from weakest to greatest. Also, we discuss why angels were necessary to the Christmas stories in the early chapters of Matthew and Like, and we explore why Nancy Pelosi thinks the world is about to end.

Feedback? We love feedback. We would love to know what you think about some of our articles and any comments or critiques you may have about anything that we have written. Feel free to post your feedback on our Facebook page or send it to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we’ll post good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

NEWS BYTES, DECEMBER 2017: Less is Moore and Pelosi’s Apocalypse

by Matt Kasper

A Season of Scandals

In a season when we should be celebrating Christmas, we are, instead, experiencing a season of scandals. This may be the new reality: that we’re going to hear sex scandals involving politicians, actors, or athletes every week or so for the foreseeable future (so much for watching or listening to the news with your kids). It’s probably going to become its own industry. And while more accusers don’t necessarily make the accusations valid, it can have the effect of lending plausibility to them.

But have we not brought this upon ourselves? We have been teaching children for years that religious convictions don’t belong in the media and in politics. Boys and girls, men and women are the same; women can do everything that a man can do, and to posit that they’re different in any manner is sexist, and probably bigoted and racist, too. And, by the way, kids, you also evolved from slime, but have a Merry Christmas anyway. We have fed these opinions to children for half a century since the halcyon days of Marxism, feminism, and “free-love” in the 1960s.

Why, then, do media pundits and politicians act surprised when many of their own become embroiled in sex scandals? Is not a scandal-ridden society, where ethics and morality are divorced from actions and decency, simply the logical outcome of fifty years of materialism, liberalism, and feminism?

When you play with matches, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get burned. But that doesn’t just apply to fire; it applies to ideological systems, as well, especially the kind that jettisons rules, ethics, morality, and God.

Pelosi’s Apocalypse

Some Republicans – though not enough of them – have been working on minimizing the size and scope of government and lowering taxes for businesses and citizens who pay the most taxes. It is hard to imagine that anyone would think that these efforts are bad for our society and country.

Yet, the Democrats responded to these efforts in tirades laced primarily with empty rhetoric and notably lacking any facts. For instance, on Monday, December 4, Nancy Pelosi asserted that the GOP tax plan would inaugurate the apocalypse: “This is the end of the world. The debate on health care is live/death, this is armageddon.” These are the same people that shun Republican exaggeration or criticize Trump’s tweets, and yet regularly employ exaggeration and hyperbole themselves.

Unless they are not exaggerating; perhaps they genuinely see less taxes for our bloated federal government as the end of the world. The Democratic party has slid so far left of Kennedy, that through their rose-colored, big government, socialist glasses, they see tax cuts for many people and for many businesses as a harbinger of the apocalypse.

Moore or Less

We at The Eclectic Kasper are not glad that a Democrat won the Alabama senate seat on Tuesday, December 12, but we are gratified that that Roy Moore didn’t obtain it. All along, many conservatives said that the voters of Alabama should decide. And decide they did, and then conservatives expressed their disappointment in Alabama voters.

Surely voters were swayed by all of the allegations against Moore, whether they were real or not. But certainly, the amount and variety of the allegations puts Moore’s morality more or less in doubt.

It’s funny, too, because the Dems threw Al Franken (D-Minn.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) under the bus needlessly in order to establish an allegedly higher moral platform from which to attack Roy Moore and President Trump. Now we don’t have to worry about what would have happened if Moore joined the senate, but at least we can be assured that there will be one less creep in Washington D. C. And by the way, there is a difference between allegations and truth. I suspect that most of the allegations and accusations in these sex scandals are probably vacuous; but again, the number of women who have made accusations against Bill Cosby or who are making accusations at Matt Lauer make us wonder. But to use words like “accuse” or “alleged” with Al Franken is somewhat misleading. A picture of Franken behaving poorly toward a young, female individual is not an allegation, it’s a fact. It’s too bad that more of our political and media leaders on both sides of the aisle don’t know the difference.

BIBLE HISTORY: They Needed Angels at Christmas

We’re naturally skeptical people. We hear about an incredible event, an unusual effort, or an outrageous claim and we want proof.

That’s not just true about people today with our post-Enlightenment, scientific mentality. It was true of people in ages past, as well.

This healthy skepticism helps us understand why angels are so important during the Christmas stories in the first chapters of Matthew and Luke. The Jews in the first century had not received revelation from God and had not seen any genuinely miraculous or angelic activity for more than four hundred years. Some of the writings between the Old and New Testaments (called intertestamental literature) acknowledge that after the post-Exilic prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi), there was no prophecy from God (the Prayer of Azariah 15 [Dan 3:38, Apocryphal version]; 1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Heaven had been silent for almost half-a-millennium.

All this changed when an angel appeared to Zechariah announcing the birth of John the Baptizer (Luke 1:11), and to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus Christ the Messiah (Luke 1:26). Additional angelic appearances occurred with Joseph (three times, in Matt 1:20 and again in 2:13 and 2:19) and with the shepherds (Luke 2:9). But, why did God use these angelic visitations? Why not a prophet, a priest, or a teacher?

The answer is because these individuals in the nativity narratives needed angels. They required something as extraordinary as angelic visitations to overcome their skepticism as these individuals were told about extraordinary and unbelievable events, both imminent and distant.

They needed angels to tell them information that they would not have known or discerned on their own. An angel needed to tell Zechariah that he and his wife, a righteous but elderly couple, would have a baby. It is almost comical, that even with an angelic visitation, Zechariah is still skeptical (Luke 1:18); it is less comical that he pays for his skepticism with his temporary silence (v. 20). Of course, the couple would have found out within a few months that she was with child, but the angel revealed other, long-range plans that they could not have known. Zechariah is also told that the baby would become an Elijah-like figure and would be the forerunner to the Messiah (v. 17). And even before John assumed that role, his parents would have to prepare him for it; he was not to drink alcohol and he would be unusually influenced by the Holy Spirit (v. 15). This would be an abnormal pregnancy and an atypical prophet; Zechariah needed an angel to convince him of this.

Similarly, Mary needed an angel to convince her of what she could not have known immediately. Her skepticism is not as pronounced, but it is present as she notes poignantly to the angel that she had not “known” a man (Luke 1:34). Perhaps in light of all the skepticism that Gabriel receives in this chapter, he gently reminds Mary that “Nothing is impossible with God” (1:37). Mary, too, needed to know not just that she would become pregnant, but that the Baby had a critical role to play. This Child was the long-awaited Messiah and He would also be a Savior (1:32).

The shepherds needed an angelic visitation and even an angelic host to tell them about an extraordinary birth. They needed to be told that the Messiah had been born, and where He had been born (Luke 2:11). But babies are born all the time. How would they be able to know which one was the Messiah? The angel offers a sign guaranteeing that they would find the right baby: He would be swaddled in cloth, not in appropriate baby clothes, and he would not be in a bed or crib, but in a cattle trough (2:12). Hard to believe? Yes. But a bit easier to swallow when you are informed about this by an angel and his innumerable host.

The wise men, too, needed some insight that they could not have obtained by natural means. Their lives were spent triangulating prophecies, stars, and the wisdom of men. From this mortal wisdom and with the help of an unusual star, they traveled to Jerusalem looking for the Messiah (Matt 2:2). King Herod pretended to befriend them, and his aides sent the Magi on to Bethlehem (2:5-6). They worshiped the Child and offered Him grand gifts deserving of a Monarch, despite the fact that He and His parents did not appear to be living like royalty. The wise men are then told of something they did not discern on their own, that Herod was evil and not to be trusted; therefore they went home a different route (2:12). They are warned about this in a dream, and since other dreams in Matthew 1-2 involve angelic activity (1:20, 2:13, 19) it is probable that angels were involved with this warning dream as well.

Probably the most interesting case study about the need for angelic intervention is Joseph. He is betrothed to Mary, who is then found to be with child (Matt 1:18). Surely, at some point, they have a face-to-face conversation about this. She would certainly have mentioned the angelic visitation and the Messianic prophecies. Assuming that they had this conversation, we know that he didn’t believe her, because he planned to send her away secretly (1:19). That is, though he is probably very hurt and angry, he decides to treat her with dignity and protect her from the disgrace that he may feel she deserved. By the way, it is only after he decides to do what is best for her that he gets further instructions from God via angelic communication (1:20). He then takes her as his wife, rather than sending her away (1:24); he didn’t believe her angel story until he had his own.

Notice also, that the angel comes to Joseph in a dream, even though angels appeared to Zechariah, Mary and the shepherds when they were awake. Why does the angel appear in a dream? Have you ever tried to reason with someone who is emotionally distraught? He is surely in emotional turmoil, feeling anger, betrayal, and hurt. He may have thought, She not only went off and got pregnant, but she even made up some weird story about an angel and the Messiah, too! God affirms Mary’s story using an angel in a dream, when Joseph is completely passive and unable to argue or get angry. Surely this was a broken and upset man, and he needed an angelic visit in a dream to push through his emotional distress and skepticism. Modern people are skeptical, too. And perhaps, we are even more of an I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it kind of people in this scientific age. Many continue to doubt the Word of God, despite the fulfillment of its prophecies and though it has endured the tests of time. And while we don’t experience angelic visitations ourselves, we continue to rely on the revelations of prophets, the writings of the apostles and the proclamations of angels to help us understand God’s will and to see God’s extraordinary redemptive plan. We still need God to supernaturally overcome our skepticism to soften our hearts with the Good News of the Messiah, the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

MOVIES/ TV: Ranking the Star Wars Films – The Good

*** WARNING: The following article may contain spoilers for movies in the Star Wars franchise. ***

We at The Eclectic Kasper took the opportunity for yet another Star Wars film coming out to rank the previous eight live action installments.

Ranking these movies from “best to worst” would imply that some are very good and some are very bad. But this would be misleading; unlike many other franchises, all of the Star Wars movies are in the “good” to “best” range. Even the “worst” one is still a relatively enjoyable movie. We’ll rank the four in the “good” tier in this article, and we’ll follow-up with the four “best” films later in this edition.

By the time of writing this, I have not yet seen The Last Jedi, so it will not appear in this list, though look for a review of that movie in an upcoming edition. So, below I will simply rank the other eight SW films from good to best with a few sentences addressing some pros and cons.

So, Do You Like Theology?

Theology is one of our specialties here at The Eclectic Kasper. You can see a whole host of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, some concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.

#8: The Force Awakens (Episode VII): I have spent two previous articles broadcasting my concerns about this movie, specifically, that it is redundant and implausible. But, even though it is ranked the lowest on this list, it is not a horrible movie. It was just not well thought through as it lazily steals from previous installments. And, like Phantom Menace, it didn’t, and perhaps, couldn’t, live up to all the hype. I watched TFA again recently with the family; I considered it research for this article and in anticipation of The Last Jedi. While I am not recanting from those previous articles, I will concede that this movie was better than I remembered it. Some of the performances from the new cast were solid; frankly, Adam Driver does an exceptional job as Kylo Ren, balancing a potential bad guy with a character who is still young and conflicted; he is a complicated character plagued with daddy issues and is sometimes more bratty than evil. In addition to a redundant and feeble plot, the performances from the old cast, specifically Han and Leia, were weak and seemed phoned in. We can hope that The Last Jedi will be a better installment, and I doubt that the franchise could ever sink lower than The Force Awakens.

#7: The Phantom Menace (Episode I): We have confided on this web journal in the past that we Kaspers were not as averse to the prequel trilogy as many others were. Drawbacks in Phantom Menace include a slightly annoying Anakin, a painfully annoying Jar-Jar, and an overemphasis on imperial politics that would plague this trilogy. But despite these factors, Phantom Menace was a good movie and a solid story. It introduces a sweet, selfless, idealistic boy who would become one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history. It is unfortunate that we didn’t get more Qui-Gon Jinn, a great transitional figure in a transitional movie. This film also features the best lightsaber duel in the franchise. Finally, this may be John William’s best outing in his already legendary musical contribution to these films (we reviewed the Phantom Menace soundtrack here in the July 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper). This movie would simply not be the same without Williams’ dramatic “Duel of the Fates” and even some subtle songs like “Anakin’s Theme.” Many fans simply couldn’t see past the alleged racial stereotypes of certain characters or past the legitimately unpalatable figure of Jar-Jar to appreciate how solid this movie was.

#6: Attack of the Clones (Episode II): Other than some questionable acting, a rushed romance, and some implausible plot, this, also, was not a bad installment, and it is probably underrated. It has the difficult task of making Anakin an increasingly evil character but also drawing him into a romantic relationship, a task accomplished unevenly. This movie gives us a more diverse look at the imperial planet of Coruscant, from its regal side to its grittier underbelly. Clones provides some great action, from the explosive beginning to one of the best ground battles in the franchise. In fact, the entire final sequence on Geonosis, from the arena, to the ground battle, to the final Jedi-Sith fight is a treat of non-stop action. We just wish that the acting was sharper and the dialog was less artificial. #5: A New Hope (Episode IV): The movie that started it all remains compelling and iconic. It’s a classic story about a boy coming-of-age who, with the help of a spunky girl, some droids, a swashbuckling loner and his pet, manages to save the good guys from the bad guys. Frankly, it’s hard to not still love this movie, despite some questionable acting, amateurish effects, clunky dialog, and painfully-obvious tropes. In fact, maybe some of these adolescent drawbacks add to its charm and appeal; sometimes we just yearn for simpler movies from a simpler time. Unfortunately, despite being remastered and getting some cool additional scenes (I like what they did with Mos Eisley!), this movie, far more than the others in the original trilogy, continues to show signs of age. Yet, the chemistry between the characters, something notably lacking from the other trilogies, and, in fact, from most movies, continues to delight, and helps A New Hope to remain classic and iconic.

How, then, do we rank the other four live action films in the upper tier? You’ll have to scroll down to “Ranking the Star Wars Films – The Best” in order to find out!

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation, Part 4

Recent debates regarding religious liberty legislation has raised ire on both sides of the aisle, and this article may do so, also. I hope that you will respond to this article; but please do so only after you have read the entire article (we can tell from feedback when people have only read the first paragraph or two!). Also, please respond with thoughtful civility, rather than mindless hostility. Both compliments and critiques may be sent to feedback@eclectickasper.com and will be reprinted anonymously in future editions.

Remember the Soup Nazi, one of the villains in Jerry Seinfeld’s gallery of rogues? Our first article in this series back in the April 2016 edition noted how this cultural icon seemed to exercise limitless ability to sell his soup to whom he wanted, and also to refuse to sell to whom he wanted. Customers were more afraid of offending him rather than being offended that he refused to sell to them. His refusal to sell his soup to some never hurt his bottom line, in fact, there was always a line waiting outside his shop.

That was apparently when Americans believed in commercial freedom. We believed that people could buy and sell to whom they wanted, hire whom they wanted, and there wasn’t some liberal agenda or political correctness that eclipsed religious or commercial freedom.

In this article, I want to revisit and clarify some of what we have discussed about commercial and religious liberty. Much of this also has to do with the what the government should and shouldn’t legislate regarding the freedoms of vendors and consumers.

Support Commercial Freedom Instead of the Agenda of the Few

Commercial and religious freedom should allow me the liberty to buy from, sell to, and hire whomever I want without the government regulating these transactions as part of its own efforts of social engineering. I support economic and commercial freedom, the will of the free market, and the right to discriminate in regard to purchasing and hiring. We should aspire toward a society where people have greater commercial freedom from the tendrils of government. The fact that many states have discrimination laws that affect who we can sell to or hire just means that there are a few people imposing their own political agenda on the many. The potential for this to slide toward ideological tyranny is high; in fact, we may already be irreversibly on that course now.

Consider Commercial Discrimination in Biblical Terms

But if you are a religious person, there is another side to this. If you strive to reflect Biblical principles and ethics, is commercial discrimination really fair and godly? Is commercial prejudice and bigotry pleasing to the Lord?

Scripture calls upon believers to use honest weights and measures in our business practices (Lev 19:36; Deut 25:13; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23; Hosea 12:6-7; Amos 8:4-6; Mic 6:11). By the way, there are clearly more verses in the Bible that speak against indiscriminate and unjust business practices than verses that speak against homosexuality. Scripture also calls people to not discriminate or show partiality in a variety of situations (Lev 19:14-15; Deut 1:17; Job 13:10; 32:21; Prov 24:23; 28:21; James 2:4; 3:17).

If you sell flowers, then you should sell flowers. God may be just as unhappy about your discriminatory, inconsistent and potentially unethical business practices as He may be by your “participation” with a gay wedding. And if you sell flowers, do you honestly believe that you have never ever sold flowers to a homosexual man who was going to see his date? If you have, then you have participated commercially to a homosexual relationship.

Again, if you sell flowers, then sell flowers. If you decide not to because of some hyped up sense of religious devotion, then don’t – but make sure that you are aware of the consequences of your unethical business practices. Don’t whine and complain when you face legal, social, or political problems because you have been discriminating in your sales practices. It will happen: fight it, pray through it, but don’t whine to the rest of us about it. Those are the repercussions of your own decisions, both your decision to participate in a certain market, and then your decision the not market to certain clients for reasons that don’t make sense to them, and frankly, don’t make sense to many of the rest of us, as well. The ramifications of your decisions are yours; own them, and don’t act like you’re being victimized.

Of course, there is an exception to this, and an instance where believers need to be discriminating. Wanna know what it is? See our follow-up article in Part 5 below.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: The Demise of Orthodoxy

This article is originally from the July 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

The last two installments of “Emergent Concerns” discussed postmodernism, first by illustrating it from popular TV shows, and then by describing postmodernism’s attitude toward truth, community and spirituality.

The Emergent Church is a movement in Christianity that started in the mid-1990’s as the self-proclaimed postmodern wing of evangelicalism. The emergent church assumes that as culture changes, church should change, adapt, or “emerge” in response. The most unifying principle seems to be a heightened desire to encounter culture even by integrating more culture into the church for the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of Christianity in society (1 Cor 9:19-23; 10:33).

However, this is not just about adopting culture’s methods as the megachurch movement is often accused of doing. Rather, many in the emergent movement perilously adopt culture’s way of thinking. They choose to understand and interpret Christianity through culture, not vice versa. Emergents would argue that previous generations of believers have also been culture bound, so changing church or re-imagining Christianity is actually just stripping modernist premises off of pure Christianity. The problem is that Christianity simply gets overlaid with a new cultural perspective after the old cultural perspective is taken away; modernist Christianity is traded in for postmodern Christianity.

Since The Eclectic Kasper has spent so much time talking about orthodoxy (right Christian doctrine) and orthopraxy (proper Christian practice), we will begin by describing the emergent perspective toward Christian truth and practice using statements from emergent writers themselves.

In terms of orthodoxy and doctrine, Emergents are less concerned about systematizing truth as much as they want to create a “conversation” about truth (Kevin Corcoran, Church in the Present Tense, p. xiv). Unfortunately, the conversation often takes precedent over the proclamation. Emergents assert that, “God is first and foremost a storyteller, not a dispenser of theological doctrine and factoids” (ibid.). This leads to an unnecessary and unsustainable minimization of orthodoxy. The contention “how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes” (Scot McKnight, “Five Streams of the Emerging Church,” Christianity Today, February 2007, p. 38) creates an unbiblical dichotomy between practice and doctrine (which we argued against in “Christianity is Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy”). The worst fringes of the movement “Embrace the idea that we cannot know absolute truth, or, at least, that we cannot know truth absolutely” (McKnight, 37). Emergents sometimes minimize completed aspects of the gospel: “They tend not to view themselves as finished products, as ‘saved’ or even as ‘Christian.’ Instead, they speak of themselves as ‘being saved’ and ‘becoming Christian” (Corcoran, p. xv, emphasis his).

Doctrine and creeds are frequently marginalized by Emergents such that any doctrinal assertion about the attributes of God makes Him into an “idol” or causes Him to be merely the product of “theological fetish” (Corcoran, “Who’s Afraid of Philosophical Realism?”, p. 9). This a very disturbing way of understanding two millennia of exegetical study and theological discussion. Emergents claim that God is not an “object to be dissected,” but a “subjective event” (Corcoran, 9). I agree that God should not be treated like fungus in a specimen container. However, He does invite believers to know Him, learn of Him, and increase their understanding of Him (Jer 9:24; John 17:3; Eph 1:17; 4:13; Philippians 3:8, 10; 2 Pet 1:3). Scripture clearly illustrates the danger of not knowing God, or not properly responding to the knowledge of Him (Romans 1:21; 10:3). Biblical Christianity expressed in Nicene orthodoxy is a metanarrative that cannot be easily shunned nor abandoned (by “Nicene orthodoxy,” we mean agreement with and affirmation of the summary of Biblical truth in the Nicene Creed of 325 CE and some of the significant councils that followed, such as the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

The Christian metanarrative and its assertion of absolute truth is often vilified by the emergent movement. Emergent granddaddy Brian McLaren wrote, “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God” (taken from McLaren’s own website here). It seems odd to separate Christian truth from Christ, who Himself eliminated this distinction (John 14:6; 18:37; see also John 1:14, 17; Rom 15:8; Eph 4:21). Again, McLaren proclaims: “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. . . . None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (quoted in Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, November 2004, Vol. 48, No. 11, p. 36; see full article here). Of McLaren, evangelical heavy-hitter D. A. Carson said, “He wants to give answers that are fuzzy. . . . He wants to avoid the angularity of confessional truth” (quoted in Mark Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” Christian Research Journal, Volume 31, No. 04, p. 16). In other words, radical Emergents like McLaren want to have Christian spirituality without the necessary constraints and accountability of the Christian metanarrative and its absolute assertions about God, Christ, humanity and the world.

Emergents like to discuss the “unknowability” of God, referred to as negative or apophatic theology. It strikes me as very odd that after two millennia of theological thought and dialog that we are still having discussions about the obscurity and incomprehensibility of God (see “Apophatic Prayer: A Form of Emergent Mysticism,” an article which blurs the gap between the Emergent movement and New Ageism). Everyone would concede that there always is and always will be a limit to how much we can know about the divine nature and actions. But the whole point of revelation (i.e., Scripture) is to reveal that which would otherwise not be known or knowable (Deut 29:29; 2 Sam 7:27; Psalm 98:2; Dan 2:30; Matt 13:35; Rom 16:25; Eph 1:9-10; 3:1-3; Col 1:25-26; 2:2; Rev 1:1). Why focus on what we do not know about God when Scripture emphasizes what we can know through Biblical affirmations about His character, acts and attributes? Attempting to establish doctrinal certainty firmly rooted in Scripture is not a “fetish,” nor does it need to make believers arrogant, but should, rather, drive believers toward greater humility and reverence for God.

And, while emergents provide a helpful reminder that theology should be embraced and proclaimed humbly, believers (especially those who have been reading a series of articles about the essentials of the faith!), would affirm that we can still embrace such doctrines humbly, but with certainty, in light of our understanding of the authority of God’s Word. Our certainty is in God’s revelation of truth, not in our ability to grasp it apart from Him. The Emergent community’s sense that Christianity should exhibit “epistemological humility” (Corcoran, “Who’s Afraid of Philosophical Realism?”, p. 3) is a winsome façade for a refusal on their part to affirm and assert clear Biblical truths.

Regarding orthopraxy, or the issue of Christian practice and action, Emergents perceive that most Christians are over-obsessed with the afterlife, and therefore Emergents tend to be “passionate about the present” (Corcoran, p. xiv). They want to see the ethical and social implications of the gospel realized in the current world around us. This is an admirable focus based on a valid criticism of most other Evangelical movements which emphasize orthodoxy to the detriment of orthopraxy. However, the emergent church’s reluctance to assert absolute truth and doctrinal dogma may hinder their ability to affirm moral and ethical standards. The emphasis on orthopraxy necessarily compromises orthodoxy and pushes the emergent church movement perilously close to the social gospel: “And [Emergents] don’t much care who you are or what you believe: if you’re laboring for the poor, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised, then you’re doing God’s work, and that’s what matters here and now” (Corcoran, p. xv).

The marginalization of Biblical doctrine, even under the guise of helping the underprivileged, is disastrous for any Christian movement. Christianity simply will not continue without strong adherence to Christian doctrine expressed in the speech, deeds and attitudes of believers (Romans 16:17; Philippians 4:9; 2 Timothy 3:14; Titus 2:6-8, 3:8; Heb 10:23-24; Jude 1:3, 20). Social activity devoid of Christian doctrine is simply humanism.

MOVIES/ TV: Ranking the Star Wars Films – The Best

*** WARNING: The following article may contain spoilers for movies in the Star Wars franchise. ***

When you last you saw your eclectic heroes, we were daring to rank the Star Wars films, a dangerous task sure to raise the ire of fans throughout the galaxy.

Acknowledging that there are no truly bad films in this franchise, we divided them into two tiers, the four good movies, and here, we rank the top tier, or the four best movies. We probably left many readers angry by ranking A New Hope in the bottom tier, as the fifth out of eight movies and wondering how we would arrange the remaining four. Well, wonder no longer . . .

#4: Revenge of the Sith (Episode III). Dark and delightfully disturbing, this film adroitly bridges the enormous gap between Attack of the Clones and the original trilogy, not flawlessly, but admirably. Like other installments in this trilogy, this film was cluttered with too many characters, too little good acting, and too much politics. Revenge, however, really cements the fact that this trilogy is not about Anakin, but about Obi-wan; Ewan McGregor’s contribution to this film is one of its strongest features.

Though the ending seems rushed, as Lucas attempts to tie-up as many loose ends as possible, it nonetheless provides a satisfying conclusion to a troubled trilogy. Probably the film’s greatest strength is the way it acknowledges the complexity of evil. More so than the clear good-verses-evil themes of the original trilogy, Revenge reflects the complex grey areas between moral extremes. In fact, Lucas does this so well that you sometimes find yourself as conflicted as some of the characters; you get angry at the “good guys” and you sympathize with the “bad guys.” Whether it intended to or not, Episode III reminds us that some of the worst kind of evil is that which is subtle and difficult to detect.

#3: Empire Strikes Back (Episode V): How do you follow something as iconic as A New Hope? You provide a sequel that is even more grand and iconic. As the title suggests, this is the time in the trilogy when our beloved heroes get hit hard, and when we realize how truly powerful and determined the evil empire is. We are also treated to one of the greatest twists in film history (“I am your father!”). This, of course, simply raised the dramatic bar and left audiences pining for another installment. Empire featured a great diversity of scenery, including the iciness of Hoth, the swampy jungles of Dagobah, the cold metallic structure within a star destroyer, and the spaciousness of Cloud City. John William’s score, probably his second best in the franchise, added to the drama, especially with character themes (or leitmotifs) such as the beautiful and haunting “Yoda’s Theme” and the unambiguous tone of “The Imperial March.” This movie also features the best acting in the franchise and the best humor, as well, despite some of its darker moments. The ability to balance the dark and the light seems to shine through in this movie most clearly.

Give Us a “Like” On Facebook!

Do you love freedom, traditional values, and conservative ideas? Please support the “new media” and give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like”!

#2: Rogue One: After the lazily-redundant The Force Awakens, Rogue One, released a year later in 2016, brought “a new hope” back to the franchise. Though a bit slow and sappy in the beginning, the plot and action progresses with exploding cities and climaxes with the finest space battle that the franchise has provided to date. The most interesting plot point is how it answers a question that has plagued the franchise since its inception, specifically, why the first Death Star was built with such an obvious structural flaw. Thus, Rogue One is fascinating and rewarding on many levels. It draws from a variety of sources, featuring Darth Vader and a version of Leia in its conclusion, utilizing Jimmy Smits to reprise Bail Organa from the prequel trilogy, and giving more time to Mon Mothma, a character who had appeared both in Episode III and Episode VI. And speaking of characters, the biggest shortcoming of this film was probably the flat characters and the minimal character development; though, perhaps, it’s good that we didn’t get too attached to them.

#1: Return of the Jedi (Episode VI): This one is my favorite in the franchise, and I’m not always sure why this movie doesn’t get the credit it deserves. The entire final third of the movie shifts dexterously between three different and dramatic conflicts, one in space, one on land, and one between Jedi and Sith. In all three, the protagonists face incredible odds and overcome a variety of obstacles. The action sequences in the movie are meaningful and enjoyable, from the sequence on Tatooine to the destruction of the second Death Star. Though watching Ewoks battle incompetent Stormtroopers is slightly implausible, it is also charming and fun to see the underdogs fight to gain the upper hand. Jedi features some dramatic revelations, a great lightsaber dual, and even an unlikely redemption story at the end.

So, we’ll see how The Last Jedi and next year’s Han Solo movie fits into this list in a later edition. But in light of how great and culturally iconic this franchise has been for over forty years, I think that we’ll be discussing, ranking and reviewing these films for many years to come.

We know that you have comments, compliments and critiques regarding our ranking of the live action Star Wars movies. We would love to hear them! Send your rankings and rantings to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish your thoughts anonymously in a future edition.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation, Part 5

Again, thank you for reading these articles about sensitive social issues. We would love to hear your reaction to them; please respond with civility rather than hostility. Compliments and critiques may be sent to feedback@eclectickasper.com and will be reprinted anonymously in a future edition.

We noted in the previous article (Part 4 above) that there are two aspects to these discussions about religious liberty and commercial freedoms. The government should not have any part in legislating what products or services we buy, from whom we buy them, to whom we sell them, or who we hire. Such legislation is clear government overreach and it is also a form of enslavement to a specific ideology, an ideology with which many Americans don’t agree.

We also noted that we should consider commercial discrimination in Biblical terms. The Bible has more to say about commercial discrimination than it does about homosexuality. When a baker or florist decide not to sell to a homosexual, is that decision as Biblical and godly as we think it is? Perhaps we should recognize in our commercial discrimination that we are disobeying God’s commands about business ethics.

But is there an exception to this? There may be many many, but at least one stands out clearly.

Why Hiring For Certain Organizations Is An Exception

Hiring provides a caveat when it comes to commercial discrimination. That is, we should be discriminating (or at least, we should be able to discriminate) in certain instances when it comes to hiring. However, this is only in instances when there is something fundamental about an individual that contradicts something fundamental about a specific job or company.

For example, if someone is blind, it would be fair to discriminate against them when they are being considered for an interior decorating position. That is, the ability to see and discern between colors is fundamental to certain roles in an interior decorating firm, and a visually impaired person is fundamentally unable to see well and discern between colors. Of course, there may be another role in that company for that individual, but not as an interior decorator. Similarly, the military accepts some people and rejects others for admission for a variety of reasons including someone’s height, vision, or a host of other physical and mental factors.

Here’s a more germane example. If I owned virtually any kind of non-religious establishment, I would not discriminate against Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists on account of their faith system. I hope that I would simply pick the best, most qualified, and most experienced individual for the job.

However, if I worked at an evangelical Christian church (which, by the way, I do!), then I would not hire a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist for any pastoral position. This is because their fundamental faith assertions run counter to those which are fundamental to the organization. The Muslim, Buddhist or atheist may be a very smart and gifted individual. However, the basic beliefs of such individuals makes them unsuitable to be an evangelical pastor.

If the government is allowed to legislate who businesses or non-profits can and can’t hire, then we should not be surprised when they try to enforce those decisions on religious organizations, as well. Affirmative action, employment equity and hiring quotas always begin as a concern for the allegedly disadvantaged segments of society. But eventually these efforts decompose into means by which the federal government and the opinions of the few infringe on the freedoms of businesses, non-profits, states and individuals.

Know the Times

Also, we need to know the times. There is a brief line 1 Chronicles 12:32 noting that the people from the tribe of Issachar were “men who understood the times.” For us today, we are in times where people are very sensitive to anything that smacks of discrimination.

Just be aware that if you want to be the Flower Nazi or the Cake Nazi, then we are in an environment where these kinds of decisions will be hated, hounded, disputed, misunderstood, and vilified. Romans 8:7 reminds us of what so many other passages also affirm: “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” That is, don’t expect people to respect your decisions to sell or refuse sale just because you invoke God. In fact, you can expect to provoke their ire specifically because you invoke God or Biblical principles.

And when you invoke Christianity and religious principles, be aware that you may not necessarily be representing God or the Bible accurately. The Bible casts homosexuality in a negative light, even calling it an abomination and affirming the value of heterosexual marriage (you can see our article about what the Bible clearly asserts about homosexuality here). But does that mean that we can’t sell products and services to homosexuals? How is this different than selling flowers or cakes to an atheist considering that the Bible also frowns on atheism? At some point you would need to interview every customer who comes into your store regarding their religious background and sexual preferences. Or are we just uniquely targeting gays?

Also, part of knowing the times means that Christians should not expect non-Christians to conform to Christian behaviors in an increasingly non-Christian culture. Sixty years ago? Maybe. Now? No way!

Besides, when has Christianity been about expecting behavioral conformity from non-Christians? I understand that many throughout church history have misunderstood this idea, and have tried to impose Christian morality on people who had not understood the Gospel, trusted in Christ and experienced Christian regeneration. However, those historical precedents do not make it right to impose Christian behavior on non-Christians.

We are in times very similar to those at the end of the book of Judges where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). One of our own “prophets” admitted as much; in her 1996 song “Everyday Is a Winding Road,” Sheryl Crow repeated the line, “These are the days when anything goes.” Especially in such times, we need to heed Christ’s warning and command in Matt 10:16: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”

Christians need to be smart and godly. We need to put the Gospel first and be careful that our convictions about secondary and tertiary issues don’t eclipse our testimony. We need to know the difference between religious convictions and unethical business practices. And we need to understand the ramifications of our business decisions both on ourselves and also on those whom we are trying to reach with the Gospel of Christ.

Also, as Christians and as citizens of this great country, we need to fight against the increasing intrusion of the government and its liberal agendas. Support candidates who will pursue a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive federal government. We want to encourage the notion of a government that does not interfere with the purchasing and hiring choices of Americans and American businesses, and that provides greater justice and liberty for all.

Are you a political junkie?

. . . Well, good, because so are we! We love talking politics and especially trying to understand candidates and current events from a Biblical worldview. You can find many more political articles in our Eclectic Archive here.