DECEMBER 2020

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the December 2020 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

We hope you will have a joy-filled and peaceful Christmas even during these odd times. You can start your holiday season off with an article about Mary’s husband Joseph from Matthew 1, and consider some of the difficult circumstances that he lived through.

You will not be surprised that we have lots to say about the November 2020 presidential election. This edition, we devote an unprecedented three articles to the election and its aftermath. We would urge you to at least catch the first one, “Asking Questions and Appealing to Basic Logic.”

The issue is not starting or even echoing conspiracy theories, but just doing some basic journalism and pursuing facts and truth.

We also continue our Romans commentary and we highlight a great Renaissance-era Christmas music album.

We hope your holidays are happy and blessed. Thanks for reading, be curious, and stay eclectic!

BIBLE HISTORY: Being A Saintly Man In Scandalous Times

It seems like every month there are high-profile actors, politicians and pastors getting themselves into trouble with bad decisions and behavior.

In contrast, there is a neglected character in the Christmas story, a man who found himself in a potential scandal, and had some difficult decisions to make. His example can encourage believers to be godly and wise, especially in the strange and scandal-ridden times we live in today.

There are two Josephs in the Bible, and both are known for their godliness, obedience, and integrity. Both find themselves entangled in scandalous situations. We, too, are expected to respond to crises and scandals with godliness, selflessness, and with good decision making. These qualities can also pro-actively help us to avoid scandals and difficulties in the future, not just when they arrive.

The Joseph of the Christmas story plays a subtle but instructive role in Matthew 1:18-25. We see in verses 18-19 how Joseph honors Mary and puts her first. The couple was “pledged” or “betrothed” (v. 18). This is similar to the modern custom of an engagement, but back then, someone was far less inclined to break this betrothment. Also, “pledged” or “betrothed” signaled that their union was not consummated; this was “before they came together.”

Nevertheless, she is found to be with child. The author breezes over a heart-breaking conversation where she tells Joseph what happened. She mentions angels and Old Testament prophecies. How does Joseph respond? Joseph was a righteous and selfless man (v. 19), yet, he obviously doesn’t believe her; after all, who would? Initially, he elects to send her away so as not to embarrass or disgrace her (v. 19).

This alone points to his high character. He may have agonized that she had been unfaithful and then she tried to hide behind some “angel” story. Despite a range of justifiable emotions, like anger, embarrassment, and sorrow, Joseph wants to do right in the midst of this crisis. He puts her interests first despite the personal pain that he is going through.

Joseph also submitted to the bigger plan in vv. 20-23. Joseph needs so much convincing that the angel story was not a fairy-tale, that he received his own visit from an angel in v. 20. It is interesting that the angel doesn’t come to him until he settled on doing the kindest thing for Mary that he could. When we make good decisions, we tend to get a better sense of our role in God’s bigger plan. When we make bad decisions, we can expect to wallow in chaos and confusion, struggling to find our footing, wondering why God doesn’t provide better direction.

I think that there is another reason why the angel came to him in a dream: Have you ever tried to argue with someone while they are emotionally distraught? He had endured a miserable, heart-wrenching day. But in a dream, Joseph was in a state of complete passivity, unable to fight or argue with the angel. Here Joseph is assured that Mary’s story is true and that Joseph has a bigger role to play in this saga than to sit around and nurse his ego.

The angel addresses him as “son of David” (v. 20), reminding him that he is in the lineage of King David, and this is part of the critical role that Joseph plays in this drama. Joseph is informed that he needs to keep Mary as his wife, that she is carrying the promised Messiah, and that this is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. In v. 21, the angel instructs Joseph not merely to name the child “Jesus,” but to appreciate that this child is the promised Savior (v. 22). In fact, this child is so important that He will be called “God with us” (v. 23). God became man, He is as fully God as God the Father, and fully human, as well. No prophet could completely comprehend the extent of what it meant that God would be with us in this amazing way.

In addition to putting Mary first and submitting to the bigger plan, Joseph showed his faithfulness in a potentially scandalous situation by fully obeying God’s commands (1:24-25). He did what the angel said to do and went back to Mary (v. 24). Can you imagine that conversation? After all, while he merely thought that she had been unfaithful to him, she was actually rejected by him when he didn’t believe her. By the way, when we are carrying the gospel, as she literally was, we shouldn’t be surprised when we are misunderstood and rejected.

Speaking of setting aside your rights and interests, Joseph is patient and understood his need to wait (v. 25), a shining example in a season that is often very self-oriented. Mary had to be a virgin not only when Jesus was conceived, but also when He was born. Also, shunning the privilege to name the child after himself, Joseph names the child Jesus (v. 25), reflecting his obedience to God’s commands through the angel. Matthew 13:55 indicates that the second son to Mary and Joseph is named “Joseph”; that is, Joseph eventually got his Lil’ Joe! Often when you are obedient and set aside your own interests and preferences and rights, you will get what you want, just not in the timeframe you want it.

These are the kind of people that God chose to deliver the Gospel, Mary and Joseph, godly people in difficult times. They were patient people, who made righteous decisions even at personal expense. They understood the role they played in God’s bigger redemptive plan, and they were willing to be corrected and to wait on God’s timing and not trust in their own.

Like Mary’s husband Joseph, we can respond to crises and scandals with godliness, selflessness, and with good decision making. These can help us pro-actively avoid problems in the future, and it will help us to stand out in an increasingly dark age.

LEGITIMATE ILLEGITIMACIES: Asking Questions and Appealing to Basic Logic

This series called “Legitimate Illegitimacies” is about the 2020 Presidential Election. You may agree, and you may not; but here at The Eclectic Kasper, we are more interested in truth and facts than in a political agenda or opinion.

There is a difference between those who are curious and those who are conspiracy theorists. In fact, journalists used to be curious and skeptical, but now, journalism is dead; nobody is curious or skeptical anymore.

You don’t need to put on a tin foil hat to be shocked by this sheer lack of investigative interest exhibited by any of the news networks. The lack of interest in potential voting irregularities and accusations of fraud is staggering. The sudden unquestioning trust in elections directly contradicts how we have heard for four years that voting machines were hacked and that the 2016 election was stolen by Russians.

In fact, rather than asking responsible questions and having a curious thirst for truth, journalists demonize those who do their job for them. One headline lectures us by declaring, “The Presidential Election Was Legitimate. Conspiracies Are Not,” and then the subtitle claims that the article is “Debunking the right’s most viral claims of fraud.” Another headline suggests, “Extremism Experts Warn Of Dangers In Baseless Claims Of ‘Stolen’ Election.” What?! “Experts” warn that someone is making claims about something? What the heck kind of journalism is that?

Few are taking the time to investigate, ask questions, or exhibit any shred of healthy journalistic skepticism. We don’t have to assume that something is false or a conspiracy theory just because it doesn’t match our agenda. Maybe our agenda should be truth, rather than some personality or set of talking points. If our political ideology is so fragile that we have to protect it from facts, then there is something wrong with our ideology.

With all those qualifications in mind, I want to do some honest journalism, ask some tough questions, and exhibit some reasonable skepticism. If that seems like conspiracy-theory talk to you, then maybe you don’t understand conspiracy theories, and maybe you don’t understand journalism, and maybe you don’t understand truth.

I confess that much of what I say in these articles has been said by others, even if I don’t correctly cite them all, or perhaps we have come to the same conclusions independently. However, if we did so, it is because many of us are using common sense and skepticism about this election. In this series I will discuss factors about the 2020 U.S. presidential election that should be thoroughly investigated by local and federal governments and by the media, including local and national journalists. The apparent lack of investigations and the lack of media skepticism seems more like a cover-up. No matter who gets inaugurated in January 2021, there are simply too many legitimate examples of illegitimacy to ignore.

I want to start by asking some simple questions about this election. These don’t represent proof of one thing or another, but they certainly represent some things that people should be wondering about.

Let’s look at some raw numbers: In 2016, Trump earned almost 63 million votes, and in 2020, he earned over 74 million; that’s a delta of 11 million more votes. As we mentioned in our article “Why I Think Trump Will Win the Election” from the October edition, Trump had so much going for him, including incumbency, an improving economy, low unemployment, and enthusiasm exhibited in the huge Trump rallies. It makes sense that he received 11 million more votes after his first term.

In fact, previous elections give us perspective on how plausible this 11 million vote jump is. It is close to the difference between the 43.9 million votes Ronald Reagan received in 1980 and the 54.4 million votes he garnered in 1984. Similarly, George W. Bush earned 50.4 million votes in 2000 and 62.0 in 2004. Reagan earned 10 million more in his second presidential election; Bush received almost 12 million more in his second presidential election. It makes perfect sense that Trump received 11 million more votes his second time around; this increase is consistent with the pattern of previous Republican presidents.

Biden, however, allegedly received over 80 million votes in 2020, which is more than Hillary Clinton’s 65.8 million votes in 2016, Barack Obama’s 65.9 million votes in 2012, and his 69.4 million votes in 2008. It is hard to believe that the growth of the population of the country and that interest in the Democratic party has exploded by millions of people over the last four years after having been relatively static for the previous dozen years. Surely Trump elicited some antagonism and alienated many with unnecessary tweets and comments. But does anyone legitimately think that scandal-plagued and basement-bound Joe Biden garnered over fourteen million more votes than Hillary in 2016 and Obama in 2012?

J.B. Shurk exhibited some skepticism about these numbers in an November 23 article called, “5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms.” Specifically, he noted that Biden “Managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now.” Among other curious metrics, Shurk notes how odd it was that Biden won despite the fact that “Trump set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent when more than 18 million people turned out for him in 2020 (the previous record, held by Bill Clinton, was half that number). For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head.” He concludes by noting that “Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out.”

Aren’t these numbers worth investigating? Aren’t there interesting stories here in the fact that Biden won despite Trump’s incumbency and the fact that Trump won 94 percent of the primary vote among Republicans? Why aren’t democrats celebrating that Biden won an unbelievable 14 million more votes than the first African-American president Barack Obama in 2012 and the first female presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016? Are there any journalists at any network curious enough to explore the validity of these numbers or what they signify for both parties and for our country?

I’m trying to set aside questions about what is legitimate and what is not. I’m just curious as to why more people aren’t curious. I’m asking why more people, especially people in the media who are paid to ask questions aren’t asking important questions?

Perhaps as we continue through this series we’ll uncover more things that we should be asking questions about and trying to get to the bottom of. After all, somebody has to do it, and apparently, the media won’t.

MUSIC: A Renaissance Holiday Celebration

For the Kasper family, it would hardly be the holidays without the manger, gifts, food, and Mannheim Steamroller.

Mannheim Steamroller is an eclectic musical group that was founded by Chip Davis in the mid-70s. It started with its Fresh Aire series, which, featured original songs by Davis in a variety of styles, including classical, medieval, modern, and new-age. Despite the variety of genres that he covers, a light and airy feel has been his consistent signature style.

However, it wasn’t until Davis first applied his eclectic style to Christmas that Mannheim Steamroller became a household name. The 1984 album Mannheim Steamroller Christmas demonstrated how Davis could rework both our most beloved and even some obscure holiday songs in different styles, including classical, new age, synth-pop, and renaissance. His “Deck the Halls” has now become as associated with American Christmas almost to the same extent that John Williams’ fanfare for the 1984 Summer Olympic games has become a symbol for the Olympics.

Subsequent Mannheim Steamroller albums, like the immensely popular 1988 outing “A Fresh Aire Christmas,” allowed audiences to continue to be delighted by Chip Davis’ re-stylings of familiar tunes. There is a very cool modern rendition of “Carol of the Bells,” a beautiful renaissance version of “The Holly and The Ivy,” and this album opens with both a trumpet rendition and a modern version of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.”

Unfortunately, not all of the modern renditions of the most popular Mannheim Steamroller songs have aged well. Some, like “Good King Wenceslas” and “The Little Drummer Boy” are now almost hard to enjoy, unless you are in an elevator.

The ones that I have come to appreciate more and more are those that Chip Davis does in a medieval and renaissance style. And if you, too, appreciate those, then you will really like Mannheim Steamroller, Renaissance Holiday.

The Renaissance Holiday album is a solid presentation of authentic sixteenth- and seventeenth-century holiday-related songs (though, in researching this album, I have come to suspect that some of these songs lack a direct link to the holidays, but they were included, anyway). Some tracks are brassy fanfares (like “Volte,” “Gigue,” or “New Yeeres Gift”), while others are orchestral (“Ballet” and “Lachrimae Antiquae”) or Baroque (Melchior Franck’s “Intrada”). A few are just straight harpsicord presentations (“Cos Colo Odo Sa” and “Malle Sijmon”); others are playful and light (like “Ding Dong! Merrily On High” and “Bouree”). I especially like the late-medieval songs, such as “The Kings Mistresse,” “There Is No Rose Of [Such] Virtue,” and “Bateman’s Masque.” There is a satisfying array of early modern styles in this cornucopia of delightful tunes.

You may not be familiar with every one of the songs on Renaissance Holiday. Of course, some of them are more well-known than others, such as “Greensleeves” (the tune for “What Child is This?”), “Coventry Carol,” and “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen.” Most songs on this album are more obscure, but they all have a festive feel to them, nonetheless.

Whether more familiar or more obscure, Davis sticks with medieval and renaissance styles in this outing. He only uses older songs and tries to recreate how they would have been presented originally by composers like John Dowland or Michael Praetorius. So, if you’re a bit turned off by the near-elevator-music style of some of the most popular Mannheim Steamroller songs, be assured that you will not hear any of those on this album. That is, these are not standard modern Christmas songs presented with a Renaissance flair; you will not hear “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” played in the style of Dowland. Rather, they are all genuine sixteenth- and seventeenth-century tunes, and Davis preserves the authenticity of them.

So, if you find yourself a bit disillusioned with modern politics, culture, or music, then you may want to allow Mannheim Steamroller, Renaissance Holiday to transport you back to a simpler, and perhaps more festive time.

LEGITIMATE ILLEGITIMACIES: Widespread Fraud Not Necessary, Part 1

On Tuesday, December 1, Attorney General Bill Barr declared that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud “that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”

The media cheered, but never used their brains to consider this statement nor investigate it any deeper. They just gave a sigh of relief that they wouldn’t have to do any actual journalism or investigative work.

But consider his statement: He didn’t say that there was no voter fraud, but only that there was not enough to change the outcome of the election, and that statement itself seems somewhat subjective. The media just glossed over that and focused on the words they wanted to hear: “we have not seen fraud.”

More importantly, though, is the statement that there was no “widespread” voter fraud. The problem with this is that there didn’t have to be widespread voting irregularities and fraud to change this election. There only needed to be enough voter fraud in three or four states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, for a total of 63 electoral college votes. And really, not even in the whole state: they simply had to have some voter fraud in a county or two around Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix, and they may have planned some shenanigans around Milwaukee and Las Vegas, just to make sure.

Or consider this scenario: the total difference in votes between Biden and Trump just in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia was only about 42,600 votes (about 10,500 in AZ, 19,500 in WI and 12,600 in GA). These states represent 37 electoral college votes, or enough to bring both candidates to 269 from their current positions (Biden at 306 and Trump at 232).

To put it succinctly, there never needed to be widespread election fraud. There just needed to be enough fraud in a few places, an extra hundred thousand votes here, another ten thousand votes or so there, to change the outcome.

So, what actual evidence is there of voter fraud in these states? And are these concerns and incidents being properly investigated by local and state governments and given fair coverage by the media and news outlets? Dozens of lawsuits suggesting fraud and hundreds of affidavits alleging fraud have been submitted. We certainly can’t enumerate them all now, but we’ll survey just a few of the stories from some of these key states.

Problems in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral college are being awarded to Biden (allegedly winning by 80,000 votes) despite the fact that Trump beat Hillary in this state by 50,000 in 2016. That is an odd swing away from an incumbent president who has improved jobs and the economy during his term. In Pennsylvania, there are several concerns, such as a truck driver named Phill Kline who asserts that he drove many filled out ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Democrats love anonymous whistle blowers when they allegedly rat on Trump, but they hate GOP whistle blowers who actually have names and faces.

We also have testimony about poll observers in Philadelphia who were not permitted into rooms where votes were being counted, or were kept too far away for them to see what was happening. Again, this didn’t have to happen throughout the entire state, but in just one or two strategic locations in just a few states. And then, there is the saga about whether the ballots that arrived after election day should be counted in the presidential election; the PA legislature says no, but the PA Supreme Court says yes.

Georgia on My Mind. Whether intentional or not, there were a series of indisputable irregularities in Georgia, the critical 16 electoral college votes of which have been awarded to Biden, who appeared to have won by a mere 12,000 votes. After the election, about 2,600 uncounted ballots were discovered in the conservative leaning Floyd County in north Georgia. Then a second batch of 2,700 votes that had not been counted in Fayette County were discovered, again, a healthy majority of which went for Trump. Were there more episodes like this that haven’t been discovered? Is anyone else asking this question or responsibly investigating these stories?

A new round of concerns surfaced in December. One report notes that Republican officials obtained a Dominion machine from Ware County that was allegedly switching votes from Trump to Biden. Though it was just a few in this particular incident, these kind of irregularities extrapolated across the state could make a significant difference in the outcome. The real kicker was the video released on December 2 which shows Fulton County (i.e., Atlanta) poll workers pulling out hidden suitcases of ballots on election night, after dismissing the normal poll workers and partisan poll watchers. Those who try to dismiss these episodes as being questionable rarely use any real evidence themselves; the rebuttals are full of assumptions rather than evidence.

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in early December in Fulton County asserting evidence of and witnesses to many illegal ballots cast on November 3, including: “2,560 felons; 66,247 underage voters, 2,423 votes from people not registered; 1,043 individuals registered at post office boxes; 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state; 395 individuals who voted in two states; 15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election; 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county.” These examples alone represent over 133,000 ballots, far more than enough to overturn the result in Georgia.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp finally agreed on Friday,December 4 to leverage the Georgia Bureau of Investigations to look into the elections processes in Georgia and allegations of fraud. It is widely reported (for instance, here) that the GBI is investigating “hundreds” of open cases related to the 2020 presidential election just in Georgia, including possible instances of double voting, ballots allegedly from deceased individuals, and absentee ballot fraud. Raffensperger announced on Dec 14 that the GBI will audit signatures on the envelopes of absentee votes in Cobb County (in northwest Atlanta) and look for inconsistencies. Again, the point is not just the outcome, but that there are enough investigations, curiosity, and responsibility to inspect matters that have implications on national elections.

Here are a few other things to remember about Georgia. While it is not unprecedented for Georgia to break ranks with other southern states during presidential elections, it is unusual. Georgia was a lonely island of blue in a sea of red in the 1992 and 1980 elections. In almost every other election in the last century, Georgia has voted with the block of southern states, and has gone for the GOP candidate since 1992. One may argue that Georgia is going purple, which may be somewhat true; but in 2018, GOP governor Brian Kemp beat Democrat candidate Stacy Abrams 50.2% to 48.8%; while the 54,000-vote difference was not huge, it is difficult to swallow that this gap would evaporate in a mere two years.

A few more things about Georgia. First, though there were two recounts in Georgia, this doesn’t matter if many of the ballots that were originally counted were fraudulent, but then they were simply recounted two more times. In this case, we expect the three counts to provide the same outcome, nullifying the entire point of a recount. Also, in Georgia, any fraud or voting irregularities in favor of the Democrats have implications not only for the presidential contest, but also for two critical senate contests, as well. Voter fraud in Georgia compromises GOP control of the White House, but also of the senate.

But what about some of these other swing states? Were there legitimate examples of illegitimacies and irregularities in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada? We’ll explore those in Part 2 below.

ROMANS: A Profound Demonstration of Love, Romans 5:6-8

In 1967, the Beatles sang, “All You Need Is Love.”

Yet, American society in more recent years seems more dominated by hate than love.

God is often mischaracterized for His cruelty, His rigidity, His judgment. Yet, in reality, there is no more profound demonstration of love than God offering His Son, who willing allowed Himself to be sacrificed for the benefit of those who hated Him. Regarding that kind of love, I think that we can agree with the Beatles that, “Love is all you need.”

Having mentioned in Romans 5:5 the love that God “poured out,” Paul turns to the main moment where that love is demonstrated to all humanity, specifically the pouring out of Christ’s blood and life on the cross.

Paul recognized that redemption was necessary because of the “helplessness” of humanity (Rom 5:6). The word asthenes means “sick, weak, or delicate.” It refers to a variety of ways that something can be lacking including a lack of health (Matt 25:43; Luke 10:9; Acts 4:9; 1 Cor 11:30), a lack of resolve (Matt 26:41 [par Mark 14:38]), a lack of effectiveness (Heb 7:18) or a relative lack of strength (1 Pet 3:7). There are also more abstract expressions like a lack in worldly status (1 Cor 1:27; 2 Cor 10:10) or a lack in spiritual maturity in a believer (1 Cor 8:7, 9, 10).

Paul’s use of the word here in Romans 5:6 indicates an important plank in the Apostles’ anthropology: humanity is lacking and insufficient to attain or accomplish salvation on our own. Paul has argued this very point strenuously in chapters 1-3 of Romans, the pinnacle of which is Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

The other side of pre-conversion lack is the post-conversion enablement that believers are provided through the Spirit. Paul celebrates how God strengthened him when he wrote the “Prison Epistles” while under arrest, including Eph 3:20: “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,” or Paul’s assertion in Phil 4:13: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”

In the midst of human weakness and sheer inability to save itself, Christ appears. This occurs “according to the time” or at the divinely-designated, and therefore, completely appropriate time.

In Romans 5:7, Paul steps back to explain the apparent illogic of God’s love. It is logical, though rare, to give one’s life for a good person. That makes sense to a certain degree. Some even give their lives for a good cause or purpose, such as the idea of freedom or liberty enshrined in the ideals of a country. Rarely do people give their lives for a bad idea, and even more rarely for a bad person.

Therefore, if God provides His grace, and if Christ sacrificed His life for sinners, the motive must not be the logic of doing so because of the goodness of the recipient. Rather, the motive must be the love and affection of God despite the unworthiness of the recipient.

Even the logical situation occurs relatively “rarely.” The use of the word molis, meaning “hardly” or “with difficulty,” raises the question about whether Paul is referring to the infrequency of something or the difficulty of accomplishing it. Elsewhere in the NT, the word molis seems to point to quality, where it is translated by the words, “with difficulty” rather than frequency (Acts 14:18; 27:7-8, 16; 1 Pet 4:18). Commentator Leon Morris agrees that the idea here in Rom 5:7 is not frequency or “very rarely” (NIV). Rather, “his expression refers to the difficulty of finding someone to do this rather than the number of occasions when it happens” (Morris, Romans, 223). That is, it is very unlikely that someone would give their life even for a righteous person.

The use of the word “righteous” (dikaios) here in v. 7 does several things. First, in this hypothetical scenario, it is probably not a reference to a saved person exclusively, but a reference to a relatively moral or good person, even by the world’s standards. In a broader context, however, the word “righteous” foreshadows v. 8, which mentions that Christ, the only truly and inherently righteous individual, gave His life for sinners. Also, the use of righteous in this verse, helps clarify the use of “weak” or “sick” in v. 6. There Paul isn’t talking about a physical sickness or weakness. The words “righteous” and “good” in v. 7 means that v. 6 is referring to a spiritual sickness or a moral weakness.

In a slight softening of the first half of the verse, Paul concedes that “possibly” or “perhaps” someone would “dare” to die on behalf of a good person. The point here is that it is difficult to find instances where one person would give their life even for someone who is commonly seen as a good or a just person. That sacrifice itself is hard to imagine and hard to find.

Given the premise of v. 7, v. 8 demonstrates how unimaginably sacrificial, compassionate, and illogical Christ’s atonement was. Verse 7 could be explained with some semblance of logic, if even a logic rarely applied and hard to find. The premise of v. 8, however, is not logic but rather, love.

The love of God is mentioned explicitly with the qualification “His own” love (v. 8). This indicates that the love of God is not merely some philosophical principle by an impassible deity. The connection between God and humanity and the motivation for reestablished broken relationship after the fall is the agape or “love” of God. This is important: it is not a quality of humanity or the worthiness of man that compels God to provide a sacrificial salvation to us. Rather, the restoration of this relationship comes from and could only originate with God. It may be illogical, but it is functional.

The demonstration of God’s love is in the sacrifice of Christ for sinners. Verse 8 parallels the elements of “dying” or “giving one’s life” (apothnesko) and doing so “for the sake of” or “on behalf of” (huper, used once in v. 8 and twice in v. 7). Again, it would not be love if a sacrifice was made for “good” people, in fact, then the act would be worthiness or obligation. But the sacrifice made for sinners must only be motivated by a quality in God, because it could not be motivated by a good quality in people.

Even in a selfish world, we find people who love their own children or their own kind (Matt 7:9-11; Luke 6:32-34). How much more is God demonstrating such tremendous love as when He allows His only unique Son to die a miserable death that benefits sinners who are antagonistic to Him?

While God does judge sin, and is morally holy in a way we couldn’t begin to comprehend, He also provides this profound demonstration of love. Jesus died for sinners like you and I so that as redeemed individuals, we can receive eternal life by faith, and then strive to be godly, truthful and compassionate. This illogical and majestic love that God showed to the world is love that we can show to one another, as well.

And this kind of love is all we need.

LEGITIMATE ILLEGITIMACIES: Widespread Fraud Not Necessary, Part 2

In part 1 of this article above, we noted that for Joe Biden to win the 2020 presidential election, there didn’t have to be widespread voter fraud. There just needed to be enough fraud in a few counties in a few cities around Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee and maybe Phoenix and Las Vegas, as well. We discussed legitimate problems in Pennsylvania and Georgia. Here in Part 2, we will discuss legitimate concerns many have with voting irregularities in a few other key states.

Mayhem in Michigan. Michigan provides 16 electoral college votes, which means that the notorious corruption in Detroit has the potential to affect the course not only of the state, but of the country, as well. Numerous affidavits testify to illegitimacies in the vote-counting process, including those listed, and very weakly refuted in a Detroit News article from November 20. Zachary Larsen, a former MI assistant attorney general, asserted that votes were “marked as ‘problem ballots’ based on who the person had voted for rather than on any legitimate concern about the ability to count and process the ballot appropriately.” Andrew Sitto, a poll challenger, challenged many ballots that suddenly arrived at 4:30 AM on Nov 4, the morning after election day.

Some affidavits allege that poll workers were coaching voters on who to vote for and others were restricting access to the ballot counting process. Consider a contrast: one individual made questionable allegations about Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his senate confirmation process. That individual, culling her recollections of a party that took places almost forty years previously was given the ability to spout lies about him before a senate committee. Shouldn’t the hundreds of individuals signing these affidavits about things they saw with the last few weeks be given the same respect and shouldn’t their concerns also be investigated?

A Gamble in Nevada. Nevada demonstrated an array of voting irregularities that polluted many of our states. A Trump legal team suggests that there may be enough illegitimate votes in this state to easily overturn the outcome. They assert that over 1,500 ballots were linked to deceased people, and that over 42,000 people may have voted multiple times.

In Nevada, non-citizens can supposedly have drivers licenses but cannot vote. On December 12, the Nevada Republican Party noted that when they looked at voter records in Nevada, “we discovered that 6,260 non citizens were registered to vote and 3,987 non-citizens had voted.” Again, the question isn’t just whether this is a valid observation or not, but rather, is anyone from the federal or state government or anyone from the media going to follow-up and investigate this? Aren’t these the kinds of gritty stories that curious and hungry reporters love to get their hands on? They will probably also ignore allegations that the Biden campaign offered Native Americans in Nevada Visa gift cards and jewelry to vote for the former VP.

There are many other concerns about illegitimacies and irregularities in this voting process. Some wonder about the momentum that Trump had on election day, and how that momentum shifted strategically in the dark hours of the night in key swing states. Many recognize how odd it was that Biden overcame so many historical trends and the power of incumbency. Pollster Patrick Basham explains why Biden’s victory was “not statistically impossible, but it’s statistically implausible.” These implausible factors should be taken into consideration more than is being done by politicians and pundits currently.

Then, there is this weird clip of Biden seemingly admitting that he planed to perpetrate voter fraud. Of course, it is easy to dismiss this as one of his many gaffes; it is odd, however, that he looks down, like he is reading this, not just misspeaking it. Many republicans agree with Biden on this instance; a Politico/ Morning Consult poll conducted Nov 6-9, surveyed 1,987 registered voters and found that 70% of Republicans don’t think the election was fair, but believe that there was some kind of fraud or deception.

The legitimacy of this election is undermined even more considering the amount of mindless hatred that the left has toward Trump. Many of us sense that the left would stop at nothing, including purposefully falsifying an election or adding thousands of fraudulent votes in a few strategic locations just to get Trump out of office.

Look at what the Democratic party has done up to this point: they concocted a fake dossier against Trump, they spread lies about his connections with the Russian government for four years, they spent millions of dollars and thousands of legislative hours impeaching him because of a phone call to the Ukrainian president. After all this and more, why would we be surprised if we find out that they rigged an election, too?

It is not a conspiracy theory to question the validity of vote counting in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit and Atlanta, and a few other critical urban centers. And it is not illegitimate to consider that some in this country would have perpetrated anything to defeat Trump, the GOP, and the common-sense American people in the November 2020 presidential election.