FEBRUARY 2019

    Avengers: End Game (April 26). While ten years of MCU films built up to Avengers: Infinity War, the reality is that Infinity War was really just a build up to Avengers: End Game. I anticipate—and the trailers have more or less confirmed this—that End Game will be dark and morose, more like DC, especially the appropriately depressing tone at the beginning of Justice League. Can Marvel pull this moodiness off as well as DC does? That remains to be seen. Can they give us a satisfying conclusion to the saga begun in Infinity War without confusing us with time travel, back story, and a cheap, overly simplistic solution? That is the real issue.

    Unfortunately, we were bereft of some of the mystery of End Game; the Spiderman: Far From Home trailer has already confirmed that some, if not all, who were victimized by Thanos’ snap will be saved. But do we really believe that all of those original Avengers will make it through the ominously-titled End Game? Which cherished and foundational character will “get it” in this film? Stark? Thor? Cap? How will Hawkeye and Ant-Man contribute to this plot? With all the questions hovering over this movie, one thing is certain: We can guarantee that MCU will deliver a great and satisfying film.

    X-Men: Dark Phoenix (June 7). X-Men is the underrated kid brother that often gets lost in the wake of MCU and DC. It has been a long-running and solid franchise, with some of the cleverest characters and plots in the superhero firmament. The previous three movies featuring this new cast, including First Class, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse have been solid, with DoFP rising to the level of fantastic. Dark Phoenix will be the fourth film in this continuity and the tenth film in the franchise.

    Other franchises have taken the liberty not just to reboot, but to recreate characters for one reason or another. We are now on our second Superman, our third Spider-man, and our third and soon to be fourth Batman. Dark Phoenix will provide somewhat of a redo of 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand, which, while not a horrible movie, was clearly a franchise disappointment. While I’m not a huge fan of Sophie Turner’s portrayal of Jean Grey/ Phoenix, she is a good actress, and with the help of fellow-cast members James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and others, she’ll pull it off fine.

    Star Wars, Episode IX (December 20). To be honest, we’re mainly looking forward to this film because it is a Star Wars movie, not because of either of the previous two installments of this trilogy. In fact, the overabundance of Star Wars movies and cartoons, and the mismanagement of this recent trilogy (especially of The Last Jedi) have somewhat taken the wind out of this franchise’s sails. We have a deep-seated loyalty to Star Wars, and we hope that those making Episode IX are penitent enough to finally craft a film that honors the massive fanbase rather than just using these characters to make a political statements (Episode VIII was way too political; see our article “The Dark Side of The Last Jedi” from the November 2018 edition). In fact, we hope that, as Episode III did, Episode IX will strive to atone for previous mistakes in the trilogy. 

    We’re tempted to ask inquisitive questions about this next film and discuss plot points that we hope this movie will deal with. But, we are quick to remember that The Last Jedi didn’t really provide many satisfying answers to questions raised by The Force Awakens. So, our expectations are low, but we won’t mind if we are treated (finally!) to a great movie, or at least a satisfying conclusion to this trilogy.

    Obligatory Mentions: Note that these are not “honorable” mentions, but simply obligatory mentions, films that I feel compelled to mention lest someone writes in and says, “Well, what about [insert film name here].” Just so you get the point of these, I acknowledge that these movies are coming out in 2019, but I am not really looking forward to watching them for one reason or another.

    Shazam! (April 5). I have always been a big DC fan, and I am in a small minority of people who actually liked Batman v Superman and Justice League (though not so much with Aquaman). But the trailers for Shazam! make me think that this film will embody everything that people hate about DC. It looks cheesy, and we can only hope that this will not turn into another DC flop.

    Spider-Man: Far From Home (July 5). This film tracks Tom Holland’s bouncy character on a class trip to Europe. I’m sure the film will be fine as it balances humorous elements with more serious ones. But I wonder whether by this third iteration of the character, we’re all starting to get Spidey-fatigue. We’ll see!

    Joker (October 4).Really? Just a back story film about the Joker? Especially after all the attention the Joker has received including the 1989 Batman, the 2008 film The Dark Knight and the 2016 move Suiside Squad? And consider the screen time Joker had in the TV series Gotham, and multiple animated iterations, including being portrayed on-and-off by Mark Hamill for the last quarter-century? If anybody could pull off a Joker prequel, Joaquin Phoenix could. But the bigger question is whether the poor reception of several similar films lately (like Aquaman or Venom) means only that these were under performing films or that we’re experiencing some comic-book character weariness.

    OK, so what films did we miss? What big 2019 movies are you looking forward to and why? Send your thoughts and responses to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll present them anonymously in a future edition!

ROMANS: Jettisoning Boasting, Romans 3:27-31

    One of the greatest obstacles to today’s spread of Christianity is the arrogance of Christians. Even though our message is about how we are sinners saved by grace, nonetheless we perhaps forget that our status as “children of God” was given to us, not earned by us. Grace is powerful and potent, but sometimes it goes to our head.

    I believe that Christianity would be far more successful and would be perceived as far more valid if more believers were more humble.

    Romans 3 contains a beautiful discussion about how fallen sinners can be justified and declared righteous before a holy God by placing our faith in the sacrificial death and literal resurrection of Christ. Paul makes clear that even after that, we need to have the humility to avoid boasting and embrace the implications of grace for our life.

    In Romans 3:27, Paul asks where there is any place for boasting or bragging about our spirituality or our religious efforts. Well, if it is by grace through faith, then there is none! Grace excludes boasting. The issue of boasting was apparently problematic enough in the Roman church that Paul mentions it in 2:17, 23, here in 3:27 and also in 4:2, and it is used more positively in 5:2, 3 and 11 and 15:17. One wonders if boasting and confidence was just so central to Roman culture and to Rome itself, that a wrong mindset about boasting or what to boast about had crept into the Roman church. Paul makes this connection between salvation and not boasting elsewhere (1 Cor 1:29; 5:6; 2 Cor 1:12; Eph 2:9; See also Jas 4:16). As a result of the reception of salvation, the ability of a believer to boast is “excluded.”

    Here the word “law” is probably more a reference to a principle rather than to the formal Mosaic Law. The Apostle is not establishing a separate law here, though there are references in the NT to the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2; see also Rom 8:2; Jas 2:12). We are not saved by the law of Moses, but only by the rule that we could never earn our salvation, but can only receive it through faith.

    There is always a temptation to boast. Even when I have done absolutely nothing to contribute to a single win in any professional sport, I still boast about my team, a group of people I am only loosely associated with and only by virtue of geography. How much less could we boast when we receive salvation that we could not earn, and when we are delivered from God’s wrath that we fully deserve, but could never turn away on our own.

    Paul reasserts a point in 3:28 that is central to Romans. The word logizomai, from where we get the word “logic,” means “to count” or “to consider.” Nineteen of the forty occurrences of this word in the NT are in Romans, including 11 occurrences in Romans 4. Apparently many early believers still considered that the Law and that human works had some effect on salvation. Paul refutes this and “maintains” and “affirms” that justification is by faith and not law.

    The word dikaioö means, “to put into a right relationship” or “to declare and treat as righteous.” The verb is already somewhat passive in connotation, meaning that someone is placed into a right relationship with someone else. This idea is verified by the fact that the verb is passive: people are being justified by God. And, in a statement of Pauline theology, he continues that this justification is appropriated “by faith,” and “without works of the Law.”

    In v. 29, Paul again undermines the notion that God is only of the Jews or only wants a relationship with the Jews. He is the Creator of both Jews and Gentiles, and therefore, it is right for Gentiles to be integrated into the family of God. This can be done without the Gentiles first becoming Jews in order to be children of God. God’s concern for the Gentiles is not unique to the NT; God has always wanted to extend His grace and truth throughout the world, since the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12. But the point again is that neither Jews nor Gentiles have the right to boast about their salvation because for both, salvation is a gift that is received entirely by faith.

    The concept that God is over both Jews and Gentiles from v. 29 is continued in v. 30. This verse affirms that there is one God. Part of His oversight and sovereignty is the fact that He – and by implication, He alone – provides justification. The fact that there is one God who oversees all justification means that there is only one way to be justified. There are not many paths to the same God, or many modes of approach to God; that would make God unfair and inconsistent.

    As Paul discussed in Romans 2, justification does not depend on human works, such as performing the law, nor on whether or not one is circumcised. God justifies both the circumcised and the uncircumcised through faith. “Paul is not saying that all the circumcised are justified, but that all the circumcised who are justified are justified in this way” (Leon Morris, Romans, 188).

    Finally, in v. 31, Paul answers a logical question that may arise in the reader’s mind at this point. The Mosaic Law provided an all-encompassing identity for the Jewish race, and an encouragement for them to walk humbly in compliance with God’s expectations. If the Law was not necessary for salvation, and indeed, it never had been, and if Gentiles can now freely be justified in the same manner that the Jew is justified, what then is the value of the Law? Do the apostles abolish the Law, render it null and useless, and leave it behind?

    Paul’s emphatic response to this sentiment is “May it never be!” This phrase is a strong negation that is used fifteen times in the NT, fourteen times by Paul (Luke 20:16 is the only non-Pauline instance) and ten times in Romans alone. Paul emphatically rejects the notion that the Law is no longer valid, important, or foundational for our faith. Of course, the NT is clear that the rituals, ceremonies, and dietary regulations are no longer binding for Jewish or Gentile Christians (see Acts 10 and 15 and Galatians). Paul’s emphatic negation of the idea that the Law is no longer important should perhaps be heeded by modern evangelicalism, which tends to ignore the first five books of the Bible with the exception of Genesis 1-3 and some isolated stories about Moses.

    The law is not nullified, but rather, “we uphold” the law through faith. The verb here is histemi and it is probably better to take the NIV “uphold” rather than the curious NASB rendering “establish.” Faith does not nullify Mosaic law or any other law or standard; as Paul will argue later, the opposite of law is not faith but lawlessness. The only way to truly understand absolute morality, to appreciate transcendent and universal laws, and to obey divine expectations is through faith. But we then understand God’s holiness and high expectations through the Law, even though there are specific parts or regulations no longer binding upon NT believers. When we are living out our faith in truth, kindness and compassion, we are not voiding the law, but accomplishing it (Gal 5:18, 23).

    Christianity is a faith of humility, not arrogance. Christ humbled Himself to a profound extent in His suffering and death so that we could be justified (Phil 2:1-11). Those who have experienced and truly understand that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ will carry that humility with them as they share the faith with unbelievers and encourage believers.  

UTOPIAN LITERATURE: What are Utopia and Euchronia?

        The following article is originally from the October 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and presented here with minor modifications.

    Since Thomas More wrote Utopia in 1516, many European authors have envisioned ideal societies that were separated from their reality by either place or time. These various contributions to utopian literature tended both to enshrine hopes for the future as well as highlight anxieties that plague the present. Fátima Vieira suggests that “Utopia is . . . a kind of reaction to an undesirable present and an aspiration to overcome all difficulties by the imagination of possible alternatives” (“The Concept of Utopia” in Utopian Literature, ed. Gregory Claeys, 7).

    While many utopias have been written throughout the ages, the modern tradition of utopian literature began with More’s Utopia. The name itself is a word-play: the Greek word utopia literally means “no place” while its homophone eutopia means “a good place.” Vieira asserts that “Etymologically, utopia is thus a place which is a non-place, simultaneously constituted by a movement of affirmation and denial” (Vieira, 4).

    Like More’s Utopia, many subsequent examples of utopian literature picture a traveler returning from a distant land with stories of diverse and exotic societies; interest in exploration during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries lent plausibility to such tales. The body of these works contains detailed descriptions of various aspects of that distant society; the author would often use these descriptions of a fictional utopia to create a contrast with his or her homeland, and thereby, indirectly critique it.

    A really fun subcategory of utopia is “euchronia,” or a work that is set in a “good time.” That is, rather than traveling to a different place at the current time, the author is somehow whisked off to a different time, though often he remains in the same place. A key example of euchronia is Louis-Sébastien Mercier’s 1771 work called The Year 2440 (L’An 2440, rêve s’il en fût jamais). In this work (which we will discuss more fully in a future installment of this series), Mercier’s narrator wakes up in his Paris home, but 669 years in the future, in the year 2440, the year of the narrator’s (and the author’s) seven-hundredth birthday. He is escorted around this future Paris, and shown how eighteenth-century enlightenment principles had been integrated into all aspects of society. So, rather than positioning a utopian society in a different location existing in the present, Mercier places his utopia in his beloved city of Paris, but far into the future.

    While the literary construct of a euchronia is similar—a voyager describing various aspects of an idyllic society—the rhetorical effect is different. Utopia sometimes implies that the place described is not really possible, or at least, fairly unlikely. Euchronia implies the opposite, specifically, that the good future place described in the story is a reality toward which humanity—given enough time—could progress. The European Enlightenment of the late 1700’s especially promoted the notion that through reason and education humanity can progress beyond the impediments of authoritarian rulers or religious conflicts. Other works we will investigate, such as those by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, are treatises about what society could become if Enlightenment ideas were implemented; thus, they are more like euchronia than utopia, they are idyllic visions to which society may aspire.

    An additional (and really, really fun) sub-category of utopia is dystopia, sometimes referred to as “cacotopia,” which means a “bad place.” These do not emerge until the second half of the nineteenth-century. Before then satire and parody, such as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) or Voltaire’s Candide (1759) carried the weight of social critique. However, heightened political and scientific threats of the latter half of the nineteenth-century birthed dystopian literature. This was a more intense genre for expressing concerns in regard to technology gone amok or militaristic, totalitarian regimes taking over. 

    Some of the most popular dystopic works include Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (published in 1931), George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), and Ray Bradburry’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953). These works are not really the opposite of utopia, picturing a bad place at the current time; rather, dystopia is really the opposite of euchronia, portraying the author’s native location at a dark and tragic potential future time. The authors suggest that the grim realities portrayed in their stories depict a plausible future in their homeland if certain mindsets or behaviors are not altered now. This literary device tugs at the reader’s patriotism as they witness a familiar landscape recast in dystopian shambles. Yet, dystopias do not merely portray dismal potential prospects for societies, but through their narrative power, they project the hope that society can change its trajectory as a result, in part, of the ominous warnings of the dystopian author.

    Throughout this series, we will examine several utopian works, including some euchronian books, and eventually we’ll cover some really interesting dystopic works, as well. I think that you will find the aspirations and warnings of these works to be very fascinating and instructive.

    The second article in this series was called “A City Based on Christ and Luther” from the October 2017 edition. You can find this article and more in our “Eclectic Archive.” 

ORTHODOXY AND HERESY: Andy’s Theological Adventures

    We began this series back in April 2018 with an article called “The Finale of False Teachers,” where we examined 2 Peter 2:3 and what it says about the end for teachers who diverge from or reject Biblical Christianity.

    In this series “Orthodoxy and Heresy” we will occasionally examine teachers and movements and compare them to the clear and evident truths of Scripture and of historic Christianity. Some teachers and movements drift from Biblical orthodoxy, while some veer away into full-blown heresy. We will use this series to humbly and carefully evaluate some of these teachers and movements.

    In this article, we’re going to evaluate Andy Stanley and note some of the troubling directions he has gone in over the last few years.