JANUARY 2016

    One of the reasons why I want to champion this doctrine of the deity of Christ is because too much ambiguity or apathy toward this truth exists in Christianity. Christians should know that Christ is fully God and that the Bible is clear on this truth. If believers want to grow in their faith, we must grow in our knowledge of Christ; affirming the full deity of Christ encourages confidence in the salvation He provides and also in the provision that He promises. Believers must realize the importance of this doctrine and should be able to articulate it clearly, even if the doctrine lies beyond complete human understanding.    Here is the heart of the doctrine: The Bible teaches that Christ is God, the second Person of the divine Trinity, co-eternal, and co-equal with the Father (Isaiah 9:6; Jer 23:5-6; John 1:1-3; 5:18-23; 8:58; 10:30-33; 17:21; 20:28; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-17, 19; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Rev 22:13). Some of these references are even the self-claims of Jesus regarding His deity (John 5:18-23; 8:58; 10:30-33; 17:21; Rev 22:13). Many more verses suggest or affirm this doctrine as well, but these are most of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ in the Bible.

    We will talk about these verses as this series progresses, but in this article, we just want to discuss several reasons why the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is so important.

    First, it is how the Bible describes Christ. The issue of the deity of Christ is not just about believing that Christ is God. It is also about how the Bible presents truth and reality. The Bible is not unclear about the full deity of Christ, and anyone who claims to take the Bible seriously must acknowledge that. Theologian Louis Berkhof affirms “In view of the widespread denial of the deity of Christ, it is of the utmost importance to be thoroughly conversant with the Scripture proof for it. The proof is so abundant that no one who accepts the Bible as the infallible Word of God can entertain any doubt on this point” (Systematic Theology, 316). That is, one should have the intellectual honesty to recognize that these verses clearly proclaim the deity of Christ; anyone who takes Scripture as an authority must believe in this doctrine.

    Second, this is one of the most defining doctrines of Christianity. Again, the Bible is not ambiguous on this truth and from the time of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, those who interpret and explain Scripture have seen the full deity of Christ as essential. Nicene, orthodox, mainstream Christianity has exhibited spectrums of views on many theological issues; but it has never given its adherents the liberty to jettison or marginalize the doctrine of the deity of Christ. The deity of Christ and its implications (including Trinity, and Christ’s perfection and His resurrection) is the single most important point of distinction from other world religions and cults. The Apostle John warned of faith systems that reject the humanity of Christ (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); how much less do we have in common with those who reject the deity of Christ? How much more should we adamantly defend this doctrine and refute those who deny it?

    Additionally, salvation is not possible through Christ if He is not God. Berkhof affirms that “In the divine plan of salvation it was absolutely essential that the Mediator should also be very God. This was necessary, in order that . . . He might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God” (Systematic Theology, 319).

    This point is important, so we’ll spell it out more clearly: Every human being owes an infinite debt because we have offended an eternal God. But what resource do people have that is infinite? We don’t have infinite strength, infinite merit, infinite goodness or infinite worship. The only resource that people have that is infinite is . . . time. The only unlimited commodity that a human being has is the infinite duration of our immortal soul. That is, the only way we can pay an infinite punishment is by paying for it with infinite time, and by suffering for it eternally.

    The only alternative is to have our debt to God paid in time by Someone who is essentially (that is, in His essence) and fundamentally eternal and infinite; only an essentially eternal being could pay an eternal price in time and in one sacrifice. Jesus must be eternal and infinite in order to effectively pay for sin.

    Throughout this series, I will sprinkle in some insights that I have shared with my local congregation as well as tidbits about the deity of Christ that I have gleaned from other conversations. I will close this article with one such insight.

    Christian author and apologist C. S. Lewis was weary of people during his day claiming that Jesus was just a good teacher or only an important prophet. In response he developed his famous trilemma (the specific quote and passage is below in our “Quote for Contemplation” section). Whereas a “dilemma” is a choice between two options (thus the prefix “di”), a “trilemma” presents three options. In the case of Lewis’ trilemma, the options are mutually exclusive; you can’t mix and combine elements of each option, but you must chose one option and disregard the others.

    Lewis reminded us that based on Christ’s own claims in Scripture to be God, such as in John 8:58-59, 10:25-33, and Rev 22:13, He has not given us the option to accept Him merely as a good teacher or as a great prophetic voice. In fact we really only have three options, namely, that He was a crazy person making neurotic claims about Himself, or that He was intentionally trying to deceive people into thinking that He is God, or that He really is God as He claimed. Lewis framed it very succinctly: Christ is either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.

    As part of this modern twenty-first century crusade, we are reaffirming Lewis’ trilemma, but raising the bar. Today, still, we have people who buy into the nonsense that Jesus was just a moral leader and only great teacher. But, again, Jesus has not given us the option to believe that He was just a good human teacher, because that is not what He claimed.

    Based on Christ’s own words, He is either deceitful, delusional, or deity.

    There are really no options other than these three; every individual must pick which one they believe.

    So what do you think, is this a truth worth fighting for? Are we overstating the importance of this doctrine? How central is the deity of Christ to our faith? Send your input and thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint good feedback anonymously in subsequent editions.

MODERN SPIRITUALITY: The Problem of Neo-Paganism

    In the midst of an election year, and with all of the geo-political threats that surround us today it is easy to miss a more subtle enemy that lurks within our own borders, and increasingly in our media and even, in one form or another, within our churches.

    That enemy is paganism, also known as new ageism or neo-paganism (in this series, we will use these terms interchangeably); it represents a reversion away from mainstream or organized religion. It is a modern degeneration into doctrine-less and truth-less spiritual platitudes.

    We addressed the issue of neo-paganism in our article “A Biblical Response to Reincarnation” in the May 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. In that article we spotlighted the resurgence of pagan thinking in our country; for example, according to a 2008 Harris poll 24% of Americans believe that reincarnation is true (Lisa Miller, “We Are All Hindus Now!” Newsweek, Aug 31, 2009).

    So what exactly is paganism or neo-paganism? Neo-paganism is a decentralized religious movement that arose in the 1970s with its most definitive point of origination being the establishment of the East West Journal in 1971. Neo-paganism and new ageism expanded throughout the 1980s and is now firmly entrenched in Western society, especially at the pop culture level.

    Gary Hoppenstand, professor of American Thought and Language at Michigan State University summarized this trend over a decade ago: “People are looking for meaning. There are more going for the traditional religion avenue, but there are also many going to this New Age spiritualism” (quoted by Kara G. Morrison, “New Age moves to mainstream,” Lansing State Journal, Saturday, December 21, 2002, 3D). Author Gene Edward Veith affirmed that “As Christianity becomes less of a presence in the culture, the ancient pagan religions are rushing into the void” (Veith, “A god in their own image: Return of the really old-time religions,” World, May 6, 2000, p. 16).

    Neo-paganism is an amalgam of popular and obscure elements of eastern and western religions, and adherents usually prefer to point back to pre-Christian roots. It has been described as, “the collection of religious practices, therapy techniques, witchcraft, science fiction, and alternative medicine” (Erica Goode, “The eternal quest for a new age,” U.S. News & World Report, April 7, 1997, p. 32). This eclecticism is one of the main points of attraction to neo-paganism: “The millennium, disenchantment with organized religion, and the isolation of late 20th-century life have steered religious experimentation in new directions. The New Age offers a menu of spiritual choices” (Goode, p. 33). It often manifests itself in a cultural and religious eclecticism typified especially in Hollywood, for instance in the career of Madonna, David Bowie, and Lady Gaga or by the diverse symbolism of the Matrix movies. For his wedding in 2003 actor Russell Crowe spent $240,000 renovating a chapel to include “symbols representing various faiths – Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Celtic among them” (Ann Oldenburg, “Nuptials to Crowe about,” USA Today, Friday, April 4, 2003, 4E).

    Neo-paganism is broad and nebulous and can only be described in generalities. In this series, we will mention some of the most consistent characteristics of new agism and neo-paganism, and yet, the movement is even more diverse and vague than these traits. Individual expressions are sometimes as innocuous as the music of Yanni or Enya and at other times a harmful as occult based violence.

    On the whole, however, the movement contradicts clear Biblical principles: “Many practices common to the [New Age Movement] such as witchcraft/sorcery, spiritism, divination, (clairvoyance; seeing the future), necromancy (consulting the dead), and astrology are clearly and strongly condemned in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:9-17; Isaiah 47:9-15). . . . The lie of Genesis 3 [that man can somehow become God] is significantly developed in Babylon (Isaiah 47) and continues to its ultimate state of development, revealed as Satan's one-world system at the end of the age (Revelation 17-18)” (Craig Branch, “The New Age Movement,” Watchman Fellowship Profile, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1996, http://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/newageprofile.pdf). 

    We have described neo-paganism and noted how it is entrenched in our society. In the next article in this series (a few articles below) we will continue to observe specific expressions of neo-paganism and new ageism in our culture and how the Bible refutes one of the fundamental tenets of neo-pagan thought.

    What expressions of new ageism and neo-paganism have you seen lately? Is this an important problem that people need to understand? Send your input, questions and thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint good feedback anonymously in subsequent editions.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: A Conservative Reassesses the Second Amendment

    This article is originally from the November 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper and is reproduced here with minor modifications.

    U. S. Constitution, Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Ratified December 15, 1791

    It has been almost a year [as of the original writing of this article in November 2013] since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec 14, 2012. Immediately afterward, many people were plunged into soul searching, grasping vainly at questions about “how” and “why.” Similar events, such as the shootings at Washington Navy Yard in September of this year [that is, 2013] or the recent rampage at LAX on November 1, compel us to ask similar questions. I want to share some thoughts about this, and encourage some dialog, though I admit that I don’t have many answers.

    In theological circles, one of the biggest sins you can commit is taking a passage out of context. Many pastors, teachers, and theologues remove verses completely out of their textual settings in Scripture and infuse them with meaning that the original author never intended. This truly infuriates the rest of us to see Scripture so abused and maligned.

    I wonder if conservatives haven’t done this same thing with the second amendment. We don’t take time to appreciate the nuanced historical context in which the Framers wrote this article and we thoughtlessly overlay our own concerns, agenda and sensitivities on it.

    But in the silence of my own thoughts, and in the wake of any of the mass shootings that have occurred in our country over the last decade, I find myself reassessing my own convictions on gun usage, weapons availability and gun control. And I believe that every view that we hold dearly should be held up to scrutiny once in a while or maybe we shouldn’t be holding to it at all.    I understand the slippery slope here. If we separate the intent of the authors from the words of the Constitution itself, then we can read many things into the Constitution. Again, this error occurs often in Bible studies. Generally, I am against this methodology of separating words from intent. I recognize the potential fallacy here . . . I get it.

    Let me start with realities that are clear to me. First of all, I am not at all anxious to hand over any more control of our lives to the government or let it regulate more than it is now. Big government slowly suffocates American freedom, and I don’t want to expedite that process. In fact, the reason that many of us non-gun-owners jump on the gun ownership bandwagon is that it is one of a series of vanishing fortresses of Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms for individual citizens.

    Here is something else that is clear. The Framers of the Constitution lived in a very different time that we do, and wrote to a society that is over 220 years in our past. They produced the second amendment with a sense of the responsibility of America’s citizens. More so than today, people of that day had a mindset about the preciousness and precariousness of life. Most of them believed in a divine Creator and in their need to be accountable to Him. I am not so naïve as to believe that they were all saints, but they did live under a different epistemology, one that didn’t assert that life is meaningless because we all evolved from slime. They knew how to use guns, they had a respect for life, and for a gun’s ability to quickly remove life, whether animal or human.

    Also, there are vastly different technological and cultural shifts between the Framers and today. In the late 1700s, they didn’t have rapid fire weaponry; not that people then wouldn’t have liked such weaponry, and used it and abused it as we do now. But they simply didn’t possess weapons with the capabilities that we have now. And, the Framers wrote before the advent of violent movies, rap music, Grand Theft Auto, and the host of other media that promote the careless use of arms and the devaluation of life. I do believe in the Constitution, but I don’t believe that even the brilliant authors of the Constitution had in mind the urban thuggery and gang violence that seems rampant today.

    An armed citizenry makes sense if that citizenry recognizes the responsible use of a weapon, specifically for hunting, self-defense, or in a military context. We should be concerned about a population that uses guns for casual, even virtual (as in many video games) killing, and who, on top of that, further devalues life by not seeing that every person is created by God to have a purposeful existence. It is unsustainable to have such a proliferation of shoot-‘em-up video games and to expect that this method of handling stress and conflict won’t drift off of the screen and into real life.

    Here’s something else that I know: In every mass shooting that I can recall, the shooter is a male. In many instances, he was white, and from a middle-class background. I’ll let someone else do the research about the prevalent problems with inner city violence; but that doesn’t solve the puzzle of why most of these mass shootings are perpetrated by young, suburban, white guys.

    Here are some things that I am not so sure about. I have seen reports that say that higher gun regulation prevents crime and other studies that say exactly the opposite. I think that sometimes pundits on both sides mindlessly gravitate toward studies and data that “prove” the conclusion that they prefer.

    There are other questions that I am not sure how to answer in a rational and logical way. One is, How many times do we need to agonize over stories about murder and mass-shootings before we reassess how we look at guns? Again, I don’t know the answer to this, but there must be a tipping point that deserves a more sophisticated answer than conservatives telling the government, “Don’t touch my guns!”

    Another question is, How do we enforce the unenforceable? Here is one place where our liberal friends are completely off their wagons: more laws do not make us safer, because those who do wrong with guns are already, by virtue, breaking the law. More laws would just mean more laws for them to break, which a criminal would do without thinking. But the end would be the same, namely, the death of innocent people, which could not have been prevented by any amount of laws. It is virtually impossible to stop one person from killing another in their home if they have a gun. You can’t prevent the gun from going off accidentally or intentionally unless you physically remove the gun from the person’s possession.

    I am also prone to rethink a conservative position on the second amendment because of the dubious arguments that some conservatives make in defense of their position. I’m tired of the wore-out adage that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. That seems somewhat like saying, If we give sharp knives to toddlers, it is not the sharp knives that kill toddlers, but the toddlers that kill toddlers. 

    I am also tired of the false slippery-slope arguments made by some on the right, who sarcastically say that since people die in car accidents, we should let government take away cars, too! If people parroting this thinking understood logic, they would quickly see that the issue with cars is a categorically different issue than with guns. The difference is that the primary function of cars is not killing, but transportation. However, the primary function of guns is to kill, whether animal life or human life, whether in a military context or not. The “cars” argument demonstrates that some conservatives illogically misunderstand the intent and implications of the second amendment. Meanwhile, many people die needlessly, because of the proliferation of tools that were created only for the purpose of taking life.

    Again, my great concern about modern America is that our federal government is slowly – and in some cases, not-so-slowly – removing individual liberties from its citizens. I am aware that this discussion about the second amendment is situated against that reality. However, I am also concerned about an increasingly godless, irresponsible, and violence-desensitized population that has free and fluid access to rapid-fire weapons. 

    I hope that the America of the future gives me a better option than to live in fear of a totalitarian government on one hand or a trigger-happy citizenry on the other.

    These are just some of the things that go through my mind as I attempt to reassess my conservative approach to the second amendment. I would love to have you join in this process of reflection with me. Please send your civil thoughts and ideas about the second amendment to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we will reprint them in future editions of The Eclectic Kasper.

MOVIES/ TV: The Sleepy Plot of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

        ***Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the movies described.***

    Like most people on the planet, I wanted to really, really, really like Star Wars: The Force Awakens; instead, I just really liked it.

    So, what was the difference between the three-fold “really” and the one?

    Let’s just go ahead and get some praises out of the way. The music was phenomenal; but we just expect that from John Williams. The music was also the best part of the underrated prequel trilogy, and did much good for that troubled series of movies.

    The visuals of SW:TFA were also spectacular; whether a sandy wasteland or a snowy forest, the lush and diverse panoramas were realistic and well-chosen. And I think that we all appreciated less reliance on CGI vis-à-vis episodes 1-3.

    The acting was commendable. The performances of Finn, Leia, and even Han were a bit clunky at times, but good to see the admixture of old and new cast.

    So, what happened? Why did many just “like” this movie instead of really, really, really like it?    Simple: plot. Specifically, plot parallels and plot holes.

    Let’s talk about the plot parallels for a few minutes. In TFA, fans did not get the original movie that we were expecting; we got a sleepy, rehashed story. We should not be lulled into a stupor by the fact that Abrams used cinema technology almost forty years more developed than A New Hope which hit theaters in 1977. The beautiful scenes and effects of TFA mask over the fact that it was virtually the same plot as episode 4, and, frankly, not too dissimilar from many plot points in episode 6.

    Consider some basic parallels between The Force Awakens and A New Hope: In both of these movies, there are secret plans that are hidden in a rogue droid, and that are found by a restless, orphaned teen on desert planet. Both films featured the death of characters that were very important to the (chronologically) previous trilogy (namely, Obi Wan to the prequel trilogy and Han to the original trilogy). Each film showed protagonists trying to hitch a ride in a diverse cantina. Both films involve an evil empire’s scheme to destroy a prominent rebel base, and both contain a daring mission to rescue the female protagonist who is being interrogated for what she knows. Both involve the climactic destruction of a planet-destroying weapon by an X-wing assault. As in Return of the Jedi, so in TFA, Han has to go to the surface of the planet to disable the protective shields of the planet-destroying weapon.

    Plot points in TFA that weren’t taken from episodes 4 or 6 were taken from episode 5; the protagonist visits an ancient—and short—wise counselor, in this case Maz Kanata standing in for Yoda. Both protagonists descend into a tunnel or cave and have a self-revealing dream quest.  Both films feature a strained father-son conversation on a suspended bridge over a vast mechanized canyon (and neither of these conversations turn out well). I am sure that there are more plot parallels between old and new, but that covers most of the big ones.    

    This is, of course, not the first time that Abrams has swiped a plot from a previous, iconic movie in a franchise. Watching TFA reminded me of how Star Trek Into Darkness was supposed to pay homage to Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, but instead, they were too much alike and had too many parallels. I didn’t necessarily mind the parallels, but I couldn’t help thinking that Into Darkness was more of a knock-off story than a thoughtful, original story. But more so than those Star Trek films, these Star Wars movies had far more parallels, and TFA, seemed even lazier than Into Darkness.

    When a fanbase declares that they want more, they rarely mean that they want a similar plot. Fans want more of the same premise, more of the same characters, more of the writing, ships and effects. They do not want the same sleepy story that they have seen twice already.

    In addition to sleepy plot parallels, The Force Awakens also suffers from some plot holes.

    One plot hole is the introduction of many characters who are not, as it turns out, very central to the story, such as Lor San Tekka, the village elder in the opening sequence (yes, I had to look up his name, which kind of proves the point!). He is set up to be some prominent figure, but then killed pretty soon after. What about Maz Kanata: does she die in the attack on her establishment or not? And probably the more appropriate question is, “Who cares?” She was a character that flit on and then off the screen, and I had no emotional connection with her at all. 

    Even Leia is hard to connect with, because she is hardly on screen, and because she doesn’t at all look like Leia; I honestly think that it would have been better to have just left her out of the film all together. By the mid-point of the movie, the viewer becomes skeptical of investing emotionally in any of the characters, because, we’re not really sure which characters, beside the main four or five, are worth investing in. In fact, it was hard to really connect with any of these incidental characters. I wanted to like Poe Dameron more, but I didn’t; I wanted to dislike General Hux more, but I didn’t (by the way, this was a bad choice of a bad guy; it is hard to think of a boyish-looking, red-head as a villain). The best (and coolest looking!) bad guy—actually, “gal”—in the entire movie, Captain Phasma, evaporated two-thirds of the way through the film, making us wonder why they didn’t capitalize on her more. It is hard to feel invested in a movie if you have a hard time investing emotionally in the characters.