JANUARY 2021

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the January 2021 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. This year is the beginning of the second decade of our web journal, and we anticipate a decade as full of information, edification, and entertainment as the first decade!

Since we’re watching the transition from one administration to another, we’re going to be a bit heavy on politics in this edition. We have a two-parter about some inconsistencies we have seen recently in the political landscape especially from the left. But we also acknowledge some losses and we query as to how those on the right should move forward.

We have part three in Jesse Hornok’s series about the wrath of God in Romans. Speaking of Romans, we also fast-forward in our verse-by-verse commentary in that magisterial book and highlight a verse that could be a key for church unity.

We also have a review of one of my favorite shows, and why the literary device used in shows like it is so clever and compelling.

We’re sure that you also have a lot to say, and we’d love to hear your input. Feel free to send your thoughts and ideas about any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com. Also, you can “like” our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page and comment on any of our posts there.

We appreciate you being on this eclectic journey with us for the last decade and for continuing on with us into the next decade. Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: A Riot, “Awomen,” and More Contradictions of the Left

If you find yourself baffled while you listen to pundits discuss the news items of the day, then you’re not alone, and you’re not crazy. You are probably just coming face-to-face with the illogic of liberal logic. Their contradictions make sense to them because they are more interested in an agenda and more driven by their antagonism for Trump, for Republicans, and for common sense.

We provided two articles about contradictions of the left in our September 2020 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. Here at the beginning of 2021, the left has graced us with many more examples of their illogic and contradictions. Below are some of the highlights, or lowlights, of liberal contradictions just in the last few weeks.

Amen and Awomen. On Sunday, January 3, US Democratic House Representative Emanuel Cleaver provided an opening prayer for the 117th congress. It seems quite appropriate for Cleaver to be provided this privilege since he is an ordained United Methodist pastor. However, the ending of the prayer makes one wonder if he understands Christianity or religion at all: “We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘god’ known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and awoman”

As many have pointed out, the word “amen” is not a gendered word, which would necessitate a nod to the parallel gender, “awoman.” It comes from the Hebrew word aman, used 138 times in the OT, meaning “to confirm,” “to support” or “to trust.” By the NT times, it had come to indicate “truly,” or “we affirm or believe what has been said,” which is why we end our prayers with this word. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

The fact that someone saw it and felt threatened by its alleged gender exclusion demonstrates the ignorance of the left. Of course, this pairing of “amen and awomen” introduces another problem. By ending his prayer this way, Cleaver asserted the gender dichotomy that the left is currently trying to destroy. Shouldn’t he have included “atrans” or “a-asexual” with “amen” and “awoman”? Thus, in a lunge to accommodate females by adding “awomen,” Cleaver simultaneously alienated those who reject this gender binary or anyone who doesn’t believe that they fall under the category of a man or a woman.

I believe that this offensive affirmation of the patrichial men-women pairing can be solved if we all just finish our prayers with the word, “aperson.”

Unfortunately, the ridiculous nature of this prayer’s ending was swallowed in the other news that took place later that week. But could it be that the prayer and the mid-week riot at the Capitol Building are somewhat related? A loony leftist uses a prayer to showcase such sacrilegious rubbish and liberal illogic, but then the entire left wonders why some of us on the right are angry?

A Quiet Riot. Everyone seems shocked by the violence that took place in the Capitol Building on January 6. But for the left to act as horrified as they did epitomizes contradiction and hypocrisy.

We can all be unhappy about the Capitol Building riot and the looting, vandalism, and violence against the police that went along with it. However, this is a small episode relative to the tens of thousands of people who burned and pillaged our major urban cities in May, June, and July of 2020. Liberal activists terrorized our cities for weeks on end, burning, looting, destroying, and injuring, with democrat mayors, representatives and senators cheering them on.

Of course, many of those protesters last summer were peaceful and civil. But so were the overwhelming amount of people who heard Trump speak on January 6. In fact, Trump multiple times discouraged and condemned both sets of violence and vandalism. Back in June and July, the Left was asserting the legitimacy of the riots by noting how widespread they were, such as indicated on a map here at USA Today. While some of those protest sites may not have included more than ten or fifteen people, many of them included widespread looting, arson, theft, vandalism and violence against police and security forces. That map even notes places where the national guard was activated/ The left didn’t seem to mind violence and vandalism then.

I’m not saying one is right or one is wrong; in fact, that’s the point. If you didn’t like the violence at the Capitol Building, we would take you more seriously if you would have also condemned the arson and looting last spring and summer. If you celebrated the forms of aggressive protest and right to speech then, then you should have done that on January 6, as well. If you are a thinker who is consistent, then you should recognize that violence, arson, looting, and injuring cops is always wrong, no matter who is doing it. If you disagree, then you are neither a thinker nor consistent; in fact, you are an ignorant hypocrite.

But this inconsistency is institutional. On January 11, FBI leaders announced that they would pursue and prosecute those involved with the Capitol Building riot, threatening to leave no stone unturned and warning of the diligence and reach of the FBI. We can justifiably ask where was that diligence, reach, and desire for justice when dozens of urban centers across our country were looted and vandalized and burned in last May, June and July.

Liberals need to make up their mind: is violence, looting, chaos only legitimate and acceptable when liberals are doing it for a liberal cause?

There are many more recent contradictions of the left; we’ll investigate those in our follow-up article below, and we will also hypothesize the cause of these inconsistencies.

THEOLOGY: God’s Wrath: Present or Future? Part 3

by Guest Author Jesse Hornok

We’ve seen how the Bible in general and Romans in particular express God’s wrath as a present anger against sin. We will now hone in on chs. 2 and 9 where some may object to the idea of wrath being present-day wrath and not future wrath.

Storing up God’s wrath: Romans 2:5 points out that the moralist stores up wrath for himself: “But by means of your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself in a day of wrath, and of revelation, and of the righteous judgment of God,” The NKJV and NASB keep open the idea of present day wrath while other translations prefer the future tense here, seeing the “day of wrath” as a future day of judgment. Typically because the next few verses say God “will render to everyone according to his deeds,” either “eternal life” or “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish” we commonly leap to the idea of future wrath. But perhaps we should not. The principle is that a life exhibiting “eternal life” comes from “patient continuance in doing good” but “those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” reap wrath. Certainly God will put a capstone on His judgment at a future day, but He also renders wrath now by giving sinners over to their sinfulness.

Some of the ambiguity of Romans 2:5 occurs because the word “day” does not have a definite article. The Greek literally says sinners store up “wrath in day wrath and revelation righteous of God” which sounds haphazard in English but fluid in Greek. Hodges’ translation is: “But by means of your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself in a day of wrath, and of revelation, and of the righteous judgment of God.”

So Romans 2:5 may contain both the idea of God’s present wrath against sin while recognizing God will also culminate His wrath in the future. Biblical prophecy always recognizes God has a day where “God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to [our] gospel” (2:16). Biblical history expressly reveals God’s wrath against the whole world and on Gentile and Jewish communities.

God’s sovereign wrath. The present day understanding of God’s wrath helps us as well in the sometimes troubling presentation of God’s sovereignty in 9:22. “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” While God prophetically determined Pharaoh’s hard-heartedness (Exod 4:21), Exodus balances Pharaoh hardening his heart (10 mentions) with God hardening his heart (10 mentions) to demonstrate the power of His wrath that His “name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth” (Exod 9:17). God’s wrath against Pharaoh was thus a presentation of power against Pharaoh’s continued sinfulness in not obeying God through Moses. If Pharaoh would have relented, the full drama against all the Egyptian gods through the plagues would have been cut short.

Pharaoh experienced destruction in the plagues ultimately when he and his army drowned in the Red Sea. God’s wrath was exhibited powerfully in the miraculous plagues as He used nature: Nile river, frogs, lice, flies, livestock, locusts, disease: boils; the weather: thunder, hail, fire, darkness; and finally the death of the firstborn and the destruction in the Red Sea. Notice how practical and present God is, He uses His creation to reveal His character against sin.

Our understanding then should emphasize God’s patient endurance and mercy when He demonstrates His wrath, rather than an ostensibly arbitrary predestined choice devoid of emotion. While “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” demonstrate God’s patience, “vessels of mercy, previously prepared for glory” supernaturally demonstrate God’s honor, mercy and sovereignty.

Vessels of wrath are contrasted with vessels of mercy not because of their differing value, for all come from the same lump of potter’s clay. They are contrasted by God’s different use and response to them: wrath and power on vessels for destruction, riches of glory on vessels for glory. While the eternal destiny of everyone brings glory to God and His attributes, the particular emphasis on glory goes to the vessels of mercy.

Deliverance from God’s wrath against sin for Israel. Understanding that a key point of Romans is about present wrath against sin helps to evaluate the often-evangelistically-overused passage of Romans 10:9-10. Paul has established his theme: the gospel news of God’s righteousness revealed in faith-living and wrath against sin, he enunciates justification in chs. 3-4, outlines sanctification in chs. 6-8, and now highlights Israel’s status in chs. 9-11. Paul bemoans their lack of belief, of course. But in ch. 10 he laments that this lack of belief will bring about wrath because Israel will not believingly call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (delivered) from that wrath. And they weren’t. Jerusalem and the temple were ransacked in 70 CE with Josephus reporting that a million Jews were killed.

What we must understand is that Paul has already established justification and sanctification in Romans, the application to Israel particularly in chapter 10 isn’t giving a new way to be justified (confess and believe). Paul makes clear that no one can call upon the name of the Lord to be rescued unless they have already believed and been justified. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 which references climactic celestial events and the outpouring of the Spirit before the coming of the day of the Lord and then "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul would have loved to see his kinsmen “confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord [having] believed with their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and [thus] be delivered (saved)” from the wrath that was about to come upon them. In chapter 11 Paul illustrates this with the olive tree of blessing, natural branches were cut off (in unbelief) and wild olive branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. Reading this text 2000 years later we are often too quick to look at ourselves as wild olive branches who benefit from God’s grace and mercy. But when Paul speaks of natural olive branches being able to be grafted in again to the olive tree of God’s blessing he’s not looking to a future remnant of Israel who would believe (although that is an application). He’s saying that in his own lifetime he hopes that the natural branches cut off in unbelief will turn to God in faith, be grafted in again, and “call upon the name of the Lord” in faith and repentance and be delivered from wrath.

Conclusion to Part 3. When wrath is seen as God’s present action against sin, God’s mercy is much more displayed. Romans does not present God as an arbitrary capricious destiny-maker. On the contrary, His kindness and forbearance leads us to repentance. He certainly punishes sin by giving people over to their sinfulness when they reject the face-value truth, and He even punished His own chosen people when they failed to reach out in belief and call upon Him to be delivered. Present day Jews are still under God’s wrath, having still not reached out in belief to be delivered. But because of the Jewish unbelief, we as Gentiles have been gracious recipients of blessing, becoming partakers of the new covenant blessings found in Christ. And this is to lead Jews to jealousy, perhaps to provoke them to even believing themselves (certainly a surprising aim). And this is why Paul superlatively praises God’s purposes at the end of ch. 11. Even Jewish unbelief results in blessing on the Gentiles with the aim of bringing His people back to faith, being provoked in jealousy. "How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out?" (Rom. 11:33)

Astute readers will notice that we still haven’t examined Romans 5:9, a key text about being saved from wrath. It primarily has application in sanctification, a fact we will elaborate on in part 4.

SHOW WITHIN A SHOW: Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip

I am fascinated by the idea of a show being about a show. Many musicals, films and TV programs employ this strategy: from The Dick Van Dyke Show, to The Muppet Show, from The Larry Sanders Show to The Phantom of the Opera, this is a trope used in a wide variety of ways.

In this series we will explore some of the movies and TV programs that use this show-within-a-show plot device. For our first installment of this series “Show Within A Show,” we will look at one of my favorite shows ever, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (hereafter, S60) aired on NBC during the 2006-2007 season. It is a show about a fictional Saturday Night Live type of show which is called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It depicts the behind-the-scenes comedy, intrigue, and drama of a sketch comedy program, and the interaction between network execs and producers, performers and fans. It has great writing, clever comedy, and it showcases Matthew Perry’s brilliance as an actor.

The first four episodes are delightful. They embodied everything that I enjoyed about the show and the dynamics between the characters. The big musical number at the end of the second episode is a bit cheesy and cringe-worthy, but other than that these episodes are about the best that TV has to offer.

In my younger days, I was very involved in school theater and community theater; one could even argue that I am still involved with “production” on a weekly basis. Maybe for this reason, the premise of S60 really resonates with me, especially the pressure of putting together a weekly presentation meant to impact others and even make them laugh and think. A show about creating a show also demonstrates how characters are cognizant of how their lives are about contributing cleverly and creatively to something bigger than themselves.

The show tackles many fascinating cultural issues, most of which we are still grappling with today. S60 pokes at the role of religion, it highlights problems with racial stereotypes and race tensions, it portrays issues about censorship, and it leverages the reality that the rest of America views Hollywood very differently from the way Hollywood sees itself.

In fact, as I revisit this show over the last fifteen years, I am struck by how much funnier and bolder comedy was then relative to the drab and lifeless pablum that passes as comedy today. The humor of S60 is refreshingly reckless; it is sometimes politically correct and then lunges toward being politically incorrect, by making fun of itself for being politically correct. We would be a better society today if people could laugh at themselves and their ideologies the way the characters on S60 do.

Usually, I get bored with shows where the main couple has an on-again/ off-again relationship. However, Studio 60 does this well with two very different sets of relationships. The two episodes of “Nevada Day,” showcasing John Goodman as a cranky rural judge, are produced almost perfectly. Other highlights include the fun Christmas show and watching Sting perform “Fields of Gold” on the lute.

As much as I love Studio 60, I can understand why it didn’t catch on. Again, it probably appeals more to someone who has at least a little background in production, writing, or theater. The show is very serious at times, but also a bit silly and childish at times; again, I personally like this balance, but I could see how some might be turned off by it.

Another weakness is the fact that some plot lines were more tangential to the show’s premise and may have been a turn-off for viewers. The upper-level executive squabbles and some of the characters’ personal issues seem like they could have been in a cop show or a lawyer show rather on a show with a unique premise like this one. By the end of the season, it seems like the writers and producers saw the writing on the wall, and it felt like they had given up. The show had somewhat lost its identity.

An additional weakness is that the show was a bit snobby. It referred to performers, writers and acts that someone trained in theater may recognize, but the rest of us would not, like the plays of August Strindberg, or a theatrical style called Commedia dell’arte. This elitism was, on one hand, a necessary element for accurately portraying these characters immersed in Hollywood. On the other hand, it may have alienated segments of its actual audience. In a way, it was a fun glimpse into a world that many of us are unfamiliar with. However, there is also the risk that rather than respecting the characters for their knowledge, we feel a knowledge and experience gap between them and us.

The most fatal flaw of this otherwise delectable show is that the sketch comedy did not contain . . . well . . . comedy. The characters in the show did a great job satirizing figures like Nancy Grace, Nicolas Cage, and George W. Bush. However, the short snippets that we get of the actual sketches used on the show are often only marginally humorous. Even my favorite sketch, “Science Schmience,” from the third episode (“The Focus Group”), comes off as preachy and a bit cringy. Don’t misunderstand: The actual dialog between characters is crisp and hilarious, but we just don’t see that in the sketches themselves.

So why didn’t the show do better? The primary reason is that S60 was a casualty of poor planning and a bad time slot. It aired at 10:00 PM on Monday nights, which, at least for several years during the 2000s, was the death of many fine shows. I’m glad that NBC gave S60 a chance, and I’m just really sorry that it didn’t catch on, wasn’t put in a better time slot, and wasn’t given more of a chance, and wasn’t taken more seriously by its own writers. One more season would have been wonderful! However, the possibility of what could have been is a fading memory in TV land. Watching Studio 60 is pure joy and it was also pure heartbreak when it was canceled.

While there are many shows that I enjoy watching, I have not been so touched and moved by a show like I was by S60. The balance of humor, plot, character, and meaning struck a deep chord within me, and I suspect it did so within many others, too.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Tweets, Trump, and More Recent Contradictions of the Left

We continue here to discuss some rampant inconsistencies of the left.

Of course, nobody is perfect; we all demonstrate inconsistencies in our thinking. However, these recent rounds of contradictions demonstrate a liberal worldview that is simply crumbling under the weight of facts and common sense.

We noted some of these contradictions in our article above; we’ll mention a few more here in this follow-up article. Also, we’ll see if there is any consistency or a logical core to this liberal illogic.

Detweeting Donald Trump. Since the November 2020 election, almost every Facebook post by Trump or a conservative contained obligatory “fact-checking” even when the posts have nothing to do with the election. These pious notifications assert that Biden won the election; well, some of us are still not completely convinced of that.

Social media platforms argue that they have the right to portray views as they would like and even throttle free speech. They’re not wrong about their ability to do that. It just makes one wonder why they’re so afraid of freedom and truth that they would block some people and try to contradict so many assertions made by those on the right.

On January 6, the day of the rioting on the Capitol Building, Facebook suspended Trump’s account indefinitely. On January 8, Twitter suspended his account permanently. Again, Facebook and Twitter have the right to do this. But that’s exactly where the liberal contradiction comes in: isn’t the left all about free speech and unhindered expression? What happened to that?

Also, while Facebook and Twitter can apparently do what they want, the government shuts down other business without regret or remorse. Bakeries and floral shops are not allowed to decide who they want to offer their services to. It’s fine if Twitter wants to ban Trump citing the fact that they are a private business, but then why can’t other private businesses choose their clientele based on their preferences?

A Hollow Call for Unity. Of course, Biden has clearly showed cognitive decline in the last year and is nothing more than a puppet of the left. Beyond that, however, Biden is going to have a miserable time as president. He has to rule over a nation with profound divisions which were caused mainly by his Democratic party and the leftist media sycophants.

For the next four years, Biden will have to straddle both camps. Those on the right include millions who believe that he became president illegitimately. There are also those on the left who will constantly accuse him of not being socialistic enough. Biden has to lunge toward the middle only to find out that there is nobody there. Everyone will be in their ideological extremes taking potshots at him as he tries to bridge the gap; this should be fun to watch!

Predictably, the left is talking about unity and about working together. This is hard to swallow from people who have been calling the other side racists, fascists, bigots, and misogynists for years, and now they’re labeling us all violent extremists, as well. This same group called President Trump “not my president” for his entire term and attacked him for the silliest things. The left demands unity and believes they are entitled to it rather than something that they believe they have to earn.

The Hate of the Left. It seems to me that the only consistency that the left has is their hatred for conservativism, for Republicans, and for Trump. The illogic of re-impeaching a president who is already out of office can only be explained by fear and hate.

For the rest of us, there is value for recognizing the inconsistency of the left, seeing that it is motivated by hatred, and trying to respond with patience, truth, and love.

ROMANS EXPRESS: A Key to Church Unity, Romans 14:1

“Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (Romans 14:1).

Why is the church so fragmented? Why isn’t there more unity among those who believe in Christ? And why are some believers so condescending on unbelievers and even on other believers?

These questions are all related: unity and rallying around the essentials has never been a strong point of Christianity, especially protestant Christianity. There has been too much division, too much intolerance of differences of opinion, too much separation based on trivial matters.

Romans 14 represents a new discourse, but perhaps is also an example of the point Paul made toward the end of Romans 13, and in 13:14 specifically: We should accept those who are weaker in the faith as a result of clothing ourselves with Christ and not making provision for the flesh, or, in this case, not entertaining judgmental and condescending thoughts toward those who are less mature than ourselves.

Those who are reading Romans 14 are assumed to be those who are “stronger” in the faith, relative to the “weaker.” Indeed, those who make it to Romans 14 have demonstrated somewhat of a strength and resilience; many people are not aware that the book doesn’t end after chapter 8! Paul is here addressing those who are stronger and how they should treat the weaker. The stronger, however, should be humble enough to remember that we are only strong through God’s strength, and that while we may be stronger than some, we will always be weaker than others. Also, that spiritual strength that we may have comes with a responsibility to care for and nurture others within the family of God.

That responsibility is encapsulated in the word proslambano, meaning, “to welcome, accept, receive.” It can mean to take someone aside with the purpose of explaining something to them, and by doing so assuming – rightly or wrongly – a superiority of knowledge or understanding (Matt 16:22 [par Mark 8:32]; Acts 18:26). It can also mean to simply bring some people along for your own bidding and purposes (Acts 17:5), or to bring some material or food along with you (Acts 27:33, 36), or generally of welcoming and receiving someone (Acts 28:2; Phlm 1:17).

The uses of this word here in Romans 14:1, 3, and 15:7 combine some of these nuances and describe a situation where you recognize yourself as the more mature individual and you use that to create a welcoming and accepting atmosphere for those who are less mature in the faith. It is also worth noting that we are told to accept the weaker person, but not their sin or foolishness; never does the Bible give us liberty to do that.

The second half of Romans 14:1 focuses this idea and gives us a principle that will guide the rest of the chapter. Specifically, we should not see our strength as an opportunity for passing judgment upon the opinions and motives of the weaker sister or brother. There should not be pride or condescension on our behalf, but rather, we should accept the brother and help their opinions, motives, thoughts and reasons (all legitimate translations of the word dialogismos here). This is a reminder that conversion to Christianity doesn’t automatically make us wise and mature people; there is a process of growth, and there is a need for patience and kindness with one another along this path of growth (Eph 4:32; Col 3:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8).

Modern culture is becoming notorious for vilifying those who don’t agree with us, for highlighting the differences which divide rather than celebrating the principles which unite us. Both sides do it; nobody has the monopoly on exclusion. The church, too, is notorious for majoring on the minors, for looking down on those who don’t agree, and for dividing over non-essentials, which has fragmented the church and undermined our testimony to the world.

Though Romans is a celebrated book, Romans 14 was left behind centuries ago. We should have been rallying around the essentials and providing a united front against the falseness of this world. Instead, many looked down on the theological opinions of others, causing irreparable and unfortunate divisions.

Some theological fights, of course, are worth having, and some are worth dividing over. Most, however, are not, and unity should have triumphed over our petty divisions. We should be nurturing believers who have different opinions and not alienating them. The church of God today would be in a much better place if we had followed some of these simple principles of tolerating disagreement on the non-essentials but rallying around the non-negotiables.

Perhaps moving forward, the church could use Romans 14 and the principles it holds to forge unity between Christian traditions. It would be a tremendous witness to show the world that the key to unity is not a politician or a social movement. Rather, the key is Christ, and His gospel and God’s kingdom. These are things worth rallying around.

POLITICS: What Should the GOP Do Now?

Its been a few difficult months for the Republican Party. We lost elections, we lost legal challenges, and we had our ideology smeared by a few morons at the Capitol Building riot. What do we do now? Where we go from here?

Well, maybe all is not lost. Consider some of the institutional, political and personal strategies below.

We need to persuade. The GOP needs to be a party about ideas and not a cult of personality. I like Trump and practically everything he has done. However, with as toxic as he is, we need to be identified by conservative ideas, and deploy these with truth, sobriety and compassion. We need to make conservativism a grass roots movement of irrefutable persuasion. We can get people thinking about the value of conservative ideals by using strategically deployed questions like, “Do you want lower taxes?” “Would you like to see a more efficient government, a stronger military, a better economy?” Conservative ideas transcend political personalities. We have to remind people how conservative most common-sense Americans really are.

We need to clearly define planks in our platform. One way we can persuade effectively is making our ideology about ideas not personalities. Again, we need to help people see the value and appeal of smaller and more efficient government, lower taxes, less regulations and a stronger military. These are ideas that are good for every American. Try to persuade people with the benefit of conservative principles and the folly of liberal ideas. People should hear that the Green New Deal, and punitive taxation of the rich, and ending prayers with “amen” and “awomen” are stupid and destructive for our country.

We need to be realistic. We can be comforted by several important realities and truths, one of which is the fact that God is in control. Nothing is happening on our world that is outside of His sovereignty or that is taking Him by surprise.

Another reality, is that there is usually a big backlash in the mid-term election in the first term of a president. Their party usually ends up losing control of the US House of Representatives. The November 2020 elections demonstrated this trajectory in that the GOP won back ten house seats easily bringing us within striking distance, about four or five seats away, from regaining the House in 2022.

Another point of comfort and reality is that over eleven million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Despite what people say about his style, rhetoric, and tweets, eleven million more people recognized the value of how he tried to implement Conservative principles. Hopefully the GOP will gain even more voters by continuing to promote Conservative principles in light of the increasingly silly and unsustainable principles of leftist socialism.

We should live. Politics sometimes sucks the life out of you. We saw the melt-down of some on the left when Trump won in 2016. Those of us on the right have more common sense than that. We live in perhaps the greatest country on the planet; we can continue to enjoy God’s blessings as we have for many years in the past. We should live, we should enjoy life, and we should love. And by doing this, we differentiate ourselves from many on the hate-filled and fear-mongering left. Their hate and fear are so evident that they started impeachment proceedings on a lame duck president when he was less than two weeks away from being out of office.

We need to settle down. Remember, the liberals were the ones who destroyed millions of dollars of property in major urban centers in May, June and July when they didn’t get their way. Conservatives, however, need to be peaceable, and peaceful. For those of us who are Christians, we especially need to enjoy peace that only comes through Christ; Philippians 4:6-7 reminds us: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (see also John 14:27, Col 3:15). The GOP has to be the party of logic, reason and intellect first, not raw passion and anger.

We need to nurture conservative leadership. A constant irritation to me is why the GOP doesn’t do a better job of grooming up great conservative, mature, and experienced candidates for the senate, for governorships, and for the presidency. These last few election cycles demonstrate that we have a solid cadre of good candidates. We have noted in the past that some of them needed more experience in the senate or as governors. Well now, four or eight years later, those people have that much more experience, people like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, and what about Don Trump, Jr.?

We need to be patient. American politics ebb and flow; it just happens that politics have flowed quite liberal lately. That said, this last election demonstrated that there are still many conservatives out there, and apparently, many more of them are political engaged. There are 74 million of us who voted for Trump. We’re not going anywhere. Our time will come again, and when it does, then hopefully we will have learned some good lessons from the last decade. For the left to win another presidential election, they will either have to lead our country to greater levels of strength and prosperity – which socialism is incapable of doing – or they have to woo many of us to their side, or they will need to repeat the level of fraud that may have taken place in the November 2020 election, which will be very difficult to do now that we are watching them more carefully. If we are patient; after a few years of Biden and Harris, the nation will be longing for principled conservative leadership.

We need to keep fighting. We’re all weary, but this is not the time to give up. We need to champion conservative ideas, and these will stand out all the more under the current socialist regime. We will still have elections, and we can still use these to help the country veer back in a more logical, common-sense direction and minimize the damage done by liberal leadership as we have done before.

And for those of us who are believers in Jesus Christ, we recognize that our fight will include cultural losses and political losses, but our fight ends in a victory that has already been won through Christ. Ephesians 6:12 reminds us that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” We need to fight with the Gospel of Christ that changes hearts and minds, and we have to fight with the weapons of truth, facts, compassion and grace.

So, what do you think that the GOP needs to do now? Send your thoughts and input to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll print good feedback anonymously in a future edition.