JULY 2015

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the July 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, a web journal that covers a variety of great topics!

The heart of this edition is our response to the homosexuality ruling by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. I hope that this is a fair treatment of what Scripture says about homosexuality and also how the church should recognize some culpability for the position we now find ourselves in. See our article Homosexuality, Hate, and the “Heart” of the Issue and feel free to send kind and measured agreements or disagreements to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Also, we continue our verse-by-verse study of Romans and investigate some archaeological finds that are significant for understanding languages and cultures of the Ancient Near East. We repeat a great article on the bad arguments that people sometimes make for the existence of God, and we also have some musings on communion.

Don't forget to check out our “Feedback” section and see what people are saying about the GOP race.

And you can send your thoughts and responses to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We love to reprint great feedback anonymously in subsequent editions. We would also love to have you give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and you can leave your thoughts and feedback there, as well.

Thanks, as always, for reading, and, stay eclectic!

ROMANS: Paul’s Affection for His Audience (Romans 1:8-10)

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of you that your faith is being declared in the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the Gospel of his Son, how ceaselessly I remember you, always in my prayers asking whether now at last I will succeed in the will of God to come to you.

In the last installment in our series on Romans, we talked about Paul’s audience, both his ancient audience as well as modern individuals who benefit from Romans. In Romans 1:8-10, Paul not only talks about his audience, but about his gratitude for and affection for his audience.

Paul follows his greetings with a word of thanks not to the believers in Rome, but for them (v. 8). Most of Paul’s letters include a word of thanks for his audience to whom he is writing (1 Cor 1:4; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess 1:3; Phlm 1:4; lacking from this list, interestingly enough, is Paul’s letter to the Galatians and his second treatise to the Corinthians). Paul recognizes that his ministry would be nothing without those who benefit from it. This thankful ministerial approach provides an important precedent for pastors throughout the ages.

He recognizes that the faith of the Romans was being “declared” or “proclaimed” throughout the world. The Greek word katangello is used eleven times throughout Acts, usually referring to the proclamational focus of the early church; Paul’s seven uses of the word reflect that nuance as well and indicate either his teaching or the teaching ministry of those associated with the early church (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 2:1; 9:14; 11:26; Phil 1:17, 18; Col 1:28). Paul also recognizes the breadth of the Roman believers’ proclamation, and the fact that they had been able to utilize their strategic location at the center of the Roman empire to spread the message of Christianity.

In v. 9, Paul then appeals to God’s authority (“for God as my witness”) to reinforce the point that he prays often for the Roman believers. He uses a similar phrase in Phil 1:8 to express his affection for his audience and a shorter version in 1 Thes 2:5 to affirm his ministerial integrity. He affirms that the God to whom he appeals is the God that he serves by and through the Gospel of Christ. The verb “to serve” or “to worship” is latreuo from whence we derive the word “liturgy.” The word is used twenty-one times in the NT by a variety of authors, and makes another appearance in Romans 1:25. The very word indicates that “worship” and “service” are inseparable; they overlap in one’s lifelong service to God.

Paul says that he makes “memory” or “mention” of his audience in his prayers. This probably refers to praying for many of them by name, a practice which he demonstrates in Romans 16. He prays “ceaselessly” for them. The word here is adialeiptos; it was used during the Roman period for a nagging or lingering cough (Moulton and Milligan, 9). In the NT, the word is used in far more favorable circumstances, and Paul uses it in conjunction with consistent thanks and prayer three times in 1 Thessalonians (1:2; 2:13; 5:17).

In v. 10, Paul demonstrates his deep desire to visit the Roman believers, and this is the content of many of his prayers. He is hoping that he will have “success” in this endeavor. The word euodomai means “to have things go well (for oneself),” “to prosper, earn, gain (money),” or “to be possible (for one to do something).” The word is often used in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, also known as the Septuagint) of a believer’s success (Gen 39:3; Deut 28:29; Josh 1:8; Judges 18:5; 1 Kings 22:12; 1 Chron 22:11, 13; 2 Chronicles 14:7; Ezra 5:8; Neh 2:20; Prov 17:8; 28:13; Is 48:15; 54:17; 55:11; Jer 2:37; 12:1), in a prayer for God to grant success in general (Ps 117:25) or for success in a specific endeavor (Gen 24:12; Neh 1:11). In the NT, the word is used in 1 Cor 16:2 when Paul is suggesting that people contribute to the church according to how they have been prospered. It is used in 3 John 1:2 of a greeting; the apostle John wishes both spiritual as well as physical prosperity to his audience. In Rom 1:10, Paul says that he wants prosperity in his endeavor to see the Romans, and hopes that this will be in accord with God’s will.

Much is made today about how much people like their pastors or spiritual leaders. But pastors are not challenged enough regarding how much they should care for, love, and thank God for their people. Paul not only exhorts church leaders to share God’s love and compassion for believers, but in Romans 1:8-10, he exemplifies those qualities in his love and prayers as well.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Homosexuality, Hate, and the “Heart” of the Issue

I was reluctant to sit down with my proverbial pen and write this article. The Eclectic Kasper has already written several articles about homosexuality that are clear and reasonable.

And now that the issue has exploded on the national scene, everyone is writing something; we’re drowning in bullet points and blog posts, and yet we’re in a famine of communication and understanding.

I also know that promoting the “traditional” or “Biblical” view of marriage is like willingly placing one’s head on a chopping block. However, words like “bigot” or “hate” do not characterize me or anything that I say below. It is sad that both sides employ such empty rhetoric rather than utilize substantial arguments.

But there are still some things that have to be said and even repeated, especially because they get to the heart of the issue and explain the reason why we are where we are.

But before we rehash what the Bible says about homosexuality and how the Christian should respond, I want to make a few preliminary comments.

First, to the LBGT community: You have won a battle, and it was a big battle. Your patience and persistence over decades finally paid off.

You must understand, however, that for many of us who embrace a religion that has endured for millennia, just because something now becomes legal or permissible does not suddenly make that thing morally right. This is not hate, but faith, and there is a huge difference between the two. A government’s declaration or a Supreme Court’s decision does not and cannot change my convictions, my eternity, or my faith. That fact alone makes me feel like I won.

To the Christian/ traditional-marriage community: The elephant in the room here is that Christians are the only ones we can blame for losing; we are the reason why we are where we are now. In contrast to the purposeful persistence of the LBGT community, Christians battled pathetically, and therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised that we lost. For decades we portrayed abortion and homosexuality as central issues of Christian cultural identity rather than making the salvation and redemption of Jesus Christ the central issue. This is like fighting a war with squirt guns instead of canons. That is why we lost this battle, and that is why we are losing the cultural war.

Or, try this: Ask yourself how many times over the last year you’ve talked to someone about politics and social issues; maybe dozens or hundreds of times? Now ask yourself how many times over the last year you have carefully explained the Gospel to an unbeliever. Exactly. For decades, we’ve tried to change people’s behavior rather than present to them the Gospel of Christ which God uses to change people’s hearts. This, to me, is the heart of the issue. We complain about how the government tries to force citizens into compliance, and yet, we have foolishly tried to force homosexuals into compliance with our standards. This Pharisaical method has obviously been painfully unproductive, perhaps even counter-productive. We have focused on external behavior, and neglected the need for regeneration in the heart.

Christians should stop whining about how bad culture is, as if we expect culture to automatically conform to Scripture. It is far more Biblical to expect that culture will veer away from Scripture! Besides, if we think that our society is getting worse, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. No politician or political party placed us in this situation. We did when we failed to present truth clearly and kindly. Our negligence, our condescension, our apathy . . . it is our fault that we are where we are.

OK, I feel a little better now. So let’s move on to what the Bible says about marriage and homosexuality. And here at the outset, I concede that some people couldn’t care less about what the Bible says about anything. My comments here are more directed to those who recognize Biblical authority but somehow think that the Bible is ambiguous regarding marriage and sexuality. I think that you will see that the Bible is much more clear and specific than you realize.

We covered this thoroughly in a previous article, but we’ll review it here again. The Bible cements into Old Testament law the conviction that homosexuality is not merely a forbidden practice but it is also an abomination to the Lord (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The infrequency of these statements should not lessen their clarity; in both of these verses, the homosexual act and lifestyle is called “detestable” or “an abomination.”

God’s opinion doesn’t change by the time the Apostles write the books of the New Testament. Homosexuality is both seen as a symptom of spiritual decline and is also included in lists of vices (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; again, see that previous article for a deeper discussion of these verses). I have dug as honestly as I could into the Hebrew and Greek on these texts, and there aren’t any loopholes here, despite what some suggest. There’s no sense that these verses from the New Testament or the Old Testament are culturally-colored or susceptible to the ravages of relativism.

These OT and NT statements regarding homosexuality corroborate with other verses that discuss how marriage is a divinely-ordained institution between one man and one woman (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-25; 5:2; Matt 19:4-6; 1 Cor 7:2; 14; Eph 5:25; 33; Col 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7). As you read these verses, you should note the incontrovertible gender-specificity as well as numerical-specificity of most of them; the Bible declares that marriage is between one man (male) and one woman (female). No hermeneutical gymnastics or mumbo-jumbo about cultural change can convince an honest reader that these verses declare otherwise.

In fact, I can’t really say it better than I said it previously: “If someone wants to promote homosexuality, they have no ground to support that view from the Bible, and they shouldn’t even pretend to try” (from “Myths Perpetrated In the Debate About Homosexuality” in the May 2013 edition).

If someone claims to take the Bible seriously, as an authoritative religious document, then she or he has to take the whole Book seriously. Don’t just celebrate the parts you like, and then dismiss the rest; the Bible is not a buffet. An individual has the freedom in this country to be a homosexual, but that person does not have the ability or sanction to support that position from the Christian Scriptures.

Speaking of either taking the Bible seriously or not taking it at all, I would here remind the Christian that there are many other vices addressed in the Bible, too, such as pride, arrogance, divorce, lying, anger, etc. Perhaps if American Christianity had not been such a one-vice-wonder over the last few decades, but perhaps if we had given more attention to our own personal and corporate purity and holiness, then maybe we wouldn’t be where we are now!

Which is a good transition into how Christians should respond . . .

Just like how Scripture is not ambiguous on God’s opinion of sexual purity, marriage, and homosexuality, neither is Scripture ambiguous on Christian behavior and specifically how Christians are to respond to those that disagree with us. In short, believers never have the right or privilege to be condemnatory, prideful, judgmental, or hateful, but we are called upon to respond even to harsh antagonism with truth, gentleness, compassion and humility (Micah 6:8; Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 4:1-2, 15; Colossians 3:12; 4:6; 2 Timothy 2:24-25; James 3:13; 1 Peter 2:12; 3:15). Our Lord, Master, and Savior Jesus Christ Himself is the model of responding with truth, love and grace even in the midst of unbelievable antagonism. Paul’s command in Colossians 4:6 is as critical for the cause of Christianity now as it was then: “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person.” Similarly, King Solomon wisely wrote: “Do not let kindness and truth leave you” (Proverbs 3:3).

But none of this means that we need to chuck truth and convictions out the window (some of you didn’t even notice that I used the word “truth” three times in the previous paragraph!). We are to proclaim truth, live truth, and be purified by Biblical truth (Ps 26:3; 86:11; Prov 3:3; 8:7; 1 Cor 13:6; Eph 4:25; 6:14; 1 John 3:18, 21; 3 John 1:3-4). Truth and compassion are not opposites; we do not need to compromise one in order to optimize the other. They are mutually reinforcing, rather than mutually exclusive. That is, truth will be received better when it is distributed with grace and compassion; similarly, our kindness and love will be more effective when it is accompanied with divine truth rather than couched in empty humanistic platitudes.

In fact, if this had been the modus operandi of American Christianity all along, then maybe, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

Perhaps in this article you have sensed some frustration from me; but I want you to know that my frustration is impartial and bi-partisan. I am not just frustrated at homosexuals, but I am also frustrated at Christians; I am not merely angered by liberals, but I am also angered by conservatives. Most importantly, I am not just frustrated with others, but I am also frustrated with myself. I have to admit that I haven’t always been the poster-child for speaking truth in love, for declaring my convictions clearly but kindly, or for being willing to dialogue rather than just monologue.

I think that the heart of the issue is the condition of the heart. We should be having kind, civil discussions about the heart, not just external behavior. We should all exhibit greater maturity and humility, which yields a clearer and kinder communication of truth. Perhaps if we were doing this better, then we wouldn’t be where we are now.

I know you’re bitin’ at the bit to chime in! So go ahead and send your compliments and critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We will reprint kind, measured and thoughtful pro and con feedback in future editions.

ARCHAEOLOGY: Decoding the Past

In the May 2015 edition, we began a series about great archaeological finds especially in the Ancient Near East. In that article we discussed the history of modern archaeology and we noted the great benefits that it provides for understanding the Ancient Near East and also for aiding in Biblical studies.

However, we included some warnings regarding the limits of archaeology. Archaeology never proves anything; it may reinforce some theories, but interpretations of archaeological data are subjective, and sometimes contradictory.

There are many artifacts that we will investigate in this series about Biblical archaeology. However, while shiny vases and antique trinkets may look impressive in a museum, these kinds of relics are usually not as beneficial for understanding the past. More helpful are inscriptions, or ancient discoveries that have writing on them. But even more helpful and interesting than that are multi-lingual inscriptions, or finds that contain more than one language. The writing on these artifacts or documents contain the same material, such as a king’s declaration or a description of a nation’s military victories, and that material is translated into different languages.

Researchers can start with one of the languages on a multi-lingual inscription that is well-known, like ancient Greek, and then use that as a key for understanding other languages on the inscription, like Egyptian hieroglyphics or Babylonian scripts. By serving as a decoding device, these multi-lingual inscriptions can give us enough information to decipher entire languages. This then helps us understand that language’s people and culture, which can also help us appreciate the ancient world better and can aid in the interpretation of certain Bible passages.

We even have examples in the Bible of documents that were rendered in different languages. The book of Esther mentions several decrees that were issued in multiple tongues (Esther 1:22; 3:12; 8:9). An example of a single tri-lingual inscription is the sign above Jesus’ head when He was crucified which was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (John 19:20).

In this article we will describe two surviving tri-lingual inscriptions, the first of which is the Rosetta Stone. In the ashes of the French Revolution that began in 1789 arose one of France’s most influential modern leaders, Napoléon Bonaparte. Before becoming post-revolution France’s first emperor in 1804, he was a general in the Revolutionary Wars. In order to expand France’s – and his own – influence, Napoléon invaded Egypt with a group of soldiers and scholars in 1798. The Rosetta Stone was found in 1799 at Rashîd, which is the Egyptian name for the town that some of Napoleon’s soldiers called “Rosetta.” When British troops defeated the French in Egypt in 1801, the Rosetta Stone was brought back to London. However, it wasn’t until 1822 that all of the inscriptions on it were seriously studied and translated by Thomas Young, a British scientist, and Jean-François Champollion, a French philologist.

The Rosetta Stone is an ancient Egyptian stele (another word for an engraving or inscription and pronounced like “steal”) from the Ptolemaic empire (301 – 30 BCE). It is about the coronation and reign of the Ptolemaic king Ptolomy V. The stele is about 45 inches high and 29 inches wide, and weighs over 1,600 pounds. The text contains three versions of a single passage, the first of which is in Greek. The other two languages are two different Egyptian scripts, the first is in hieroglyphics, and the second is called Demotic, which is more of an alphabetic script than a pictogram-oriented or hieroglyphic script. This discovery was crucial for understanding these Egyptian writing systems and helped scholars understand many other inscriptions and documents written in these scripts. The influence of the Rosetta Stone is so significant that it even lent its name to a popular language-learning system.

A similar discovery is the Behistun Inscription, which is a multi-lingual inscription carved into Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Province of Iran. It is 200 feet high, and almost completely inaccessible, though it can easily be seen on the road that runs from Babylon and Ecbatana (the former capital of Media). It is about 25 feet tall and 50 feet wide and includes a relief sculpture of Darius the Great (522-486 BCE), who purportedly commissioned the project. It describes Darius’ background, his religion, his exploits as a king, and his suppression of rebellions.

The Behistun Inscription is one text written in three languages that use cuneiform, in which all of the letters are composed of wedged-shaped marks. In this inscription, 414 of the lines of writing are in Old Persian, 539 are in Elamite (spoken in ancient times in the area that is now Iran), and 112 are in Babylonian. This inscription is to cuneiform what the Rosetta Stone is to Egyptian hieroglyphs in providing the ability to understand and decipher these ancient languages. By 1846 Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, a British Assyriologist, deciphered the Old Persian part of the inscription, which was the key to understanding the parallel Elamite and Babylonian writings.

Again, these multi-lingual inscriptions are invaluable for decoding ancient languages and texts. They also shed light on some of the cultures and customs of the ancient world. Additionally, inscriptions like this lend credibility to Biblical accounts by providing references outside of the Bible to certain individuals such as Darius the Great, who is mentioned in several OT books.

In the next article in this series we will continue to discuss inscriptions that help us understand the Biblical world and the Bible itself.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK -- ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: Bad Arguments of the Existence of God

This article is originally from the June/ July 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

We have surveyed older “classical” arguments for the existence of God as well as some newer arguments. As we have frequently said, these arguments do not scientifically prove that God exists, but demonstrate the plausibility of His existence to a high degree.

Additionally, they do not verify distinctively Christian tenets. That is, they do not speak to Trinitarianism, the inspiration and infallibility of the Christian Bible, or the incarnation and substitutionary propitiation of Christ. However, these arguments do verify the reasonability of God’s existence. As such, they can challenge the swelling atheism of our day and can be used to steer people toward the reasonability and exclusivity of Christianity.

Of course, there are many arguments for the existence of God that simply should not be used. They sound spiritual, they certainly have Biblical roots, and they make those who already believe in God feel fluffy about their beliefs; however, they do not objectively validate God’s existence. They are either circular arguments, or they are too thin to be helpful, or they can just as easily affirm the other side as they do ours!

One such category of arguments pertains to the creation vs. evolution debate, which of course, centers around the existence or non-existence of God as Creator. For instance, it argues that the earth is just the perfect distance from the sun; if we were any farther, life on earth would freeze, and if any closer, we would fry (see, for example, #1 in Marilyn Adamson’s article “Is There a God”). The distance of the earth from the sun allegedly verifies that God exists.

I want to be clear, that I believe that God in His power and benevolence created the earth to be the right distance from the earth so that we wouldn’t freeze or fry. But is this really a good argument to verify God’s existence?

I don’t even have to put myself in the place of an atheist or an evolutionist to point out why this oft-repeated argument for God’s existence is silly. The detractor merely replies that we would, by definition, not have been able to survive on a planet that was inhospitable to our existence. In fact, the evolutionist would predict exactly that: many species that did exist (or may have existed) no longer do (or never did) exist because they did not adapt to the conditions of our planet the way existing species did. Thus, the fact that our world is perfect, or at least suitable, for sustaining our existence does not automatically confirm the existence of God.

In Adamson’s later discussion about the DNA in cells she similarly asserts, and I concur, that DNA was created by God in a certain way to promote life and functionality. However, a detractor can simply argue that DNA evolved that way, and genetic traits that were not functional died out in favor of more resilient traits. These arguments can be used by both sides, and therefore, they don’t verify any uniquely theistic convictions.

Just to reaffirm: I believe that every species on earth was created thousands of years ago (not billions) by a deliberate and powerful Creator God, specifically, the God of the Christian Bible. And while I do not believe that any species can change into another species, I do accept that each species was created with the ability to adapt and adjust to the many environmental oddities that occur in a fallen world. I prefer the case made by the Intelligent Design people because their arguments point to the necessity of an intelligent Creator. However, these arguments about the size of the earth, its distance from the sun, or its suitability for life may reinforce for a believer the reality of God’s love, but they do not verify anything to someone who is skeptical of God’s existence. Rather, these points allow atheists and evolutionists to feel that we are lending credence to their convictions, as well.

Some arguments for the existence for God are bad because they are circular; they begin with the premise that they are proposing to prove. Again, Adamson says that God exists because He cares about us and draws us to Himself. But, the idea that God exists because He loves and pursues us is a circular argument that simply begins with a faith-based premise (namely, God’s existence), which the argument then purports to prove (since He pursues us, He must exist). Again, I believe that this is true not because it needs to be proven to me, but because I embrace it by faith. We cannot expect people to accept certain truths to be fact when we ourselves adhere to them by faith.

Beauty in nature is also used to prove God’s existence, but is this really a good argument? Consider this “aesthetic argument”: “There is beauty in the universe and human beings have a unique ability to appreciate it. From whence comes this correspondence between the beauty in creation and the ability of man to appreciate it? This indicates design, intelligence, personality, and so, God” (“Evidence For God's Existence” by J. Hampton Keathley III). Again, as a Biblical theist, I agree with this, but I believe that this is a circular argument. That is, we start with the affirmation of the beauty of God’s creation and thus end with an affirmation that God created beauty and the ability to appreciate it. I imagine an atheist or evolutionist would dismiss this argument simply by suggesting that the human sense of beauty has evolved over time.

When you are interacting with an unbeliever, I would urge you to really think through what you are arguing and how you are arguing. Those classical arguments and newer arguments for the existence of God that we have used in previous installments argue toward a conclusion without assuming that conclusion from the beginning. For instance, the Cosmological Argument begins with realities that everyone can agree upon, not with what we exclusively believe. We can all observe motion, all motion implies cause, which implies an unmoved Mover, who originally set creation in motion, and that unmoved Mover is God. This kind of argument may be more effective for those who do not share our convictions, but who do share our observations.

So, have any of you theists heard of other bad arguments for the existence of God? Or any argument for God’s existence that you think an atheist would think was simply silly or circular? Send your thoughts or reactions to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

THEOLOGY: Musings on Communion

Several years ago, I was asked some questions about communion, specifically about the frequency and manner in which it is celebrated. How often should Christians celebrate communion and how we can make this vital rite more engaging and meaningful?

At some churches I have attended, we celebrated communion with amazing infrequency. There is, of course, not a mandated frequency for celebrating communion, but seeing that we only have two ordinances, it was disheartening at some of these churches that we did communion so rarely. It is a tricky issue: doing it weekly, on one hand, can make communion too routine. Doing it more sporadically may make communion seem fresher and more authentic, but it can become less and less frequent, and eventually pushed off the schedule entirely if there is not some regularity to it.

In the early church and especially since the sixteenth century Reformation, the preaching of the Word and communion have been central to the gathering of the church. Acts 2:42-46 says that the early church was devoted to a series of practices, including communion (v. 42) and this passage indicates that it was done at daily gatherings (v. 46). By Acts 20, communion was held weekly (v. 7).

Most traditions (Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) up through the eighteenth century continued to celebrate communion weekly or at least monthly. It has only been since early nineteenth century revivalism that the communion element was marginalized in Christian services, and it has been only in the last twenty years that music has filled that void and taken over church services. In fact, one can note that we now refer to them as “worship” (i.e., music, singing) services, rather than just “services” – also a recent phenomenon. In many modern services that are so music-focused, communion has been pushed out to the periphery, and sometimes into the realm of infrequent obscurity. In light of this we should not be surprised that the American church is riddled with so much disunity and superficiality. Communion is designed as a powerful object lesson meant to instill unity and depth in each local church and in each believer.

“Like” us on Facebook!

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

Do You “Dig” Archaeology?

If you like archaeology, you should check out some of our other articles about Solomon's temple and the history of archaeology here in our “Eclectic Archive.”

Many churches take communion monthly, on a given Sunday of the month, usually, the first Sunday, and I think that this is a good frequency. However, even then, there is the unavoidable problem of making communion somewhat routine and rote. I would like to see churches appoint a team of creative individuals who would oversee communion and delve the depth and meaning of it. In smaller churches, the pastor should take the initiative to do this. It is a multifaceted phenomenon, never meant to be boring. A different and creative presentation of communion, even every second or third time, can help make the rite more engaging. In overseeing many communion services, I have often tried to rotate the texts that are used with communion. I also rotate the themes or emphases that are addressed regarding communion from month to month, such as focusing on Christ’s death one month, Christ’s resurrection the next; what God has done in the past, what God will do in the future; the idea of thanksgiving and then the idea of praise; the focus on individual relationship with God and then the focus on the community’s relationship with one another.

Local churches could also shift styles of how communion is presented. At many congregational or non-denominational churches, the elders or the deacons often serve the elements. How about once in a while, allowing the teens to serve the communion elements? At one church I have attended, the people themselves lined up to collect the elements at the front of the sanctuary, which expedited the distribution of the elements.

Churches could have more meaningful communion songs sung or played during the ceremony. Communion could be intermingled with the sermon or throughout the service, maybe serving the bread after point one in the message and serving the cup after point two. I’ve never seen this done, but I think it would be interesting to act communion out, and have people playing the parts of Jesus and the disciples. Larger churches with some talented singers could, perhaps, perform communion like an oratorio and have the entire ceremony sung. Wouldn’t it be interesting to do the entire ceremony in absolute silence?Sometime the regular communion schedule needs just a few creative touches for us to appreciate anew its meaning and significance.

You will notice something else also: Communion is done less frequently on Sunday mornings in many churches. It is marginalized and done in the evening, or during Saturday evening service, or relegated to small groups. The excuse is that churches may have visitors or unbelievers on Sunday morning who wouldn’t understand and appreciate communion. I have two responses to this:

First, what in the world is an unbeliever doing in church on Sunday morning!? Church is for the believer, to motivate them to go out into the world and tell the gospel to unbelievers. In response to the intrusion of unbelievers in Sunday morning gatherings, many churches simplify and water-down messages, use more “popular” music, and marginalize elements of the service that may divide or “offend,” such as communion, discussions about doctrine, or instances of church discipline.

Second, in response to those who are worried about visitors and unbelievers seeing communion, I would say, What better visual aid of essential Christian teaching and practice could we put before the visitor and the unbeliever than communion? It is the ideal teaching and witnessing tool. Could it be that the evangelism strategies of most churches are in the ecclesiastical commode because we have so minimized communion and not allowed people to appreciate the tangible truths that it promotes? We tend to minimize the significance that communion has on the health of the church. However, I feel that the real reason why communion becomes so lackluster or infrequent at many churches is because we are too lazy to do it more often or more creatively. The logistics of the supplies, preparation, and organization deter us from really putting meaningful time, thought and resources into this crucial rite.

Once I was asked about why many churches use crackers and grape juice. I think that this is just a sterilized attempt to avoid alcohol, which, all told, is probably a wise idea. Some churches utilize real unleavened bread, rather than just small crackers, and this could be another interesting way to make communion more authentic.

So there are some musings about communion. If you have other questions about the theology or practice of communion, or if you would like to share other ideas for adding more meaning and creativity to this important rite, please send your input to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

FEEDBACK: GOP Experience and Trump

We had several great responses to our article “Cruzing Toward Amnesia” in the May 2015 edition. In that article we raised the caution about some candidates who have very little experience political or otherwise. One reader responded:

You Like Theology?

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

Just finished your article on the need for our presidential candidates to have more experience. While I do agree that experience helps a great deal, I always felt that former governors make better presidents than former senators. But, I just wanted to throw this out, since it is a conservative mantra . . . how do we balance experience from the dreaded “career politicians” that we also loath so much?

Here’s another response:

Interesting article and perspective. The upcoming running list [of GOP candidates] is growing and I feel something should be said early on to help prune them. Like we have heard at the upcoming Rep[ublican] Cleveland debate only top 10 will debate; selection based on poll results. I missed (maybe they didn’t say yet) which poll(s) and by what end date this would occur. I would like to see (can’t find) ONE site that would list questions and give each candidate's answers in a comparative format. That will help us (not just you and me; everyone) prune our choices. I am (though have not done an exhaustive search) concerned that any candidate’s internet site can be compromised; or minimal their site is mimicked to fool first timers. How about a “neutral” site managed by honest and accurate bloggers like you? Nothing like having fifteen (hundred!) candidates and getting confused on their views. But one thing should come out at the onset about the candidate, which I hadn’t realized until an article pointed this out, are they conservative socialist, etc., like Mike Huckabee is. Ouch.

And yet another response from a reader:

Have you heard Donald Trump speak about the things he would do to protect our country and to help boost our economy? The man is worth about 9 billion in assets. Has done business all over the world and is extremely successful. Does he have political experience? No! Right now I would be happy to have him as president instead of the present occupant, who has run our country into the ground. Appreciated your information about the candidates.

These are great thoughts, so thanks, and keep the feedback coming!

I’m wondering now how people are feeling about “The Don” in light of how well he is doing in the polls, or even in light of some of the things he has said (both good and bad!). Do you appreciate his fearless approach or do you think that he is a political time bomb?

Please send your thoughts and feedback to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We’ll reprint your responses anonymously in subsequent editions. Also, you can give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and leave some comments there.