JULY 2016

    Some polls are comical in their honesty. A poll captured on May 7 reflects a smaller sample size – just over 17,000 responses – far lower than the others that we have examined here, but still higher than most polls you’re likely to see on NBC, CNN or Fox. The poll asked “Should Mitt Romney jump into the race as an independent candidate?” Yes, we all remember Romney’s one-year presidential run in 2012 that ended in complete failure and also Romney’s one-day run in 2016 that, as this poll demonstrates, ended about the same.

    In this poll, a full 67% of respondents (49% plus 18%), precisely two-thirds, perceived – either will delight or disdain – that a Romney run would surely be more in Clinton’s favor than the GOP’s. Of the remaining 33%, about half, 16%, agreed that the GOP needed an alternative to Trump, but just not Romney. Essentially, this poll showed that in some form or another, 83% opposed a Romney run, while only 17% thought that it was a good idea. Surely it was a result of polling this honest that Mitt – thankfully! – decided not to run and lose again.

    It is helpful to compare two similar polls and see if there is some consistency to them. These next two both basically ask about who will win in November, and both represent almost one million respondents. The first, captured on May 5, asked “Do you think Trump can win in November?” and the second, captured May 16, asked “Who will win the general election for president this November?”    Regarding the first poll specifically about Trump, it is telling that about one third of those who responded to this poll (34%) seemed to be enthusiastic supporters. Keep in mind that this poll is from May 5, just after Cruz and Kasich dropped out of the race and while people seemed to still be reeling from the aftermath of the May 3 Indiana primary. Also, while the results in this poll generally look even (especially in comparison to the next one), in reality, only 28% answered a definitive “no” when asked if Trump could win in November; the other 72% of respondents represented shades of “yes” ranging from possibly to absolutely. In those terms, this poll seems definitive.

    The second poll from May 16 asking “Who will win the general election for president this November?” is also definitive. Very few were interested in a third party candidate (5%), and only one percent more than that were interested in Sanders (6%). Trump at 53% had a seventeen point edge over Hillary’s 36% among these almost one million respondents; that’s a difference of over 158,000 votes. Again, how well do these polls represent eligible US voters and the mood and demographics of this country is hard to tell. Nonetheless, these are still wide margins among a large number of voters.    Finally, a trifecta of polls caught my eye concerning Americans’ opinions about terrorism. These three polls were presented and captured on Tuesday, June 14, just days after a self-avowed Muslim and ISIS champion shot forty-nine people in an Orlando night club early on Sunday, June 12. The sample size of these polls is smaller than some of the others, but still in the hundreds of thousands. I suspect that the reason why these are smaller is that they were pulled before more people could vote, which, again, makes me wonder about the political motivations of those calling the shots over at MSN. Nonetheless, the numbers are bad for terrorism and Hillary and good for Trump and Republicans.

    A few examples of this happening elsewhere in the NT will suffice. In Matt 4:12, John the Baptist did not want to be in prison, but this was a direct result of his actions (preaching about the kingdom and against Jewish and secular leadership), and yet there was a purpose for him being in prison. Another example is from Romans 8:32, where Jesus is “delivered over” because He submitted to God’s plan for Him by coming to earth, enduring rejection, crucifixion and death, for the sake of providing propitiation and salvation to humanity.    Here in Romans 1:24, humanity rejected truth about and the worship of the one true God. Therefore, they are handed over to their own sinful devices and darkened mindset, as the passage will continue to describe.

    God hands humanity over to the “lusts of their heart.” Paul reiterates this in Ephesians 4:19: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more”; this verse shares the words paradidomi and also the word akartharsia, or “impurity” with Romans 1:24. Perhaps there was a stage in human history when there was some divine moral barrier preventing mankind from fully expressing its lust and moral bile (perhaps a barrier such as that which is alluded to in 2 Thess 2:7). Romans 1:24 describes a time when that divine moral protection was removed.

    Once that barrier is removed, this allows humanity to slide further toward “impurity” or “uncleanliness” (again, this is the Greek word akartharsia). This is a general word used for immorality and impurity, and occasionally seen in vice lists (Gal 5:19; Col 3:5). It is used in the LXX of ritual defilement (Lev 7, 15, 16, 22), but also often of moral impurity and of sexual sins (2 Sam 11:4; Hos 2:10; Lam 1:9). The last phrase of the verse indicates a further result, specifically, “for the dishonoring of” or “for the purpose of degrading.” The misdirected worship leads to physical impurity and degradation.

    Paul continues in Romans 1:25 to note how poor worship resulted in even more bad and false worship. The verb metallasso means “to change” or “to exchange” and is used in the NT only here in verses 25 and 26. To “exchange” the truth of God for something else implies that they did indeed possess that truth. They were not ignorant and without truth (vv. 21-22), but they traded it for lies that were more convenient and palatable to their sensitivities.

    Part of the lie was to accelerate toward misguided worship. Specifically, they “worshipped” and “served” the creation rather than the One who created all things. The verb for “worship” (sebazomai) is only used here in the NT. However, it’s cognate noun sebasma is used twice in the NT (Acts 17:23; 2 Thess 2:4) referring to an “object of worship.” People make images which they can see to worship rather than being content to worship the invisible God. The wordplay emphasizes the irony of worshiping the creation, which is by definition, inferior, and less worthy of worship than the Creator. Paul also notes that they “served” creatures rather than the Creator. The word for “serve” is the Greek word latreuo from which we derive the word “liturgy.” For fallen humanity, however, this was a liturgy of error rather than truth. 

    Paul’s description of bad worship and its results on humanity launches him into a “blessing” or a “good word” (the word here is eulogetos, from which we get the word “eulogy”). This “good word” is about God and his eternal existence. How could someone possibly want to worship anyone or anything other than Him!

    While the worship wars divide congregations and denominations, we must remember to begin at the right starting point. We must believe in Christ, worship God with Biblical substance, have an attitude of awe and humility toward Him, and then strive to serve Him. Only through trust in Christ, rather than trust in self, we will we arrive at the right place. “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6). 

    Questions, comments or thoughts on this article or any others? Send your input to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we would love to hear what you have to say!

“IN MY OPINION . . . ” – THOUGHTS FROM OUR READERS: One Reason Why Many Churches Struggle Financially  

        by guest contributor Mike Jogan

    Why are so many churches struggling to stay afloat financially or even closing? Ask friends and neighbors how their church is doing and the majority in 2016 offer a one word answer “struggling.”

    I believe the answer lies in the plethora of non-profits taking donations, thus squeezing out the fair share that should go to religious non-profits, like churches. 

    Independence Day: Resurgence (June 24): I was thrilled when I heard that they were doing a sequel to ID4, but I was less thrilled, and even a somewhat disappointed, when the movie was finished. This installment had marvelous graphics, but unfortunately, that particular metric doesn’t seem to be such a critical factor nowadays when every movie has to have great graphics. If this was a stand-alone movie, it would have been more of a disaster; to a certain extent, it was riding on the laurels of its predecessor, which was one of the most solid alien invasion pieces that Hollywood has ever produced. The sequel included sequences that seemed silly, such as the accident that takes place on the moon toward the beginning of the movie. The film was not just a rehash of ID4, however; it did have some good and original plot points, such as introducing another alien species that were antagonistic to the invaders, and also featuring an alien queen who attempts to infiltrate the base at Area 51. The attempts to cram old characters back into this film sometime worked, such as with Jeff Goldblum’s character and former President Whitmore; others were probably unnecessary, and we can be thankful that Vivica A. Fox’s character didn’t last long. Even more so than X-Men: Apocalypse, ID:R was littered with superfluous characters that detracted from the story (I could start listing them all out, but I simply don’t care about them enough to research all of the character names). Like BvS, this movies could have, and should have been so much more. But unlike BvS which appeared only three years after its predecessor, the producers of ID:R had two decades to come up with a strong and well-written movie. Unfortunately, they largely failed in this task. I’m going to be really generous and give this movie a “B-”; I am hoping that the third installment which was teased in the final moments of ID:R will indeed get made and will return back to the quality of the first installment. 

    Other movies we’re looking forward to this year include Star Trek Beyond, Suicide Squad, Doctor Strange, and Star Wars: Rogue One. Maybe we’ll have a follow-up article where we review those, as well.

    What do you think about these movies and our opinions of them? Send your agreements and disagreements to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll print them anonymously in a future edition.

DEITY OF CHRIST: “I And the Father Are One,” John 10:30

    Its funny . . .

    As I was writing this article on a clear verse about the deity of Christ I received a phone call. The caller ID screen unhelpfully said “anonymous: private number.” I picked up the phone and it was a guy who hesitatingly introduced himself as “Nelson.” He had called about seven months ago and argued about the deity of Christ with me. He had enough knowledge about koine Greek to know how to twist and distort the proper use of the Greek New Testament (he was, of course, no match for this Dallas Theological Seminary grad!) and he obviously had some kind of Jehovah’s Witness background.

    I stood my ground about the full and undiminished deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But faux-Nelson was so steeped in his false thinking and false teaching that he wouldn’t listen to reason and proper exegesis. A potentially interesting theological conversation quickly deteriorated into me enduring his shouting and belligerence (which I put up with for forty-five minutes the first conversation, but only for fifteen minutes this time around).

    This episode reminded me of how important this doctrine is, and how important this series is. The deity of Christ is not an opinion or an option; it is how the Bible presents Jesus and, as in this verse we will discuss below, it is how He presents Himself. He must be fully human to definitively purchase redemption for humanity, but he must be fully divine to purchase redemption for all of humanity. He is God and He must be God in order to pay an eternal debt to an eternally holy God on our behalf.

    Don’t compromise on this doctrine. Don’t minimize it, don’t short-shrift it, don’t be ashamed of it. Jesus is God, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Spirit. Groups who claim to revere the Bible but reject this doctrine – groups including Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and many who adhere to liberal theology – do not represent Biblical, historic, orthodox Christianity. 

    So, thanks for listening to a bit of a personal rant. Now back to your regularly scheduled article . . . 

    We all want to align with God and to assert that God and His kingdom are our highest priority, our grandest endeavor. We pray that our own wills will be enveloped into the will of our Heavenly Father.

    But would any of us dare say “I and the Father are one”?

    Wanting to be identified with God, with Christianity, with God’s will and plan for this age are not the same as saying, “I and the Father are one.” In fact, if someone were to say this, it would sound like heresy and blasphemy. Could you imagine Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Augustine, Luther or Calvin saying this?

    Yet, Christ said it in John 10:30. What does this mean and what exactly is He claiming?

    The context of this verse is critical. At the end of John 8, Jesus put Himself on par with God the Father by claiming to be the great “I Am” from the Old Testament (we discussed this important exchange in our article “Before Abraham Was . . .”, John 8:58 from the June 2016 edition). Then in John 9, as though to prove His identity, Jesus healed a man born blind, ironically, to the deep chagrin of the Jewish religious leaders. At the end of that chapter, the formerly-blind man returns to Jesus after being “thrown out” by the religious leaders (v. 34). Jesus accepted worship from him (v. 38); this, as we will see later in this series, is itself an affirmation of the deity of Christ since the Jews knew that only God deserved worship.

    In John 10, then, Jesus continues to assert His deity by claiming that He can do what God the Father can do. This includes accomplishing divine works (v. 25, see also vv. 37-38), shepherding (v. 27, see also vv. 11, 15), and both providing and preserving eternal life (v. 28). 

    That last item is very significant, because only an eternal being can grant eternal life. Temporal beings cannot give anything other than temporal, mortal life which inextricably leads to mortal death. While a couple can produce life in the form of offspring, they can only impart the kind of life that they themselves have; temporal, mortal life that will one way or another, end in death. Yet, Jesus claimed to be able to provide “eternal” life, which is nothing less than a claim to be an eternal and everlasting Being. In fact, Jesus’ emphasis on His own deity and ability to provide life seem to be the repeated refrains of chapters eight through eleven of John. 

    As if the point were not clear enough, Jesus then claims in John 10:30 that He and God the Father are “one.” The word “one” in this verse is the neuter form of the word; the masculine form is heis, the feminine form is mia (as in Matt 24:41), and the neuter form used here is hen. As a neuter pronoun, Jesus claims that He and God the Father are of the same quality and essence; both are fully God. Or to put it another way, whatever it means fundamentally to be God is possessed by both the Father and also by the Son (and, of course, as other passages assert, by the Holy Spirit, as well).

    The significance here of the neuter form of the word “one” is to point to a quality of being. It is noteworthy that Jesus does not use the masculine pronoun for “one” as that would have signified that the Father and the Son are the same Person. Historic Trinitarian theology acknowledges that there is one single God, but that God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; these three Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and have different roles and responsibilities in relationship to one another (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). Each of the members of the Trinity share in the quality of being God and being fully divine, yet there are still three separate “persons” in the Godhead (the members of the Holy Trinity are referred to as “persons” not “people”!).

    As with Jesus’ prior claim in John 8:58 to be fully equated with the God of the Old Testament, His audience here in John 10, perhaps with some repeat attendees from before, know exactly what Jesus was declaring in v. 30. He was not merely claiming to identify with God’s way or God’s plan, but to actually be fundamentally divine. They picked up stones to kill Jesus for His alleged blasphemy (vv. 31-32). Back in John 8:53 Jesus’ antagonistic audience asked Him, “Whom do you make Yourself to be?” Here in 10:33, they borrowed that same language, but bypassed the question and recognized that He claimed to be deity: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” His attempt to use logic or reason with them in vv. 34-38 is futile as is the crowd’s attempt to seize Him in v. 39. He asserted His complete identity with God; this was clear enough to them that they wanted to stone Him! It is curious that today many who claim to revere the Bible fail to recognize what Jesus is clearly affirming here and they reject His assertion that He is full and undiminished deity.

    This is not Jesus’ only claim to be “one” with God. He affirms His fundamental oneness with the Father in John 17:11 and 21, also. As with John 10:30, the neuter form of the word “one” is used in both of these verses, also. Again, this emphasizes that Jesus is fundamentally and essentially God, just as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are fully God.

    By the way, in John 17:21, Jesus also claims that believers are all “one” just as He and God are one. For all the diversity in the church, believers share a common essence and quality of being redeemed-though-still-fallen humans. And yet, despite the fact that we share this same quality of being fallen and redeemed people, we also have different identities as people; we are all the same kind of people, but we are still different people. Similarly, the Son and the Father share a common essence defined by undiminished deity, even though they are different Persons of the Trinity. In fact, John 17:21 would make no sense if Jesus were not essentially God and yet a different Person in the Godhead from God the Father.

    But how do we understand verses like John 10:30 and 17:11 in light of Jesus’ assertion that the Father is “greater than I” in 14:28 (He says something similar in 10:29)? In 14:28, Jesus is asserting that the Father has greater authority than the Son, which is very consistent with what Jesus says throughout John 14-15. He “asks” the Father (14:16), He speaks the Father’s words (vv. 10, 24); He is clearly in a subservient role in relationship to the Father. Yet, none of this negates the fact that Jesus is completely God.

    Also, note the other times that this phrase “greater than” is used. In John 4:12, 8:53, and 13:16, the idea of “greater than” points to authority, influence or prominence, rather than essential difference. For instance, in 4:12, the woman at the well asks if Jesus presumes to have more authority than Jacob (He does, of course, but she didn’t fully understand that yet). She is not asking if Jesus is essentially less human or fundamentally less Jewish than Jacob. Rather, she is speaking of Jesus’ role and influence. The issue of authority is explicit in 13:16 in the analogy of the slave and master. Again, this verse is not suggesting that the slave is fundamentally less human than the master, but acknowledging that the slave or servant has less authority than the master. So 14:28 is certainly about the Father having more authority than the Son. It cannot in any way be interpreted as an admission on Jesus’ part that He is less divine than the Father.

    As with Jesus’ assertion in John 5:17, 23, and 8:58, this verse in John 10:30 is an absolute assertion on Christ’s part that He is fully God just as the Father is fully God. If we reject Jesus’ claim, we are not just rejecting religious tradition or man-made doctrine, but we are rejecting God Himself.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation, Part 3

    We have already written two articles regarding the recent debates about religious liberties, aptly called “Part 1” (from the April 2016 edition) and “Part 2” (above).

    Here we are in “Part 3”; let’s skip the niceties and dive right into the controversy.

    Which sinner do you like the most? Another question regarding selectivity and discrimination arises regarding why we chose some sinners, but not others. Why have evangelicals directed their holy ire toward homosexuals but not divorcees, heretics, or people who are greedy or arrogant? By the way, there are plenty of all of these in churches. 

    I’ll rephrase the concern: Would you bake a cake or sell flowers to someone you knew was a wife-beater or a child molester? If you sell a cake to or take pictures for a Hindu or Muslim wedding, are you affirming your belief in Allah or in the pantheon of Hinduism? How can you sell flowers for or cater a wedding between heterosexual atheists without affirming their outright denial of the God you serve? 

    Yet, this is exactly the same faulty argument used by the baker, florist, or photographer in regard to a homosexual wedding. Does providing a commercial service for a Muslim, Catholic, atheist, or homosexual wedding affirm their core and fundamental beliefs and negate our own? To be consistent, an evangelical florist or baker should only provide their services for a wedding between two evangelicals, but only ones who are not divorcees, greedy or arrogant.

    And why are we picking certain parts of a homosexual’s life, but not others? Why is it that selling a cake to a homosexual for a birthday party does not affirm their lifestyle but selling a cake to a homosexual for a gay wedding somehow does?

    Again, Jesus didn’t feel ashamed to interact with a sexually immoral person; arguably, He felt that the truth and salvation that He was offering would be appreciated more by the sinner than by the self-proclaimed saint (consider Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:17: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”). Jesus asks an adulterous woman for water in John 4:7 and later exonerates another woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). He didn’t pick which sinners He liked best, but had a heart of compassion and mission for all sinners without discrimination.

    If you sell a product, then sell the product. Every person to whom you sell is a sinner, and by the way, you as the seller are a sinner, too. To pick-and-chose which sinners you want to sell to reflects unfair and unjust business practices. The Bible addresses deceptive and unethical business behavior far more than it addresses homosexuality (for just a quick sample, check out Lev 19:36; Deut 25:13; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23; Hosea 12:6-7; Amos 8:4-6; Mic 6:11).

    Vocation as Ministry? Christians should see their vocations as an extension of their personal faith and ministry; our faith should saturate all we do.

    But unless you have a job in non-profit ministry, then we have to understand that others – and especially those who do not believe the same way as you – do not see your vocation as ministry. They see it as a job that provides products and services. You may see your flower shop as a spiritual calling, but others see it as a flower shop.

    Consider someone who was attracted to your store by your pamphlets and website. However, when they come in, you refuse to provide the product and service that your sign and literature advertised, namely, selling flowers. Thus, the person wanting to buy flowers sees your refusal to sell to them as confusing at best and hypocritical at worst. If you say that you sell flowers, but in your heart you have only determined to do so for certain sinners but not for others, then are you not “ministering” in your vocation with duplicity and hypocrisy? At least you should be fair and honest and hang sign on your door that says that you do not sell flowers to gays, Jews, blacks, lefties, or whatever.

    Perhaps what we should say is that we bring ministry and Biblical principles into our vocation. But that is different from being in professional ministry where your job is explicitly based on religious principles and everyone knows it.

    So, how is a cake-baker or a florist different from a pastor? That is, why is it OK for a pastor to refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding but confusing and potentially hypocritical for a florist to do so? The difference is that a pastor (and I happen to be in vocational ministry) “sells” their religious talents and services. Thus when a pastor says that they refuse to officiate a homosexual wedding on religious grounds, that makes sense because they are in the religion business; that is what they do, it is what they purport to do, and their religious views are at the core of their religion-based job. However, when a baker refuses to provide their wares to someone, a potential client justifiably asks what their religious convictions have to do with baking and decorating cakes.

    We should allow our Biblical worldview and convictions to inform our vocation, no matter what that vocation is. We should sell our services and wares in a godly, religious, and Christian way. But if your services are not explicitly in vocational ministry, others may justifiably perceive your selectivity and exclusionary practices as discriminatory and bigoted. And if you are not running a religious non-profit, clients will have greater legal impetus to oppose you for discrimination and prejudice. Consider adapting business practices that are non-discriminatory, or consider entering into full-time vocational ministry, where your convictions can be exercised with less discrimination.

    We’re not done here . . . we’ll keep discussing the dangers of selectivity and discrimination in a confusing and ambiguous culture (see some follow-up articles in the December 2017 edition). In the meantime, send your kind and thoughtful reactions to this article and others to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

PUTTING THE “ME” IN MEDIA: My Head in the (Sound) Clouds

    The Cain and Abel story is more about worship than brotherly-love.

    Why is the deity of Christ one of the most central doctrines of Christianity?

    And, would you like to know how to argue Scriptural and theological points better?

    We recently created a Soundcloud page under the heading “Eclectic Kasper Media.” We have a variety of messages that I (Matt Kasper) have presented that address these topics and many more. 

    Soundcloud is a site where people upload music, lectures, podcasts, or sermons. The messages that are currently available can be found here and new messages and lessons are uploaded regularly.    One highlight on our Soundcloud page includes a five-lesson series called “How To Argue Well.” In this series we address tactics and strategies for arguing Biblical and theological points concisely, effectively, and compassionately. A separate handout that accompanies this series is available in PDF form at the bottom of our The Eclectic Kasper sermons page at https://sites.google.com/site/theeclectickasper/sermons. This handout will help you understand the content as you listen to the five lesson.

    Also, of interest to our regular readers, we have a message series about the deity of Christ that goes hand in hand with our articles that we have written about this doctrine. This message series is called “My Lord and My God! Exegesis, Theology and Practice of the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity.” I think that you will enjoy listening to this series as it adds a great deal to what we have already written regarding this central and critical truth about Christianity.

    Additionally, we have a list of individual sermons from different parts of the Bible; I am sure you will enjoy the variety of these messages, as well.

    Make sure you bookmark our Soundcloud page on your computer and check back often; we usually add one or two new messages every week.

    If you have any questions or comments about our Soundcloud page or any of the content on it, you can send your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we would love to hear what you have to say!