JULY 2017

    When a picture hits the internet, you can almost never take it back. This past May, one of the most famous non-famous people in Hollywood, Kathy Griffith, had a picture taken at a photo shoot of her holding – ISIS-style – a fake, severed and bloody head of Donald Trump. This is curious especially in light of another less-hostile picture that she was in with Trump (right), which seems to tell a different story.    Backlash to the terrorist-like severed-head picture ensued. In reply, Griffith stammered what seemed like some genuine regret that her action had been misunderstood. She admitted her new-found realization that in our toxic and hyper-sensitive climate this act of free expression had gone too far. While it was not really a heart-felt apology, or an apology to Trump, or to Griffith’s fan base, or to anybody, really, it was at least an apology, sort of, I guess.

    That backlash was not just social, but professional, as well. Griffith was fired from her New Year’s Eve gig with Anderson Cooper on CNN. Many people, including Cooper, either genuinely or obligatorily, excoriated her. 

    It is worth noting in this instance the difference between legal consequences and social consequences. Kathy Griffith didn’t do anything illegal and her expression is protected by the First Amendment of our U. S. Constitution. The omni-attributed phrase that comes to mind is, “I don’t like what you said, but I defend to the death your right to say it.” Yet, the Constitution provides only legal protection for most speech; it does not guarantee immunity from the social consequences of speech, art, or pictures. The point is, this terrorist-reminiscent picture was too much even for the Trump-hating, politically correct class to stomach. There was backlash, it was severe, and that is encouraging.

    Another great backlash story involves the problems that a New York-based Shakespeare troop had recently. Their performance of the Bard’s play Julius Caesar, the title character of which gets assassinated, had a Julius Caesar that looked unmistakably like President Trump, long, red tie, floppy, blond hair and all. Though liberals across the country celebrated this free expression of treason, some supporting corporations felt otherwise; both Delta Air Lines and Bank of America removed their sponsorship from this production. Of course, actors and producers have refused to back down from their Trump-hate-speech, but in an era where Trump-hate is en vogue, it is refreshing to see that not everyone feels the need to tolerate it, to be associated with it, or to fund it.

    In more obscure backlash news, there were two recent episodes of backlash to the seemingly endless nonsense that revolves around modern feminism. The first occurred when a movie theater in Austin, TX, called the Alamo Drafthouse Theater, decided to hold a women-only screening of Wonder Woman. 

    For the record, I personally don’t mind that they did this, and I think that it’s actually kind of cool. The larger issue, however, is that those few people who routinely scream the phrase “double-standard” at the drop of a hat shouldn’t get too snippy when the rest of us occasionally mutter that same phrase, in light of these kinds of episodes. 

    As a result, there were serious social media and even legal threats against the theater chain. The chain, of course, responded by doubling down and holding more women-only screenings of Wonder Woman. One “wonders” what would happen if a movie theater promoted a men-only screening of a Superman or Ironman movie, though, I must admit, my sons and I have frequently experienced this phenomenon by default, if not by design. Nonetheless, the fact that there was some backlash is a helpful reminder that discrimination is a two-way street.

    Another feminism backlash occurred in Paris, and this one had a racial component, as well. The Nyansapo Festival, scheduled for July 28-30, 2017, is a celebration of Afro-feminism. The backlash occurred when it was discovered that four-fifths of the seating for some of the activities at this public venue had been reserved for black women only, though festival planners have since denied this or tried to qualify this. 

    Female mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo, caught in somewhat of a no-win situation, initially tried to ban the festival. While an uncomfortable truce was reached between the mayor and the festival organizers, this entire episode raises all kinds of questions and muddies the waters of appropriateness and political correctness: Is it acceptable for certain cultural events to have attendance quotas related to race and gender as long as those quotas do not favor whites or men? Is the issue here one of race, or gender, or tolerance, or cultural appreciation? Are Western cultures expected to accept all kinds of tolerance, and does the culture of tolerance now mean that we have to tolerate such intolerance?

    In light of the painfully high level of political correctness today, it is refreshing to see that there is a limit to it, and that sometimes appropriate backlash follows the thoughtless words and actions of some who go too far. Though the PC hounds threaten our most important ideals of Western Civilization, like free speech and egalitarianism, it is good to know that there are limits to what they can get away with.

    So, have you seen other examples of backlash or of political correctness that has gone too far for even our PC-obsessed culture? Send those examples or your civil thoughts about this article to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll reprint substantive and gracious feedback in a future edition.

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: Satan’s Role as Mimic

    In this series we have discussed whether certain sign gifts that were used in the early chapters of Acts, like healing, prophecy and speaking in tongues, continue to be available to believers today (the continuationist position), or whether they have ceased to be available to people today (the cessationist position).

    We have noted the “Dubious History” of the continuationist or “charismatic” movement, and discussed the interpretation of Acts generally and 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 specifically. We have seen that the sign gifts decrease or “taper” even in the NT, we have described a theology of tongues, and we have noted how the presence of sick people in the NT poses a difficulty for the continuationist position (in fact, you can see all of the articles here in our “Eclectic Archive”).

    What we will discuss in this article is less of a proof that sign gifts are not operational today, but more of a reality and a warning. What the Bible says about Satan should warn us of putting much stock into anyone else’s experiences or even our own. Satan’s delight in mimicking spiritual activity must be taken into account as we evaluate the alleged use of sign gifts in churches today.

    Consider the following: The magicians of Egypt were able to mimic Moses’ dramatic miracles up to a point (Exodus 7-8). The spiritist or medium that Saul consulted in 1 Sam 28 made a living off of partnering with demons to imitate dead friends and relatives. The evidence of this is that she is shocked when the actual spirit of Samuel appears (v. 12), as opposed to the beings sent from Satan that she usually consorts with.

    If we take Isaiah 14:12-14 to be a description of Satan and his fall, as many theologians do, we can recognize how Satan’s role as a mimic is hardwired into this passage. The five “I will” statements in verses 13 and 14 demonstrate Satan’s nefarious desire to imitate God.

    This should be no surprise, since the NT affirms that Satan “disguises himself” or “masquerades” as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) and he wants to be worshiped like God (Matt 4:9). Satan will establish a “man of lawlessness” to be worshiped and to portray himself to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4; see Ezek 28:2), and this will be accompanied by a host of other end-of-the-age delusions (2 Thess 2:7-10).

    I am not necessarily saying that modern signs and wonders movements are in league with Satan or the Antichrist. However, I am affirming the Biblical truth that people are gullible, and that Satan will gleefully mimic what is right in order to drag people toward what is wrong.

    Evidence for satanic mimicry is predicted in the book of Revelation. The unholy trinity in Revelation – namely, Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet – are a perverted copy of the true Trinity. The signs they use in Revelation confirm the supernatural power of these end-of-the-age copy-cats and are used by them to delude the masses (13:11-14; 16:13-14; 19:20).

    Though these texts describe a future, apocalyptic setting, they provide warnings for us now. The role of Satan as a mimic goes hand in hand with the gullibility of people, and people seem to be getting more and more gullible by the day.

    My favorite story about gullibility is this: As part of his Idaho Falls Science Fair project in 1997, a young man named Nathan Zohner encouraged his peers to support the government’s ban of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide.” He claimed that this chemical contributes to sweating and vomiting, is a major component in acid rain, and can cause severe burns in its gaseous state. He asked fifty fellow ninth graders if they supported a ban of the dangerous chemical. Forty-three students said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical dihydrogen monoxide was the same as H2O, also known as water. Zohner’s project was not about chemistry or politics, but about sociology and human behavior. The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?” and his conclusion seems pretty obvious.

    In addition to the gullibility of the masses, people have an increased desire to participate in dramatic experiences. The apostle Peter himself witnessed the ministry of Christ, His transfiguration, and His resurrection (2 Peter 1:16-18). Yet, for subsequent generations of believers who didn’t participate in these experiences, Peter points us to the “prophetic word” which is “more sure” than any experience we could hope to have (vv. 19-21). Significantly, he goes on in this epistle to talk about the problems and deceits of false teachers in chapter 2 and skeptics in chapter 3.

    Satan loves to copy and mimic so as to beguile humanity, even believers. The devil’s craftiness added to human gullibility should make us very suspicious of supposed instances of tongues, miracles, healings, or of any revelation from God that is allegedly given today. 

     In light of that, we should perhaps focus on two things. First, we should focus on the completed canon of Scripture; it is the main tool for knowing God and obeying Him during this age. We should study carefully to understand and follow the doctrinal truths and practical exhortations that it contains (Deut 28:58; Ezra 7:10; Psalm 1:2; 119:15, 23; 2 Tim 2:15; 3:16-17). 

    Second, we should focus on knowing the subtle gifts that we all agree persist and continue today, such as leadership, teaching, mercy and service. Rather than chasing dramatic experiences that may be divine or demonic, we should know and use our gifts that contribute to the clear edification and aid of other believers in the body. Again, all of us -- charismatics and cessationists -- agree that the gifts of mercy, faith, encouragement, and other subtle gifts come exclusively from the Holy Spirit and do indeed continue to be provided to believers by Him today. We should not mute or quench the Holy Spirit, but we should exercise the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23; see also Eph 5:9), knowing that the ability to do so comes only and definitively from God.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Please, Take Personal Responsibility!

    I took an online survey recently about the kinds of things that people think may motivate criminal behavior, such as an abusive upbringing or a chemical imbalance. The survey asked questions like whether or not I thought someone was guilty of a crime because they injured someone who had a certain kind of molecule in their blood or because they hurt someone that cheered for an opposing team.

    I have no doubt that some of these factors like poverty, a difficult childhood, and genetics all contribute to certain aspects of criminality.

    However, I also think that those issues are entirely missing the point.

    I felt strongly enough about this that when the survey made the mistake of asking if I had any thoughts or feedback about the study I wrote the following paragraphs in response. I don’t even remember what snowflake university these researchers were associated with, but I hope that my response shattered their ivory tower naivety about the reality of human sin and depravity. 

    The following doesn’t cover everything that I believe about the need to take personal responsibility (for more about that, you should check out our great article, “The Speed of Stupid” from the November 2015 edition), but it at least provides a slice of the pie that will give them – and you – something to think about. I’ve also added some additional commentary in brackets “[. . . ]” for you who are reading this now. 

    Here goes . . .

    Forgive me for venting a bit. I am a bit conservative and religious, but I hope that those factors will not dissuade you from the common sense that I am about to provide. [Remember, that I was responding to a University survey, and many in academia are not very friendly to those who are conservative and religious].

    The notion that someone committed a crime “because of” their background or “because of” their genetics or “because of” of a molecule discovered in their blood or “because of” an abusive parent . . . all of these are totally absurd.

    We all have genetic predispositions to certain virtues (peace, kindness, joy, service) and vices (drunkenness, violence, anger). The crime is not that we had a difficult background or some violent tendencies, but rather that we shirked our social responsibility and decided to give in to harmful tendencies that we should have had the maturity to restrain. [Of course, my faith tradition refers to this phenomenon as “sin,” but I decided to stick with more sociological terms here].

    Someone didn’t stab/ shoot/ steal from/ harm another person because of their violent father or their proclivity toward anger or because of a chemical in their blood or because of their brain pattern. They did these things – even in the “heat of the moment” – because they made a conscious choice to do them, and only for this reason.

    They were not forced to kill, hurt, harm, maim or steal; rather they chose do these things even though there were many other options for how to deal with their hurt, anger, frustration and violence. The notion that someone would physically harm another person because they are a fan of the other team or because they didn't like someone’s favorite band is absurd [this is referring to some of the different scenarios in the study]. But the only thing more absurd is that anyone else would dismiss a criminal’s responsibility to act properly and civilly simply because of that person’s brain scan or because of a chemical imbalance.

    We all have pain, we all have anger, we all have frustration, but most of us deal with these – most of the time – in responsible, or at least, in non-criminal ways. Those who make the conscious choice – again, it is a choice – not to comply with the basic laws of civility and social equity and decide to take out their frustration in violent ways, those individual should be punished for their own good. If for no other reason, they should be punished so they will see that the cause-and-effect relationship between actions and consequences is based on their own individual decisions, and not on their genetics, ethnicity, or upbringing.

    That said, as part of their punishment, these people should be rehabilitated primarily with a program that encourages them [to recognize] that they do not need to act in illegal and criminal ways “because of” their genes or background or economic status, but they can act in civil and even constructive ways despite their anger, hurt, frustration or disappointment. There are good decisions that they can make even when their nature and nurture compel them toward making harmful and criminal decisions.

    They should also be punished as a lesson to others that excuses for criminality cannot be tolerated for a civil society to function properly and in order to optimize the prosperity and happiness of everyone.

    So what do you think: is criminality only the result of an abusive background or bad genetics? Did I overstate the case for personal responsibility? Send your civil agreements or disagreements to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll include it in a future feedback section.

ROMANS: Outward and Inward, Romans 2:25-29

    We often judge inward spirituality by external standards. Someone’s spirituality is based on whether or not they have tattoos, or how often they attend church or synagogue, or what kind of clothes they wear.

    The problem is that external standards and rituals are only really valuable if they match what someone believes inwardly. In fact, compliance and obedience in our hearts are better than the lip-service that we often give to compliance and obedience.

    Paul was dealing with individuals who thought that they were more spiritual because of the outward ritual of circumcision, which in Paul’s day had become more of a cultural symbol for the Jews than a spiritual reality. More to the point of the first few chapters of Romans, Paul argues that the Jews are not less sinful nor less in need of a Savior just because they are Jews and just because they are circumcised. In fact, in Romans 2:25-29, the Apostle redefines “Jewishness” less in terms of external ritual or outward conformity, and more in terms of the condition of one’s heart and the motivations for one’s obedience.

    Paul does not necessarily negate the value of circumcision. His point in v. 25, however, is that it does someone no good to be circumcised in compliance with the Law if they then break the Law (as he had discussed in verses 22-23). In such a case, that person’s circumcision is of no value. Paul says in Galatians 5:3, “And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” James 2:10 states more pointedly, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” That is, the cultural symbol for keeping the law is nullified when one does not keep the law.

    In Romans 2:26, then, Paul asserts that the uncircumcised individual who keeps the law is better than the circumcised individual who does not keep the whole law. And in verse 27, Paul points to the paradox that someone who is uncircumcised and yet follows the law has a higher moral ground to judge those who claim to have the written law and are circumcised, and yet, break the law.