JUNE 2011

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the June 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. This is my web journal about a variety of topics that I enjoy, and hopefully, you will enjoy some of them as well.

Our series on “The Essentials of the Faith” and “Explaining The Intertestamental Period” continue, and we also discuss more about Postmodernism in part two of “Emergent Concerns.” My Open Letter to Sarah Palin is bound to make some of you cheer, and some of you furious! Just friendly dialog . . . I would love to hear what you think about it! And . . . you’ve got to see the Rube Goldberg machine that my son Josh put together! See “Putting the ‘Me’ in Media” below!

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

THEOLOGY: Christianity is Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy

Most churches or Christian movements characterize themselves by their doctrinal statement, presuming this to be the main point of faith. So, I wanted to expand on something that we said last edition about the significance of Christian practice (“orthopraxy”) in addition to Christian doctrine (“orthodoxy”). This is not at all to minimize the central place that doctrine has to Christianity. However, as we are trying to stress in the “Essentials of the Faith” series, Christianity is not merely a list of truths and dogma. Rather, it is the irreducible combination of both certain doctrines and practices. It is, at its core, essentially an intertwining of specific beliefs and behaviors.

In fact, some of the clearest statements in Scripture about the essence of faith in God are put in terms of our actions and ethics. I recently came across Deuteronomy 10:12-13 again: “And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the LORD's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?” This is Moses' summary of the law, or a synopsis of the “requirements” that God expects from his people. Note the italicized verbs, which are not merely about achieving a certain doctrinal stance, but acting upon those doctrines. Later OT poets and prophets frequently echoed the reality that actions and virtues were as central to faith in God the the as truths themselves (see, for instance, Psalm 34:14; 37:27; Isaiah 1:16-17; 56:1; 66:2; Jer 22:3; Amos 5:15; Micah 6:8; Zech 7:7-10). These verses are packed with both doctrinal, but mainly ethical elements to summarize the essence of proper standing before God. In many of these cases, the author seems to assume that the doctrine is already in place, but the actions and attitudes that should be driven by those doctrines are not.

The phrase “knowing God” also is used in the OT as a way of capturing the essence of religion and it at times carries ethical implications. In Jeremiah 22:16, God declared to the Judite king Jehoiakim of his father Josiah: “He defended the cause of the poor and the needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” Here the prophet places the idea of “knowing God” in terms of actions and attitudes rather than in terms of doctrines. Furthermore, not knowing the Lord is discerned from one’s lack of moral activity. Eli’s sons were oppressive and unethical (1 Sam 2:12-17) and it is said of them that they did not “know the Lord” (v. 12; see also Job 18:21).

In the New Testament faith in God is similarly seen as having both doctrinal and practical aspects. The NT at times portrays faith as the acknowledgement of certain foundational confessions and dogmas. The author of Hebrews proclaims, “Anyone who comes to [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (11:6). Doctrinal assent, specifically, belief in the existence in the one true God, is the lowest common denominator entry point into right relationship with God. As that passage describes previously, this is because, “without faith it is impossible to please God” (v. 6). However, Christianity is more than the mere acknowledgement of the existence of God. It includes the assertion that Jesus is the promised Christ and that he is of divine origin (John 8:42; 1 John 4:15; 5:1). To deny these doctrinal affirmations is to be a liar and an antichrist (1 John 2:22; 4:2-3). Similarly in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul summarized the Gospel simply as the belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In the present age, the essence of religion contains no less than the confession of Christ’s death and resurrection. To claim to have a faith that lacks these confessions is to not have faith at all (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). These are not mere metaphysical speculations, and it was important to the NT authors to assert the veracity and the reasonability of these doctrinal claims (John 19:35; 21:24; 1 Cor 1:3-8). In modern evangelical circles, the disjunction between trust in God and mere intellectual assent to doctrinal truths is unnatural and dangerous. Certainly faith in God is more than simple doctrinal assent, but it is just as certainly no less!

But, the essence of religion is also described in ethical terms in the New Testament, that is, in terms of not just what a Christian believes, but also how he or she lives. People are not saved by their deeds, but they show the genuineness and validity of their faith to believers and unbelievers via their good works (Acts 9:36; Phil 2:15; 1 Tim 6:18; Titus 3:8, 14; 1 Peter 2:12). In words reminiscent of the Old Testament prophets, James 1:27 reveals that true “religion” is both personal purity as well as social justice and concern for the poor. John the Baptizer also urged social and ethical justice (Luke 3:10-14), as does Jesus (Matt 25:34-40). Similarly, “knowing” or “loving God” is framed as active obedience to divine commands (John 8:55; 15:10; 1 John 2:3-4; 5:3). So, if you are a “doctrine-only” kind of believer, then you are missing a significant portion of what Christianity is intended to be.

This is exactly where Fundamentalism of the early 1900’s went wrong. It became so focused on precise doctrinal formation that it minimized the practices and virtues of Christianity. It didn’t translate the condescension of Christ’s virgin birth and incarnation into a spirit of humility that should be exhibited by all his followers. The movement tended to marginalize explicit Scriptural statements demanding attention to the poor and needy, and it often viewed discipleship as little more than doctrinal inculcation. Evangelicalism of the mid-1900’s swung the pendulum in the other direction: it was so focused on "practical" spirituality and the art of getting people “saved,” that doctrinal fidelity was minimized.

Whether we are referring to a movement in Christianity, to a specific church, or to an individual believer, it is crucial to properly balance the doctrinal elements (orthodoxy) and the ethical elements (orthopraxy) of the faith. Both are equally essential to Christianity; neither must trump nor be marginalized by the other.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: Part 2, Understanding the Philosophy of Post-Modernism

In the May 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we began a series about the emergent church movement, called “Emergent Concerns.” The first two articles of this series deal primarily with the differences between modernism and postmodernism, since the emergent movement is the self-proclaimed postmodern wing of the church. In the first article of this series we used popular TV shows to illustrate the shift from modernism to postmodernity. In this present article, we will continue to describe postmodernism and then we will begin to enumerate the characteristics of the emergent church movement in the next article.

We’ll begin by describing the postmodern mentality relative to truth. Postmodernism is not a denial of truth, but rather a denial that truth can be fully explained by any single “metanarrative,” or an overarching explanation of life, such as Christianity, Darwinism, Islam, or Capitalism. These examples are all systems of understanding the world which claim to some degree or another to explain why the world is the way it is and how we should act in light of that. While these all may have helpful explanations of reality, none, according to the postmodern, contains all truth, and few even have adequate truth for life’s issues. This distrust in metanarratives goes hand-in-hand with a skepticism about truth, and a skepticism toward anybody who claims that their religion, philosophy, way of life, or metanarrative is completely true. Furthermore, the postmodern person is skeptical of any system that claims to have exclusive truth that is not somehow reflected in other systems as well.

For postmodernism, truth and morality are no longer viewed as the products of divine revelation, but they emerge from the census of the community interacting together. This may be a religious community or an multi-faith community, but either way, truth becomes humanistic and pragmatistic rather than objective or God-centered. “Thus, while generic ‘spirituality’ is more acceptable to postmoderns than it has been to moderns . . . any exclusive claim to revelation-based truth or morals is now thought to be arrogant and philosophically untenable. Postmoderns believe [that] espousal of absolutes is an illegitimate attempt to manipulate others and exercise power over them” (David Kowalski, “Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church Movement”). The postmodern person sees anyone who claims to wield absolute truth to be an agent of oppression and arrogance.

Devaluing truth and elevating community leads to relativism. Relativism claims that the value of the metanarrative is based on the individual or community, not on the metanarrative itself. A sentiment that I have heard is that “there are no metanarratives, only local narratives.” Allegedly, what is best and/ or true for one person may or may not be best and/ or true for someone else. This is often driven by some form of pragmatism that is more concerned about answering the question What works? than the question What is right? The subjective opinion of one person or community is often seen as being as significant, valid and relevant as the accepted belief or attitude of any other individual or group of people.

The significance given to experience rushes into the vacuum created by the devaluation of truth. In postmodernism, experience often trumps reason. Modernism’s Christian apologetics, even though they were carefully documented (as with a Josh McDowell) or intricately reasoned (à la, Ravi Zacharias), will have decreasing effect on future generations of postmoderns because they are not as concerned about documentation or reason. That is, they tend to be less interested in what is true than they are about what that truth can do for them, or how it makes them feel, or how it causes them to be perceived by others.

This muddles any concept of what “spirituality” is, what it means, and how it is defined. Postmodern people increasingly drive a wedge between spirituality and “organized” religion. I believe that this is because “religion” is shackled to a metanarrative, in the form of a holy book, a tradition, a creed, etc., while “spirituality” has no such limits or constrains. Many evangelicals unwittingly contribute to this dichotomy with sentiments to the effect that, “Faith is a relationship not a religion,” when, in fact, it is at least both. There is a growing distrust in the spiritual value of religious structures, beliefs and practices. Postmoderns move away from church or formal religion as a core element of their personal spiritual development. In fact, some perceive that church or organized religion actually impedes their spiritual growth. Spirituality then becomes about what works, as in a form of humanitarianism or utilitarianism, or about what makes you feel good, from using religions jargon as therapy to outright hedonism.

Pop culture abounds with examples of those who substitute truth for a version of spirituality that is essentially humanitarian or utilitarian. I saw a great illustration of this while reading a synopsis of the new musical “The Book of Mormon” a scathing parody of organized religion by the philosophical giants responsible for giving us South Park. *** SPOILER ALERT *** On the Wikipedia article about the musical, the thematic climax is when one of the parodied protagonists, a Mormon missionary, “Is astonished to learn that the importance of religion is not truth, but whether it helps people.” Similarly, one of my favorite films, a Browncoaty favorite, has a clergyman saying to the protagonist, “It doesn’t matter what you believe . . . Just believe!” George Clooney sums up a postmodern approach to spirituality in a February 16, 2006 Larry King Live interview. King asks Clooney: “Did you lose your faith or do you still have it?” Clooney responds: “. . . I always try to say that, you know, first and foremost, that whatever anybody believes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, it’s fair enough, and works. And I think, it’s real, and matters.” Putting his sheer eloquence aside, Clooney's sentiments as well as the other examples show a growing disdain for objective truth by replacing it with whatever seems best, or feels right or just plain doesn’t hurt anyone else.

I’ll wrap this article up with a quote by James I. Packer about postmodernism that is very concise, but may take a few read-overs before you get the full impact: “In postmodernism, individualistic subjectivity is set in a critical relation to all forms of supposedly scientific and consensual objectivity, and the personal ‘story’ of each human being is allowed to stand in judgment over the corporate ‘stories’ [i.e., metanarratives] of all human groups, both secular and churchly. Spirituality without truth, individuality without constraints, pluralistic pragmatism, whimsy claiming to be wisdom, desire masquerading as morality, and benevolent tolerance of any and every view that does not tell you that you yourself are wrong thus constitute the essence of postmodern culture” (James I. Packer, “On From Orr: The Cultural Crisis, Rational Realism, and Incarnational Ontology,” Crux, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 1996: 14-15).

There are very few individuals of any theological persuasion that disagree that there has been a cultural shift away from modernity toward postmodernism. There is debate, however, as to how the church should respond to this shift. One such response, which chooses to welcome and embrace postmodernism, is called the emergent movement, the specific characteristics of which we will begin to delineate in the next article of this series.

POLITICS: My Open Letter to Sarah Palin

Sensing that Sarah Palin will soon decide to run for President in 2012, I “penned” the following letter. For those of you who think that I anticipate a response: I not that naïve! Anyway, here it is; I’ll expect a call from her people this evening!

Mrs. Palin, I want to affirm the contribution that you have made to Alaska, to the country, and to the political scene. I resonate with your fiercely conservative stance on many issues, and I appreciate your boldness in the face of vast and constant media attack. I genuinely like you as a person, and I find your insight and perspective very refreshing to a Grand Old Party that perpetually, though sometimes unsuccessfully, battles against internal staleness and stagnancy.

But let me move past the obligatory pleasantries and cut to the chase: Please, please, please don’t run for president in 2012!!

To be very honest, I see you as a quitter. I really don’t care about why you quit slightly over half way through your term as a governor of Alaska; the motives for your personal and vocational decisions are really none of my business. However, if you couldn’t cut four years of being a governor, I can’t imagine that you could make four or eight years as a U. S. President. And regardless of the reasons, I believe that your high-profile throwing-in-of-the-towel has doomed your campaign before it even formally begins.

Furthermore, I feel that to vote for you would make me a hypocrite. Let me explain: When Barak Obama came to the White House, he came with minimal legislative experience, and essentially no administrative experience in either the public or private sector. The result has been calamitous for America, and it will take a great effort to undo the damage he and his minions have done over the last two-and-a-half years. However, now that he is close to that two-and-a-half year mark, he now has more executive experience than you do (and, I’m sorry, but I’m not including your time as mayor of the now 7,800-person town of Wasilla!). It would be atrocious to replace someone that has minimal executive experience with someone else with minimal executive experience, and who is a quitter on top! What American needs now more than just about anything, is a president with experience. I simply can’t see myself even considering to vote for any candidate who does not have at least a complete gubernatorial term (though I would prefer two), or a complete senatorial term (again, two or more would be better), or extensive private sector experience, or preferably a combination of these elements.

My advice is simple: you need more experience, and I think that there are very feasible options for you to achieve that end. Six years as a U. S. senator would be excellent for you. You can still maintain a “maverick-y” and “Washington-outsider” image even as a senator. Also, I'm sure that your state would vote you back in as governor of Alaska when that opportunity comes up again. Or better yet, find a highly gifted and accomplished person to VP with. Eight years of VP seem like the best experience for being in the big chair (just, please, please, someone who is a bit more conservative this time!). Or, get some private sector experience: start, run, or manage a business, and, I mean, for real, not just as a figurehead.

And, by the way, being on a Political Action Committee, or speaking at Tea Party rallies does not count as experience. Having your own TV show about Alaska or popping up on Fox News every ten minutes does not contribute substantively to your ability to lead America. The only thing worse than electing a pundit or a PAC leader to be president would be electing an inexperienced and unproven community organizer to be president, and that would be only slightly worse. Punditry may help familiarize you with the issues at hand, but it does not improve your executive skills. If you don’t recognize that you need more experience or if you lack the humility to get more, then you don’t deserve to be president, either in 2012 or ever.

Also, you need to get past these painful gaffes that haunt your political career, or at least minimize their frequency. All candidates slip up occasionally and say something left-field-ish. But the best candidates do so rarely and then handle them diplomatically. Every Republican cringed when you seriously couldn’t or wouldn’t list in your 2008 interview with Katie Couric just two or three newspapers or magazines that you had read, or didn’t even cite two or three that you were vaguely familiar with. Yes, it was a stupid, insulting and condescending question, but not nearly as embarrassing as your inability to answer it. You’re lack of foreign policy experience was evident from your blunder in a November 24, 2010 interview with Glenn Beck when you asserted that, “We've got to stand with our North Korean allies.” And I’m going to say what few other conservatives have the courage to say: No honest historian believes that Paul Revere was in any way trying to warn the British! Mrs. Palin, you made a little slip-up on this Revere thing, that’s OK; just don’t try to cover up for it by rewriting history!

So take this friendly criticism to heart: Please, don’t run in 2012! Get some real experience, work on being more gaffe-free, and hopefully, we’ll see you again in 2016 or 2020!

So, agree or disagree? Send your opinion to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll post some pro or con Palin-for-2012 comments in a future edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

EXPLAINING THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD: Part 4, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

The four hundred years between the Old and New Testaments produced a rich diversity of literature related to Jewish history and religion. This literature is typically divided into two categories: the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, and these helped shape, in both positive and negative ways, the religious mindset that one encounters in the New Testament.

The word apocrypha means “hard to understand” or “hidden.” It was applied by the early church fathers to certain non-canonical intertestamental books, some of which were included in the Greek Septuagint. These include Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, an expanded version of the Book of Esther, and the Prayer of the Three Young Men (intended to be inserted between Daniel 3:23 and 24). Some lists also include 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. Eastern Orthodoxy includes 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 in their Apocrypha. The works in the Apocrypha include history, poetry, proverbs, and extrapolations on popular OT stories. Many versions of Scripture included the Apocrypha (including early editions of the King James Version!) even though they were not considered canonical. They were thought of as good inspirational or devotional reading and were even used by the early church in their liturgies. In reaction to the emphasis that the Reformers placed on Scripture during the 1500’s, the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Despite this, there are significant reasons for rejecting the canonicity of the Apocrypha. There is a lack of decisive evidence for the recognition of apocryphal books as canonical by either Jews or Christians before the Council of Trent. The apocryphal books also do not claim to be the Word of God in the same way that many Old Testament books do. Relatedly, the lack of the presence or ministry of the Spirit of God through God’s prophets is widely recognized in apocryphal literature, as well as other intertestamental literature (Prayer of Azariah 15 [Dan 3:38, Apocryphal versions]; 1 Macc 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; Josephus’ Against Apion 1.8; Babylonian Talmud 7-8.24). While the Apocryphal books may be interesting as historical or devotional reading, they lack the marks of being divinely inspired, and thus, should not be considered part of the canon of Scripture.

The Apocrypha was still very influential on first century BCE and CE Jews as well as for the early church. None of the NT authors quote from the Apocrypha, however, they make occasional allusions to Apocryphal books. Paul seems to be very familiar with the Wisdom of Solomon (compare Rom 1:20-29 with Wis 13:5, 8; 14:24, 27; and Rom 9:20-23 with Wis 12:12, 20; 15:7; 2 Cor 5:1, 4 with Wis 9:15). James apparently alludes to Sirach (compare Jas 1:19 with Sir 5:11-12; and Jas 1:13 with Sir 15:11-12). The Wisdom of Solomon is the first attempt to wed Jewish and Hellenistic thought similar to the way Hebrews does in the NT. Theologically, the Apocrypha shows the development of thought regarding angelology, eschatology, and the doctrine of the resurrection during the Intertestamental Period.

The Pseudepigrapha is a much larger collection of various works written between 200 BCE and 100 CE that were left out of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Pseudepigrapha means, “false writings,” or more precisely, falsely ascribed writings; many of them are attributed to well known OT personalities like Abraham, Moses, and Noah. The Pseudepigrapha is not a standardized collection of works, but just a designation that scholars use to classify this body of literature in distinction to the Apocrypha. Pseudepigraphal literature includes expansions of OT stories, wisdom literature, devotional prayers, psalms, and apocalyptic works. Most of these books are deemed to be clearly non-authoritative and their rejection from the canon was rarely, if ever, questioned.

Like the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha helped to fashion the religious sensibilities of first century Jews that Jesus and the apostles interacted with. Additionally, part of a Pseudepigraphical document called 1 Enoch (1:9) is quoted in Jude 14-15. Jude also seems to borrow material from other Pseudepigraphical documents like the Testament of Naphtali, Jubilees and 3 Maccabees. Like the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha shows the development of thought regarding angelology and eschatology. I recently did a project where I surveyed some of the pseudepigraphical apocalypses, or works that describe the end times vindication of the righteous and judgment upon the wicked. Specifically, I worked through 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and the Testament of Moses. It was fascinating to see how these books were similar to as well as different from canonical apocalyptic literature, namely the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation.

In the next installment of this series on the Intertestamental period we will explore the significance of Philo and Josephus, and in the final installment, we will investigate the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Biblical studies.

PUTTING THE “ME” IN MEDIA: “Us-Tube”

Every once in a while, I want to highlight something media-y that I (Matt) or we (the Kasper Family) are working on. This time we’ll highlight two videos that we’ve posted to YouTube, and I’ll save the best one for last!

The first is a promo video for a Vacation Bible School (a.k.a., “VBS”) curriculum that I have been working on called, “A Mighty Fortress: A Journey to the Beginning of the Reformation.” It teaches the Biblical emphases of the early Reformers and especially Martin Luther’s dramatic role in this dynamic period of church history. The idea for the name came from Beth Bacon, and I am working on medieval activities, games, scripts, and the basic structure of the program. The YouTube video was converted from a PowerPoint presentation. I composed the background orchestral arrangement of Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress,” and am fairly pleased with how it turned out (the sound is kind of low on the video, so you may want to turn the volume up a bit!). We did show this in one church that was considering using the material, and I received great feedback on the idea and on the promo-presentation. I hope to find a publishing company that would take an idea like this and run with it. The second video is of an awesome Rube Goldberg Machine that my son Josh did for his science class. A Rube Goldberg machine is an apparatus that ties together a series of simple elements. Josh’s version strings together thirty separate moving parts using common, household items and toys. This three minute video begins with an explanation of the various elements, and ends with the successful run that he did on April 22, 2011. You will not want to miss it!

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH: Part 6, Evangelism and Refutation of Heresy

The Christian faith at its essence is more than just what we believe; it is also about what we do with what we believe. As described in the first article of this edition, it is the balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Keep in mind, that often the NT writers characterize the heretics of their day by their wrong practice as well as by their wrong doctrine (sections of Colossians and Jude spring immediately to mind). Therefore, in a list of essential and non-negotiable Christian elements, we are including five practices with the six doctrines that we have already listed.

Last time we discussed two essential practices that were directed toward the growth of the believing community, namely, preaching and discipleship. The two essential practices in this installment focus on the believing community’s relationships to the unbelieving world.

The Evangelism of Unbelievers. I believe that evangelism is the beginning of the discipleship process and it is a practice that is demanded of every believer (Luke 24:46-48; 2 Cor 5:18-20; 1 Peter 2:9). This encompasses local evangelism as well as worldwide and cross-cultural evangelism, or missions.

The Gospel, or “good news” that comprises our evangelistic proclamation can be summarized by three key words. The first word is sin. Unbelievers must be made aware of both the reality of personal transgression as well as the power and grip of original sin. It is important to explain that a person is guilty before God not only because of his or her acts of sin, but also because of their sin nature that all people have received as descendants of Adam (Rom 5:12-21). It is not enough to change one’s behavior; the inner nature must be transformed supernaturally. Additionally, believers need not feel remorse or shame about telling the unbeliever that God will punish them with the conscious eternal torment of hell if they persist in their state of unbelief (Matthew 25:41, 46; Mark 9:47-48; Rev 14:9-11; 20:10-15). However, this Biblical profession about sin and hell should never be a platform of condescension for the believer; for, believers, who have received God’s grace and forgiveness, were just as guilty of sin as unbelievers.

The second key word is substitution. Deliverance from the punishment of sin, death and hell is made possible through Christ who lived a perfect life and endured God’s anger through his suffering and death on the cross. However, it is not enough merely to acknowledge that Christ died and rose from the grave as historical facts. Rather, these universal truths must be personalized by the individual. Christ did not merely die, but he died as a substitute, “for us” (Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 11:24, 1 John 3:16). He also rose again which proves his power over death and God’s approval of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice.

Finally, faith is the third key element of the gospel message. Deliverance from God’s anger and reception of God’s grace can be appropriated by faith in Christ’s death and resurrection. Salvation cannot be earned or worked for (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), but comes by faith in Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12); one is not saved by saying a prayer, attending a service, walking an aisle, or by any other human means. The Reformers were unequivocal on this point: “We cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us” (The Augsburg Confession, Article IV, 1530). Salvation is a free gift that can be acquired through belief in Christ and results in living eternally in the presence of God (Rev 21-22). However, faith doesn’t merely constitute a single decision. Faith is exercised throughout the rest of the believer’s life as he or she strives to follow Christ with growing knowledge and increasing faithfulness (Matthew 16:24; John 12:26; Colossians 1:10; 2 Peter 3:18). Sin, substitution, and faith are the three basic ingredients of the powerful gospel message that every believer is called upon to proclaim.

The Refutation of Heresy. I believe that as an extension of the Great Commission’s mandate to reach and teach all people and nations, the Church must engage in loving but firm confrontation with heresy (Prov 1:22-33, Luke 17:3; Titus 1:13; 2:15; Jude 3, 22-23). Heresy is the conscious and willful rejection of orthodox and essential Christianity by those who wrongly call themselves Christian. Such false teachers exhibit heresy either through doctrinal error (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 9) or through practical and lifestyle error (3 John 9-10; Jude 16-19).

The presence and activity of false teachers and false prophets are discussed by virtually every New Testament author as well many Old Testament authors. Every creed, council, and confession (including Nicaea, Chalcedon, the Synod of Dort, and the Fundamentals) was produced to summarize orthodox Christian doctrine in the face of aggressive opposition to Biblical truth.

However, such refutation must not be militant, rude, aggressive or condescending (Titus 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:25; 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 22-23). Rather, errors both of belief and practice must be overcome with the weapons of truth and love. Rebuke must always be done with the goal of building up the Christian character of the one in error and with the intent to encourage conversion to or the restoration of a right relationship with God (Titus 1:13).

QUOTE FOR CONTEMPLATION: The Doom of Leadership

Everyone wants the benefits of leadership, but few appreciate the burdens and risks that come with it.

By the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Probus (ruled, 276-282) the Roman empire had become so widespread that it was virtually impossible to govern. Probus decided he would take part of the army to put down rebellion to the northwest of Italy in Gaul (an area spanning modern day France and western Germany). He therefore graced one of his generals, Julius Saturninus (shown on the front of the coin to the right), with the rule of the eastern half of the empire. With Probus gone, Saturninus’ friends and soldiers urged him to become the new emperor. Saturninus took the mantel with great reluctance, understanding the inherent dangers of such a position. Several versions of Saturninus’ “acceptance” speech survive, but below is the version from Edward Gibbon, who is probably paraphrasing from Flavius Vopiscus in Historia Augusta, Vol III. This small section reflects Saturninus’ prophetic perception as he addresses his enthusiastic supporters about the scourge of leadership:

You know not misery of sovereign power: a sword is perpetually suspended over our head. We dread our very guards, we distrust our companions. The choice of action or of repose is no longer in our disposition, nor is there any age or character, or conduct, that can protect us from the censure of envy. In thus exalting me to the throne, you have doomed me to a life of cares, and to an untimely fate. The only consolation which remains, is the assurance that I shall not fall alone.

- Quoted in Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, 289-290.

Within months of being crowned and making these prophetic statements, Saturninus’ own advisors and soldiers turned against him and killed him.

READER FEEDBACK: You Forgot Some Gore!

One observant reader picked up on how I missed some of the best (and most disgusting!) details of the Ehud vs. Eglon episode in our February 2011 article “TALES OF TRIALS, FAILURES AND ENTRAILS IN THE BIBLE: The Piercing Initiative of Ehud.” That individual wrote:

Even though I read your description of Ehud’s killing of Eglon with great enthusiasm, even though I had read the Scripture of truth many times, you forgot the most important part. [Verse] 22 [says that] the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade because he did not withdraw the dagger from his body. This highlights your point about Eglon getting so very fat on the backs of God’s people. Keep up the good work. Loved it.

Thanks for the good catch; I’m kind of embarrassed that I didn’t comment on the whole “fat closed in over the blade” part! And, this is why, as we stated in the next paragraph of the article, Ehud suddenly finds himself weaponless: the weapon is stuck in Eglon! This highlights the tremendous peril Ehud finds himself in as he now has to escape from the palace without his sword.

Thanks for this and other comments that have come in. We’d love to know what you think and what articles or series you are especially enjoying. Send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com, and come comment on one of our “Eclectic Questions” on our Discussions page.