JUNE/ JULY 2012

In this edition . . .

Welcome to this special edition of The Eclectic Kasper. This June/ July 2012 will cover two months so that we can have a bit of a break during the Summer and then we’ll be back in August with more cutting edge web journalism (or at least something that may keep you mildly informed and interested!).

We would love to get some more feedback from our readers. What articles or topics do you enjoy and what topics would you like to see us cover in the future? Send us an e-mail at feedback@eclectickasper.com. Also, give us a “like” at our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page and you can post comments or start a thread there.

Thanks for reading and, stay eclectic!

WHY MARBURG MATTERS: Introduction

The Marburg Colloquy in 1529 was a critical moment in the infant stages of the German Protestant Reformation. It represented an opportunity for leading Protestant proponents to consolidate efforts both theologically and politically. The goal of the colloquy, or conference, was to create a united front against the medieval Roman Catholic church as well as against the Hapsburg empire, helmed at that time by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. However, this meeting at Marburg also possessed the potential to shatter Protestantism indelibly if some measure of unity was not reached.

This series of articles will explore two sets of issues over the next several months. First, what was the Marburg Colloquy and what happened at this meeting to hinder the goal of Protestant unity? The second set of issues is about interpreting the historical data: How have historians perceived the legacy of Marburg? Was the lack of agreement at the Colloquy a failure to consolidate or was it a victory for those who stood on their convictions, even at the expense of unity?

First, a couple of dates to orient us historically. Martin Luther posted his famous 95 Theses in 1517. Many other individuals had previously challenged Roman Catholic beliefs and had championed Biblical interpretations and ideas. This group of “pre-Reformers” includes Peter Waldo in France, John Wycliff in England, John Huss in Bohemia, and Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican monk. However, Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517 is hailed as the catalyst for the Protestant Reformation.

Luther’s intent, however, was not to separate from but to reform the Roman Catholic church. He did not want to leave the church, but work from within to improve it. The Roman church had other ideas for Luther and he was brought up for excommunication hearings at the famous “Diet (i.e., a formal gathering) of Worms (pronounced vorms)” of 1521 (Worms is a town in southwest Germany). The Roman Catholic authorities asked Luther to recant his writings which opposed indulgences, criticized the authority of the pope, and defended the view that salvation is by God’s grace through faith alone without works. Luther did not disavow his views, but allegedly declared, “I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen” (Martin Brecht, tr. Wolfgang Katenz, “Luther, Martin,” Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol. 2, Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], 460; some versions add Luther saying, “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise”). At this point, the rupture between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic was unavoidable, and it was time for the Reformers to unite.

The Marburg Colloquy was one attempt to consolidate the efforts of the chief Reformers. The colloquy was held on October 1-4, 1529 in the town of Marburg in the German state of Hesse. It was convened by Phillip I, Landgrave of Hesse to find compromise between Martin Luther, a prominent German professor, Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss theologian, and other Reformers regarding essential Protestant tenants. The other collocutors in attendance included Johannes Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Caspar Hedio, Justus Jonas, Philipp Melanchthon, Andreas Osiander, Stephanus Agricola, and Johannes Brenz.

These men agreed on so much, and yet one main issue divided them. What was that issue? And, was there enough harmony between these Reformers to consolidate their efforts? Or would their differences shatter Protestantism indelibly? We will begin to answer these questions in the next article of this series.

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: To Work or Not to Work, Ephesians 2:9

“ . . . not of works, so that nobody may boast” (Ephesians 2:9).

The relationship between works and grace in the Christian life has been an ongoing debate throughout church history. Unfortunately, many people do not properly frame the discussion: Are we talking about works for salvation? Works in sanctification? Works as an expectation on unbelievers? This article hopes to clarify some of these issues regarding how and where works fit into the Christian experience using Ephesians 2:9 and its context.

The context of the first half of Ephesians 2 is about salvation, and how God made those who were spiritually dead alive by his grace. The Apostle Paul asserts in Ephesians 2:8 that salvation is a gift of God, which can be received freely by faith and cannot in any way be earned. Paul emphasizes this point more explicitly in v. 9. Specifically, he says that salvation is not of human “works” (the Greek word is ergōn).

A balanced theology of “works” is helpful at this point: Generally Scripture asserts that human works, or the works of the flesh are evil and transient (John 3:19; 7:7; Gal 5:19-21; Col 1:21; Titus 1:6; 2 Peter 3:10, Jude 15; Rev 9:20; 16:11; 20:12, 13). As such, it is impossible in any way to earn salvation; there is no salvation through human works or effort (Rom 3:20, 28; Rom 4:6; Rom 9:11-12, 32; 11:6; Eph 2:9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5). Human effort can be a source of boasting and pride (Matt 23:5) which is excluded by grace and faith (Rom 3:27; 4:2). The imputation of grace through faith is the only viable means of salvation, and again, this is mutually exclusive with works (Rom 4:4-5; 11:6; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2-3).

However, just as evil deeds are the default for unbelievers (as Paul explains in Eph 2:3), good works are the expectation for every believer after they have been saved by God's grace through faith in Christ alone, and Eph 2:10 specifically makes this point (see also John 14:12; Acts 26:20; 1 Cor 3:13-15; 2 Cor 9:8; Col 1:10; 1 Tim 2:10; 5:10; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14; Heb 10:24; Jas 2:14-26; 1 Peter 2:12). The believer’s good works are highly valued (Matt 5:16; Acts 9:36; Phil 1:22; Jas 3:13; Rev 14:13); they are to be a beacon whereby the light of the gospel can be seen by others (Matt 5:16). Jesus praises the good deeds of believers (Matt 26:10; Rev 2:2, 19). Certain passages that may on the surface hint at a works-oriented salvation (such Rom 2:7; Jas 2:21, 24, 25, 26), can be easily reconciled with the salvation by grace alone through faith alone construct. For instance, in James 2:16-26, the basic argument is that only genuine faith can produce good works; a lack of good works in the believer’s life is a possible symptom of a lack of genuine faith. Repentance and faith that have not transferred into tangible realities reflect inauthentic faith.

Unfortunately, in an overreaction to any works-oriented salvation, evangelicals minimize and avoid the place of “works” in the Christian life. As demonstrated above, while good works cannot save, accomplishing good deeds is the Biblical expectation placed upon the regenerated believer. Titus 3 is instructive here: after asserting that believers are not saved by works in 3:5, Paul twice reminds believers of the importance of good works in their post-conversion walk (vv. 8, 14). Without spiritual works, the believing community has the right to question the legitimacy of the individual’s “profession of faith.”

Since works are an illegitimate means for salvation, “boasting” is an illegitimate measure for sanctification. Boasting, a pet sin both in the ancient and modern church, is excluded because of the unmerited transfer of grace from God to the believer (Rom 3:27; 4:2). It ultimately has no place in the Christian life (see, for instance, 1 Cor 4:7; Phil 3:3; James 4:16).

BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – Through the Engine!

*** WARNING: The following article contains spoilers for the Firefly episode “The Train Job.” ***

It’s a classic scene, a true “flan” favorite. The first time, you are shocked by what you have just seen; and yet you giggle scandalously. Then you feel in the wrong about giggling so you say something like, “That’s terrible!” And then you hit “rewind” because you just want to see it again!

It’s a moment that satisfies our most noble yearnings for justice and simultaneously gratifies that devious fifth-grader in all of us!

In the episode “The Train Job,” Adelei Niska, a crime lord, gives Captain Mal and crew the job of filching a container from a hovertrain on the mining planet of Regina. The train is delivering passengers and supplies to the town of Paradiso, the inhabitants of which are plagued with a degenerative disease called “Bowden’s Malady.” What Mal steals turns out to be Pescaline D, the only medicine that can treat Bowden’s Malady. When Mal realizes that he has stolen medicine for Niska, who intends to sell it on the black market, Mal is plunged into an uncharacteristic crisis of conscious regarding doing what is just and right.

In many ways “The Train Job” is about justice, and not core world justice or official jurisprudence justice, but rather rim-world justice. Niska is clearly excessive in his retribution, as evidenced from his bullying of Mal and crew and his treatment of his wife’s nephew. In fact, we are given a broader sense of Niska’s brutal “justice” later in the episode “War Stories.” Similarly, Jayne (unjustly) attempts to take over Serenity leaving Mal and Zoe behind only to receive some justice from of one of Simon’s sedatives. It is an issue that we deal with today, back here on earth-that-was: attempting to comprehend justice in an increasingly morally ambiguous context.

Eventually, Mal decides to do the right thing; he chooses to return the medicine to Paradiso and return Niska’s money rather than completing the job. Mal exchanges some very philosophical words with Paradiso’s Sheriff Borne; the latter asserts that a man has a choice to do the right thing or not, while Mal implies that the right path was so clear that there really wasn’t a choice for him at all.

Back on Serenity Mal seeks a calm and diplomatic solution to the situation with Niska’s thug Crow. Crow responds brutishly that because Mal failed to finish the job now Niska would hunt him down and exact his vengeance upon him. And then comes the moment: in response to Crow's defiance, Mal casually kicks Crow back, who stumbles and is abruptly sucked into the intake side of Serenity’s port engine. It is a brilliant and unexpected moment; you can always expect director Joss Whedon to do the unexpected. In light of the mis-applications of justice in this episode, Crow’s fate seems very appropriate for someone who had participated in such injustices. As startlingly hysterical as Crow’s fate is, the reaction of the next thug in line is also classy: Mal starts in on the exact same spiel that he issued to Crow, and the second thug immediately radiates compliance in light of what had just happened to Crow. By the end of the episode, with the medicine returned and Crow’s fate sealed, one feels as though justice has been properly served. I thought that’s Crow’s voyage through Serenity’s engine was such a great moment that I wrote about it a few years ago on a Mythsbusters forum. I would love to have you go to “Firefly – Through The Engine” where I pose a legitimate challenge, but also do a bit of shameless Firefly guerrilla marketing. I genuinely want to see Mythbusters investigate the effects that would result from a thug-sized body getting pulled into different kinds of engines, and I even mention a few other examples of this gag from TV and movies. The main concern is not what happens to the individual (I assume that a painful, but relatively speedy death ensues), but mainly to see what effect this would have on standard engines. Come on, guys: shooting a 250 lb. ballistics gel dummy through different engines is right up Mythbuster’s alley! It would be great if some fellow Browncoats would visit that Mythbusters forum page, post some comments or ideas, and draw some attention to it.

So, whenever you’re checkin’ out your boat’s engines, just be careful of gettin’ sucked into the intake. Or else, like Niska’s chief thug, you may find yourself eatin’ crow.

As we're gearing up for more "Browncoat Bay" articles for the fall, we want to know, what are your favorite Firefly and Serenity moments? Send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

QUOTE FOR CONTEMPLATION: The Gospel Vs. The American Dream

Back in the December 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper I mentioned in the “On My Bookshelf” article that I had read David Platt’s book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream. As described in that article, Platt argues that modern American Evangelicalism has blended mediocre Christianity and the American Dream. The church has impaired its effectiveness because of its materialism and superficiality. Platt argues that true faith in Christ is demonstrated by radical discipleship whereby we are willing to forfeit the American dream and the riches of this world for the spread of God’s glory throughout the earth.

It hardly does the book justice to select only a few quotes, but here are some to challenge our notions of American Christianity. The page number of the quote from Platt’s book follows in parentheses after each statement.

At one point, Platt examines his own pastoral ministry and speculates about what draws modern American Christians to church: “This is a question that often haunts me when I stand before a crowd of thousands of people in the church I pastor. What if we take away the cool music and the cushioned chairs? What if the screens are gone and the stage is no longer decorated? What if the air conditioning is off and the comforts are removed? Would his word still be enough for his people to come together?” (27). I would simply summarize by asking, Are modern Christians drawn to church because of the divine truth it champions or because of the earthbound comforts it offers? The priorities and goals of most believers are divergent from those of Scripture. We often get caught in the cultural trap of thinking that our lives are about the acquisition of wealth and power. However, as Platt asserts, “The gospel has different priorities. The gospel beckons us to die to ourselves and to believe in God and to trust his power” (46). This ties in to Platt’s analysis of the effort Jesus puts into discipleship: “I'm struck when I see Jesus simply, intentionally, systematically, patiently walking alongside twelve men. Jesus reminds me that disciples are not mass-produced. Disciples of Jesus—genuine, committed, self-sacrificing followers of Christ—are not made overnight” (93).

The focus on commitment to Christ and forsaking American materialism leads naturally into a discussion of extending the glory of God through world missions and global evangelism. Platt argues that the material blessings that God has given to American Christians are not for us to hoard, but should be used to extend his glory and truth throughout the word. “God blesses his people with extravagant grace so that they might extend his extravagant Glory to all the peoples on the earth. This basic, fundamental truth permeates Scripture from beginning to end” (69).

Toward the end of the book, Platt makes a startling observation regarding God’s plan for the church age: “We are the plan of God, and there is no plan B” (156). This is not to say that God needs Christians or that we are an indispensible part of his grand redemption efforts. It is simply to acknowledge that God has chosen to work through the church during this age, and there is no prescribed alternative method; if we do not do the work assigned to us to shun self-pursuit and to pursue the spread of God’s glory then it simply won’t happen now.

Platt explores the reality that we have largely failed in this endeavor by becoming entangled in worldly ambitions. However, we can change this by returning to Jesus' radical message of self-negation and wholehearted discipleship.

DATE SETTERS: The Apocalypse in Popular Media

We’re taking a detour from this series on “Date Setters” where we usually discuss those who have falsely made wild end-of the-world predictions. In this article, we just want to briefly discuss and list the plethora of films and TV shows that portray the apocalyptic end of all things. I imagine that the intrusion of apocalypticism in popular media relates to the date setting trend. End-of-the-world scenarios in pop culture often excite apocalyptic fervor and point to the plausibility of possible global catastrophes such as a pandemic disease, environmental disasters, alien invasion, meteors, etc.

Though apocalypticism is the thread that strings these media efforts together, there is still a great variety within the genre. Some are less end-of-the-world and more end-of-life-as-we-know-it (like Waterworld or 2012). Some focus on the apocalyptic event itself, whereas others focus on the ramifications of the event (like The Road [pictured at right] which barely even references the civilization-altering calamity). Some are much more action oriented, while others are a bit more philosophical and pensive (compare Independence Day to Falling Skies). Most are, of course, very sobering (such as The Road or Dark Angel), though a few are actually on the lighter, humorous side (WALL-E). In the end (pun intended!), most are vehicles of social commentary, with an implicit we-could-have-avoided-this-if-we-were-more-responsible kind of message. I don’t have comments on these, but I wanted to provide a list to show the amazing array of end-of-world-as-we-know-it movies and shows just since the mid-90s. Also, note that I have not seen all of these movies, so I can’t vouch for the quality or morality of them all; I am simply trying to draw attention to how many there are in this genre. I’m using 1995 as a starting point, though there were many doomsday (mainly cold war/ nuclear holocaust type) offerings during the 60s, 70s and 80s as well. It seems, however, that the hunger for the apocalypse is keener (and perhaps more profitable for producers!) now than ever.

• Waterworld (1995)

• Independence Day (1996)

• The Postman (1997)

• Deep Impact (1998)

• Armageddon (1998)

• Matrix (1999)

• Dark Angel (2000)

• Titan A.E. (2000)

• Firefly (2002)/ Serenity (2005)

• The Core (2003)

• Terminator 3: Rise of Machines (2003)

• The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

• War of the Worlds (1953, 2005)

• Jericho (2006-2008)

• I Am Legend (2007)

• WALL-E (2008)

• The Happening (2008)

• The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, 2008)

• The Road (book, 2006; movie 2009)

• 2012 (2009)

• Terminator Salvation (2009)

• Riverworld (2010)

• Supernatural (Season 5, 2010)

• The Book of Eli (2010)

• V (1983, 2009)

• Melancholia (2011 film)

• Falling Skies (2011)

• Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

• Hunger Games (2012)

Have I missed any apocalyptic movies or TV shows since 1995? If so, send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll run a follow-up list in a future edition.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: Off the Deep End

We all say goofy things once in a while; I’ve certainly mis-blurbed my fair share of oddities in teaching and speaking and had to walk them back later. However, it is entirely different to publish odd comments online or in a book and consciously make goofy or bizarre statements that are clearly at odds with Biblical doctrine.

In this article, we want to show you some of the more ridiculous quotes from emergent leaders. It would be unfair to build our understanding of this movement on these bizarre quotes alone; however, the eyebrow-raising effect of these assertions from leading emergent figures like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Leonard Sweet raise serious questions about the legitimacy of these authors, and, ergo, of the movement as a whole. I provide these with limited comment, because, I think, most of them speak for themselves.

Regarding Biblical authority, Brian McLaren sees a “generous” multiculturalism in the creation of the Bible: “Scripture is something God had ‘let be,’ and so it is at once God’s creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and cultures who produced it” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 162). Pauline doctrine seems to provoke ire from some emergents: “Maybe some evangelicals should tear the book of Romans out of their Bibles and read a Romans-free Bible for a few years. Then they can paste it back in” (Tony Jones, from his blog, February 26, 2008; please note that despite how widely attested this quote is, I have not been able to find it on Tony’s blog, which interestingly, doesn’t have this post up anymore!).

In an apparent attempt to undermine orthodox doctrine and propositional truth, Erwin McManus declares, “The power of the gospel is the result of a person—Jesus Christ—not a message. The gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved” (“The Global Intersection,” The Church In Emerging Culture, 248). Sorry, Erwin, I believe that the apostles would strongly disagree (John 8:31; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 4:6, 16; 6:3; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9). McManus also asserts: “Let’s abandon the well-worn path of searching for truth in the midst of information and even reason. There is one who calls us . . . to follow him” (ibid., p. 225). Yes . . . it is about following Jesus, but why the dichotomy between following Christ and following truth when Jesus himself removes this divide (John 1:14; 8:31-32; 14:6; 18:37)?

Rob Bell proclaims either a universalism or a works-oriented theology when he oddly states: “And this reality extends beyond this life. Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting The Christian Faith, 137). Note the subtitle of the book from which this quote is taken: “Repainting the Christian Faith” — repainting, indeed!

Similarly, some emergents want to completely redefine (or “repaint”?) the gospel message entirely to match the doubt and ambiguity of post-modern society: “The more I have interacted with them [postmodern seekers], the more questions I have had about not just my changing methods but my so-called unchanging message” (Brian McLaren, “The Method, the Message, and the Ongoing Story,” The Church in Emerging Culture, 194). Later, McLaren reflects a frightening uncertainty about the Gospel: “If we feel successful—that we’ve captured the gospel just right, for example—we are in danger . . . even though I believe, I am still seeking” (ibid., p. 224). They even want to reformulate how we understand Christ: “A major New Light undertaking is the designing of newstream communities that can be ‘in connection’ and ‘in-formation’ with the spirit of Christ. Christ will be embodied for the postmodern church in information” (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 122).

Even the idea of belief in Christ and Christian truth is increasingly shunned by emergents and replaced with a feelings-oriented gospel: “I am no longer interested, in the first instance, in what a person believes. Most of the time it’s so much clutter in the brain . . . I wouldn’t trust an inch many people who profess a belief in God. Others who do not or who doubt have won my trust. I want to know if joy, curiosity, struggle, and compassion bubble up in a person’s life. I’m interested in being fully alive” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind, p. 79). And what is the deal with “reimagining” or, as previously mentioned, “repainting” Christianity. Emergent authors who throw these “re-” words into their book titles are completely missing the point and reflecting a belief that there is something wrong with the Bible or with the Christian faith. Many of emergent leaders’ criticisms are valid, but these criticisms should be directed toward Christians not toward the Biblical orthodox Christian faith. To put it differently, the problem is the failure of Christians who are not living up to their Christian calling. Emergent leaders frequently undermine the doctrines and practices of Christianity, where the solution should be to teach (not “reimagine,” “recreate” or “reformulate”) Biblical doctrine and practice to Christians.

Abandoning Biblical categories of belief and doctrine produces subjectivity and mysticism akin to that of the medieval church. While the focus on mysticism is increasingly fashionable in Christian circles, terms like “mystic” and “mysterious” require significant qualification, lest it devolve into invalid individualism or become an excuse to jettison propositional Biblical truth. Don Miller, in his popular book Blue like Jazz does just that when he claims: “For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained” (Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, p. 115). He goes on to state: “You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic” (p. 202).

Well, that’s plenty for now, but unfortunately, there’s more of this silliness from the emergent movement than we can fit into one article. Have you encountered any other bizarre quotes from our emergent friends? Send the quote, author, book, and page number to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print it in a future edition.