MARCH 2017

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the March 2017 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

This month we continue our study through Romans with two articles from Romans 2. We also continue to investigate verses in the New Testament that discuss the full and unqualified deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is diversity? Has the definition of diversity become too skewed by our nation’s thought police? See our article “A Non-Diverse Definition of Diversity.”

And check out what some MSN polls reveal about what Americans really believe (hint: the elite media is a lot more out-of-step with the population than they want us to know!). See “Captivating Polls on MSN, Volume 2.”

We also have an “Eclectic Flashback” of a great movie soundtrack to a . . . well . . . not-so-greatly-received movie.

We love feedback! Thanks for dropping us some feedback on our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page. Also, feel free to send follow-up questions, compliments or critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint feedback in a subsequent edition.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: A Non-Diverse Definition of Diversity

Every TV show cast, every team of news anchors, and every cabinet pick endures the gauntlet of today’s artificial notions of diversity. Is Trump’s cabinet “diverse” enough? Is the group of protagonists in a movie “diverse” enough? Does that committee reflect enough “diversity”?

But today, all “diversity” ever means is whether or not there enough African-Americans or enough Hispanics represented in that show, movie, cabinet or committee.

To reiterate: when the notion of diversity is discussed today, most of the time the person is not referring to a diversity of thought or a diversity of background. There is no recognition of the diversity provided by the fact that some may have graduated from Ivy League schools while others graduated from state schools. The diversity police don’t reflect on whether someone grew up in the suburbs, in a rural town, or in a large city. There is no consideration of whether the person has some musical or artistic background or whether the person was a jock.

What was their socio-economic background? Do they have military experience? Do they have managerial experience, or business experience, or non-profit experience, or marketing experience? Have they traveled around the world, and what languages do they know? What are their religious beliefs and how much do those beliefs govern their actions?

It is tragic and narrow-minded that these questions are not considered to be useful measurements of diversity.

Diversity today almost always only refers to whether or not there is a Politically Correct representation of blacks or Hispanics in a specific context, like a sitcom or a presidential cabinet. Nobody seems to care about the representation of Asians, Jews, Australians or Middle Easterners on a committee or an executive board. In fact, it rarely ever even refers to whether there are enough Millennials or homosexuals or Catholics or physically-impaired individuals represented.

Diversity today is almost always only about African-Americans and Hispanics; it is an extraordinarily non-diverse way of understanding and defining diversity.

I know that just having the audacity to point this out sends some people in our country into intellectual seizures. But please just stick with me and recognize that this is not some bigoted, racist, or nationalistic rant, but that there may actually some common sense here.

Let’s take President Donald Trump’s cabinet. Yes, the cabinet mainly consists of white guys, though the group, so far, also includes a black man (Ben Carson), and four women, two of whom are white (Betsy DeVos and Linda McMahon), one who is Chinese (Elaine Chao), and one who is of Asian Indian descent (Nikki Haley). One may say that there is a relatively narrow spectrum of thought in this cabinet; but isn’t that true of every cabinet? Liberal presidents have mainly liberal cabinets, and conservative presidents have conservative cabinets; is this a huge surprise to anyone? But this group is certainly not monolithic in their background and perspectives and I do not see many of these individuals as yes-men (or yes-women!), either.

“Like” us on Facebook!

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

So let’s look at how truly diverse this cabinet is. Trump’s cabinet includes Catholics, Protestants, non-religious and even a Seventh-day Adventist (the aforementioned Ben Carson). Trump’s cabinet picks include a diversity of former governors from Indiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Montana. There are individuals who were raised in almost every part of the country and from every socio-economic strata. We have politicians, fundraisers, business people, generals and even several medical doctors. In terms of education, experience, background, and markets, this may be one of the most diverse cabinets ever assembled in this country. Given all of that, why would it matter at all if these people are black or white or brown or purple! Consider other metrics that indicate diversity: Rex Tillerson became an Eagle Scout when he was 17, volunteered with and even served as the Boy Scouts of America president from 2010 to 2012. Wilbur Ross owns an art collection that is valued at about $150 million. Elaine Chao has received 36 honorary doctorates from colleges around the world. Ben Carson, aside from his numerous achievements in medicine and politics, has authored or co-authored ten books (and there was even a TV movie made about him).

Trump’s cabinet includes the stellar and impressive military careers of Gen. James Mattis and Gen. John Kelly, the diverse business and entertainment resume of Steven Mnuchin, and Rick Perry, the extensive experience of whom we mentioned in our May 2015 article “Cruzing Toward Amnesia.” Again, this may be one of the most experienced and most truly-diverse cabinets our country has ever seen.

But all anyone fusses about is how Trump’s cabinet lacks diversity because there is not an obligatory amount of African-Americans or Hispanics represented.

But here is the question that exposes the sinister sham of artificial diversity: How are these non-diverse definitions of diversity not completely racist? In fact, how do they help us progress beyond the color of one’s skin? How do they help us to focus, instead, on the value of one’s experience, the benefit of one’s education and accomplishments, and, as Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed, the content of one’s character?

How will we get past racism in our country if our only definition of diversity is based almost solely on race?

Or are we now so irrecoverably contaminated by Political Correctness that we will simply never recover an objective perception about legitimate diversity? Could it be that we will, from now on, always see diversity almost exclusively through the narrow and non-diverse lens of skin color and race?

So what do you think about diversity? Is it only about race or have we overstated the point here? Send your diverse thoughts and opinions to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print your responses in a subsequent edition.

ROMANS: The Ideal Side of Life, Romans 2:9-13

Think about what life would look like ideally: The good people would be rewarded and the bad people would get what’s coming to them! But, that’s not the way life is. In fact, the Biblical authors themselves often decry the un-ideal-ness of life (Ps 73:3; Job 12:6; 21:7-9; Jer 12:1; Hab 1:4; Mal 3:15).

I think that is the best way to understand this passage in Romans 2:9-13. It is portraying an idyllic and perhaps a naïve fallacy under which some of Paul’s audience labored.

This is one of the more confusing passages in the book of Romans. Not so much because it is unclear, but rather, because the discussion of being justified by obeying the law seems to go against everything that Paul will say in Romans 3-4, and, in fact, everything that we know about justification. People are declared righteous before God (or, “justified”) not because of our good works or adherence to the Law, but because of the grace of God and by having faith in Christ (Acts 15:11; Rom 3:20, 28; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3).

In this passage, therefore, Paul seems to be accommodating the ideal notions of his audience, more specifically, that the good law-abiding Jews will be saved, but the Gentiles have no such guarantee. In fact, he seems to be advancing the hypothetical situation that he discussed in verses 7-8, namely that good works will earn some heaven, but those who disobey will reap only condemnation. Even conceding those conditions, Paul seems to be acknowledging that even in the best and most ideal of situations, the good law-abiding Jew, and the best of every kind of people, still falls short of God’s perfect standard.

In Romans 2:9, Paul mentions that there will be “tribulation and distress” ultimately for all who disobey and who practice evil, even if just a little. Justice that is not being served now is merely being stored up for eschatological wrath later (see v. 5). The phrase “to the Jew first” is probably not a chronological statement as much as a statement of priority; the Jews were the first to receive revelation and were an elect people group in God’s program. Therefore, rather than being more protected because of their proximity to the Law, they will be held to a higher standard because of their rejection of the Law and of God’s Messiah. They are guilty of being more culpable in judgment for their misdeeds and disbelief. The motif of Jew first then Gentile was mentioned in 1:16 and will be seen again in 2:10.

The point, then, in 2:10 is not that Paul is laying out the plan of salvation that includes works, but rather, he is mirroring conventional wisdom that those who disobey will be punished and those who obey will be rewarded. He will come back in Romans 3 and argue vociferously that there are none who do good. Thus, this conventional plan– that the wicked are punished and the “good” people are rewarded – falls short; in fact, there are no completely and inherently “good” people; the tendrils of sin tightly grasp all members of humanity. Paul rounds out this thought with the assurance that all is being done fairly (v. 11), which echoes what he had said about God being the just Judge in vv. 4-8. There is no favoritism toward nor prejudice against when it comes to God’s opinions of people—an astounding thought given how riddled humans are with partiality and prejudice. The word prosopolempsia means “favoritism, treating one person better than another.” As today, the concept has the connotation of unfair or biased treatment, and it is used in terms of God and of our relationships with others here and in Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25 and James 2:1.

Paul indicates that there will be some considerations taken into account when it comes to judgment relative to the Law, but in the end, all sin will be judged by a fair standard (v. 12). The aorist tense in the verb “sinned” is probably indicating not just the condition of sin, but how sin is handled on a case-by-case basis. Those who are without the law or apart from the law (the Greek word anomos) will perish for a lack of divine revelation. The law alluded to here is the Law of Moses; all ancient civilizations have laws and standards for civic and religious order. However, none of these are special revelation and none present the path of salvation through faith in God and the corresponding response of obedience to Him.

On the other hand, those who have the law will be judged by it. The preposition dia in the genitive indicates “through” or “by means of.” That is, the law is both a guide to right response to God, but then serves as a tool for judgment when those who claim to be under the law do not respond rightly. Again, laying the theological groundwork for Romans 3, Paul argues that people sin inside and outside of the Law. Either way, there is sin, accountability, and punishment. Paul’s Jewish audience, including Jewish believers, cannot condemn non-Jews or even non-Jewish believers just because those Gentiles do not adhere to the Mosaic law. God will judge their misdeeds, and will always do so fairly; but the Jews will be held to a higher standard.

As before, there are several ways to understand this verse in the context. First, one could suggest that Paul is setting forth a works-oriented salvation, however, that view is preposterous and contradictory with other grace-oriented passages. Second, Paul could be suggesting that someone who fulfilled the law perfectly would be justified by their works, a hypothetical situation that he would dismantle as impossible in Romans 3.

Third, and most likely, he is reflecting the idyllic mindset of some of the Jewish believes to whom he writes who have faith in Christ, and yet want to justify themselves via the law. They continued to labor under this false ideal that the Jews were inherently better or more worthy of justification than the Gentiles. To this group especially, the Apostle will demonstrate that all (Jews and Gentiles) are equally sinners before God (again, in Romans 3) and that all (even Abraham before the Law and David after it) needed to be justified by faith alone (Romans 4).

Again, a mere chapter later, Paul will declare: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (3:28). Either he completely contradicted himself in two consecutive chapters, or else he is here in Romans 2:9-13 portraying the ideal and misguided notions of some in his Jewish audience, but noting how even that is inadequate to explain the human condition.

That human condition is – as Paul will address thoroughly in Romans 3 – all are sinners, Jews and Greeks, rich and poor, black and white, and everyone in between. We all long for an ideal world, where the good people are rewarded and the bad people are punished. But Paul’s assertion is that in this world, “there is none righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10). We should stop presuming that we are ideal people living in an ideal world and acknowledge that we are all sinners in profound need of a Savior.

DEITY OF CHRIST: “By Whom Are All Things,” 1 Corinthians 8:6

Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:6, NIV).

As we have mentioned many times previously in this series, the importance of the distinctively Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ can hardly be overstated. The fact that Christ is fully divine is affirmed by the New Testament authors (John 1:1-3, 18; 10:30; 17:21-22, 24; Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-17; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:3, 6, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Rev 1:7-8; 22:13), and even foreseen by the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah 9:6; Jer 23:5-6).

Against the onslaught of early church heresy, which denied that Christ was God, the Nicene Creed uses at least six different phrases to affirm Christ’s deity: 1) Jesus Christ the only Son of God, 2) God from God, 3) true God from true God, 4) begotten not made, 5) of one being with the Father, 6) through Him all things were made. The Fundamentalists at the beginning of the twentieth century confronted similar denials of Jesus’ divine nature from religious naturalists embracing liberal theology. They, therefore, upheld Christ’s virgin birth as one of the five fundamentals of the faith, since such a birth affirmed not only the supernatural character of the event itself, but also the divine nature of the one being born. Throughout history, the confession that Christ is indeed God has distinguished true believers from the many false religions and cults who reject this fact.

We continue studying key verses or passages in the Bible that affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God, the divine God-Man. This next verse represents a jump from the Gospel of John to the writings of the Apostle Paul. In the middle of a warning about Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul makes an astonishing statement about Christ.

Again, the context of that statement is about how Christians should recognize their freedom and liberty, but also how they should be careful that they do not cause other believers to stumble. Specifically, some Christians were eating meat that had previously been offered to idols, while others rejected this practice.

In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul contrasts idols with the one true God. Verse 5, then, affirms that there are many things that people consider to be an idol or a god. There are many things that people revere and give their attention to, but there is only one God that truly deserves our worship and affection. The “yet” at the beginning v. 6 signals Paul’s desire to distinguish between the false gods of humanity and the one true God. In doing so, he lists both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as that one true God (vv. 4 and 6). This is an example of how the New Testament authors continue to affirm the monotheism of the Old Testament, yet still insist that there are three persons in the Trinity. For instance, in the final verses of Matthew, Jesus discuss how we should be baptized in the “name” (singular) of “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (plural). The idea of the Trinity, one God in three Persons, solves the problem of both singularity and plurality in the Godhead (Rom 1:4; 15:16; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2).

The parallelism between what Paul says about God and what he says about Jesus is how he equates the Father with the Son: there is one of each, the existence of all things are dependent on both, and we were made for both (“for” the Father and “through” the Son). The key is where verse 6 mentions Jesus Christ and then states “by whom are all things.” This is, of course, an affirmation that Christ was involved with the entirety of creation just as God the Father was.

The prerogative of cosmic creation belongs only to God, and yet, this verse affirms that it also belongs to Jesus Christ in the same measure. One could notice in the English translations a subtle difference between “from who” in relationship to God and “by whom” after Christ. This does not negate the fact that both are fully involved in creation. The subtle shift probably represents the authority of the Father; the Father is seen as the prime Agent of creation, while the Son is the Instrument of creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16). As we have stated before, Jesus cannot be both an agent of creation and a created being. He cannot have willed Himself and all of creation into existence before He was created. Hebrews 2:10 also uses this exact Greek phrase to affirm that Christ is the Creator when it says “by” or “through whom [Christ] are all things.”

Having gone through some of the basic exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and having recognized its support of the deity of Christ, I would add a caveat. I personally consider this to be a clear affirmation of the deity of Christ. Yet, more than some of the other verses that we have discussed or will discuss, I would be less inclined to use this one with a detractor. That is, if I were discussing with an antagonist how the Bible portrays Christ as fully God, I would be more inclined to appeal to John 1:1-3, 10:30, Col 1:15-17, Titus 2:13, Heb 1:3, 2 Peter 1:1, and Rev 22:13.

To restate, I recognize that 1 Cor 8:6 is a clear affirmation of Christ’s deity and role as Creator, but it may seem more clear to someone who already affirms the authority of Scripture and the deity of Christ. To someone who claims to believe in the truth of Scripture but is uncertain about Christ’s deity, this verse may seem less clear. I include it in my list of clear verses that affirm the NT’s declaration of Jesus’ deity, though I admit that it is probably one of the weaker examples of the “clear” or “explicit” texts affirming the deity of Christ. But remember, we are also discussing the cumulative weight of all of these OT and NT verses, and the combined testimony of all of them is clear.

The next passage in this series about the deity of Christ, however, is one of the clearest affirmations of Christ’s deity in the New Testament (and one of my favorite NT passages), and we’ll discuss that passage in the next edition.

SOUNDTRACK REVIEW: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, music by John Williams

The following article is originally from the July 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

Whatever one may think about the prelude trilogy to the Star Wars franchise, or of this installment specifically, it is difficult to debate the exceptional contribution that John Williams has made to the soundtrack world and to the Star Wars universe. And, in the case of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Williams’ soundtrack may be its best and most redeeming feature. Williams’ work for Episode I bridges gaps between the original movies and the prequels in ways that the plot itself often fails to do or does so lamely. We could spend an entire article discussing the depth and scope of Williams’ work, and we may do that in a future article anyway, so for now, we’ll get right to the soundtrack.

Track #1, “Star Wars Main Title and The Arrival at Naboo,” is everything one would expect in an opening to a Star Wars film, from dramatic heroism, to an other-worldly nebulous sound filled with tension as well as awe.

The dramatic “Duel of the Fates” (Track #2) is the most celebrated of the songs on this album, and one of my favorite epic-movie tracks. As the Star Wars wiki Wookieepedia (yes, not Wikipedia!) reports, the lyrics are based on an archaic Welsh poem Cad Goddeu (Battle of the Trees), and sung in Sanskrit so that they sound less familiar than Latin would. One translation of these words reads: “Under the tongue root a fight most dread, and another raging behind, in the head.” What is fun about this track is that is has several faux endings: There is a dramatic climax, and you think the song is over, only to hear the music continue to pulsate faintly with an interplay of brass and voices. The “Duel of the Fates” theme is echoed in “Panaka And The Queen’s Protectors” (#12), and finds voice in the other prequel movies especially when Anakin vengefully speeds across Tatooine to rescue his mother in Episode II, and when Anakin, having succumbed to the dark side, duels with Obi Wan in Episode III (“Battle of the Heroes,” Track #3). The song is dark, intense and enigmatic, like Darth Maul, and later, like the newly knighted Darth Vader himself.

“Anakin’s Theme” (#3) is beautiful, haunting, and not at all boyish as one might expect. Rather it is a deep, flowing, but unpredictable (with all of the accidentals) melody, which is reminiscent, ironically, of the theme for Luke and Leia from the original movies. There is a tender innocence about it as well as a mature contemplation. I would have wished for a young actor who could have portrayed these extremes of youth and profundity better, but, again, the music succeeds where the movie fails. This song ends with an portentous nod to the “Imperial March,” a haunting and chilling foreshadowing of Anakin’s fate.

Williams’ ability to capture battle scene action, whether multiple ships, droids, people, or all of the above, has certainly matured since his earlier Star Wars days as seen in “Sith Spacecraft” (#5), “Panaka and the Queen’s Protectors” (#12), and “The Droid Invasion” (#14). These tracks reflect combat cacophony far better than similar kinds of action music from the original trilogy (some of which, I’m sorry to say, now sounds a bit hokey!). Other songs paint a rich tapestry of sounds that mirror the stunning visuals of Episode I, like the ominous “The Arrival at Tatooine” (#7) and the profound and pensive “The High Council Meeting” (#18). “Passage Through the Planet Core” (#10) is perfect for the harrowing underwater trek from one side of Naboo to the other.

Commentary on Romans

See other articles in our ongoing verse-by-verse and passage-by-passage commentary on Romans here in our “Eclectic Archive.”

The Essential Doctrine of the Deity of Christ

See our other articles about this critical doctrine of the doctrine of Christ here in our Eclectic Archive.

The track, “He Is The Chosen One” (#8) is interesting in its own right. It is impressionistic and flowing, but occasionally includes some pomp and triumph that we look have come to expect in Star Wars music. An amazing amount of the six Star Wars movies takes place on the remote desert planet Tantooine. Williams bridges that gap between the original trilogy and the prequels in “Anakin Defeats Sebula” (#9) by incorporating other Tantooine tunes, like “Jabba’s Theme” from Episode VI as well as the beautiful “Binary Sunset” song from Episode IV. I love the way the imperial march theme keeps bubbling up in various forms throughout the CD, which is an ever present reminder that the peaceful Republic of the prequel series is driving inexorably toward the dark empire of the original trilogy. I thoroughly enjoy how vocals are used more on this CD than in most of William’s other works, especially in tracks #2 and #16. These vocal augmentations to the orchestra provide a rich spiritual and ethereal sense that is necessary for a story line like this. And, while I personally find “Augie’s Great Municipal Band” (#17) somewhat obnoxious as a song, I enjoy listening to it for the variety of sounds that William’s uses, which remind us that we are on an alien planet, and not listening to a terrestrial pep band.

More Movies and Shows . . .

Do you like movies and pop-culture? Check out more great articles about your favorite films and shows in the “Movie/ TV” section of our “Eclectic Archive.”

A frequent criticism of this album is that the tracks are out of order relative to the movie. This is somewhat exaggerated, in that the only track that is too far out of place is “Duel of the Fates,” which appears at the end of the movie, and thus, should have come between tracks 14 and 15. While I am a bit of a purist, and would have preferred the tracks in their movie order, I can understand putting this tremendous achievement second; “Duel of the Fates” is the song that really makes anyone want to go out and buy this soundtrack. Another criticism is that, while people agree that the music was great, they say that there simply wasn’t enough of it. However, there are only so many songs that can fit on a single CD, and doubtless, expanded renditions of this soundtrack will eventually be made available, if they haven’t already.

A third criticism, and one that I will dismiss less lightly, is that this work, and indeed, the more recently trilogy in general, didn’t have the memorable character themes (or “leitmotifs,” for us musical snobs!) of the original trilogy, such as Yoda’s Theme, the Imperial March (usually associated with Darth Vader), or even Jabba’s Theme. Other than Anakin, few of the characters have really distinct or memorable themes, and I think that this is a legitimate weakness of the work.

Say what you will about the movie itself, or the prequel trilogy in general, the music for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace itself is unsurpassed, and Williams’ effort is, as with most of his work, simply out of this world.

POLITICS: Captivating Polls on MSN, Volume 2

What are people really saying out there about Trump, immigration, and current political issues? While it’s hard to know from all of the polls and pundits that barrage us, sometimes we find some information that gives us a great glimpse into what we the people really think.

We have captured more captivating polls on MSN. This is volume 2, a bit of a follow-up to our “Captivating Polls Captured On MSN” from the July 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

We explained in that previous article why these polls are important, but I’ll review here briefly. First the sample size of some of these polls is huge (to use a Trumpish kind of word). Whereas many polls that pundits push on evening cable shows represent a sample size of a few hundred or thousand, these MSN polls represent hundreds of thousands of votes. Also, you can only vote once on each (believe me, I’ve tried to vote more often, but it won’t let me!). That means it is probably a fairer poll than some where you seem to be able to vote more than once.

Also, MSN is liberal and caters to a more left-of-center crowd, so if a poll starts leaning conservative, then that is significant. The bottom line is that though these polls are not scientific and may represent a narrower middle-class demographic, they do capture a much larger sample size. That at least provides some insight into what people in our country think about national events.

Some of these MSN polls are very revealing, specifically, revealing that the American public may be thinking very differently about current events than the left-leaning media would have us believe. In fact, it seems to me that the more a poll veers conservative, the more quickly that poll is taken down. However, our The Eclectic Kasper research team managed to capture some of these polls even when they already hundreds of thousands of votes before they were whisked away into political oblivion.

So, what are people thinking about the first few months of the Trump administration? One of the more insightful polls that MSN has issued recently (on Feb 7-8) simply asked users to “Grade President Trump so far.” (You can click on the picture on the left for a larger version of the poll that is easier to read). Of course, by then, that “so far” was just over two weeks, yet, people seem to have already made up their minds by then.

Noteworthy about this poll is that over one million people responded. Again, that puts to shame those polls that claim a few hundred people represent an accurate sample size of the entire country.

Of course, the numbers themselves are interesting. Not surprisingly, 38% of respondents gave him an “F” grade. I am afraid that about that percent of people are going oppose Trump and the GOP even if they are able to turn things around in our country. That 38% is more than the 30% who have Trump an “A”; these are probably people who would support him no matter what he does. Perhaps just as noteworthy is that 16% of people gave him a “B,” perhaps a group of people that like the initial inklings of the Trump administration and are willing to give him a try. The A’s and B’s together constitute an encouraging 46% of the over one million participants of this poll, relative to the 38% who gave him an “F.” That is probably an welcome trend for a guy who won the presidency (fairly, according to the electoral college, of course) with several million less votes than his opponent.

Trump’s February 28th address to Congress was acknowledge by pundits on both left and right media sources as a success. People at CNN were almost shocked that he came off as poised and presidential as he did.

The MSN polls bear that out as well. The one on the right, captured the next day, on March 1, shows what half-a-million people thought about Trump’s speech as well as its tone and impact. Simply asking respondents to grade Trumps address to congress, an astonishing 43% gave him an “A,” while a slightly less enthusiastic 12% awarded him with a “B.” Again, combining those two groups yields an encouraging 55% of voters in this poll who viewed his performance favorably, relative to the 11% of folks who thought that he flunked. And what about that quarter of the people (26%, specifically), who said that they didn’t even watch it. Certainly some of them would have been won over to the “A” or “B” side, as well.

Trump’s views on foreign policy, defense spending and immigration were featured in several polls. Of course, Trump’s threat or promise – depending on how you look at it – to build a wall between the US and Mexico was a central issue to his campaign. Despite what the liberal media says, Trump is apparently fairly in-tune with the American people. An MSN poll from January 27 received responses from over seventy-thousand respondents before it was pulled down prematurely. That poll suggested that over half (51%) support the building of that wall, as opposed to 42% who were opposed, and another 7% was favorable to it as long as Mexico paid for it.

What about defense spending? This has, of course, been a divisive issues for years. While Republicans want to reduce government spending overall, there is also some virtue to increasing our defense spending. This will help in the ongoing war with radical Islamic terrorism, with potential threats from North Korea, China and Russia, and our military is in severe need of upgraded weapons and equipment. The Democrats always seem to want to increase spending on welfare and entitlements, and they seem content to do so at the expense of defense spending, which seems incredibly naïve to me.

Apparently, it seems incredibly naïve to a majority of other Americans as well. A February 28 MSN poll captured the opinions of over half-a-million people. Fifty-seven percent of them said that they support President Trump’s plans to dramatically increase defense spending. The wording of this is important: it is not just to increase government spending, but specifically spending for defense. And it is not just a slight increase, but to “dramatically” increase defense spending. Given these conditions, an overwhelming majority of Americans are in support of that direction.

And no matter what the media says, Americans are still concerned about terrorists seeping into our country as refugees or through conventional travel methods. A January 31 poll received responses from almost a million people to the question “Do you agree with President Trump’s recent action concerning immigration and refugees?” Out of that large polling base, the majority supported Trump, 53% to 40%, with 7% asserting that they needed more information on the issue (and I suspect that the more information they hear about the dangerous refugee situation, the more they will be willing to support Trump’s position).

Along those same lines, a March 7 MSN poll asked “Do you support the Trump administration’s revised travel ban” (right, above). Over three-quarters of a million people responded overwhelmingly favorably on Trump’s side, 53% to 35%, with 12% admitting that they didn’t know enough about it.

But this apparently displeased the powers-that-be over at MSN. Not getting the response they wanted, they tried again with a slight rewording of the question three days later on March 10. That poll asked “Do you support the revised version of President Trump’s travel ban” (right, below). Almost half-a-million people responded, and again, the American people were clearly on Trump’s side, 53% to 41%.

Other polls pointed to a more conservative electorate than perhaps we have been led to believe. This demonstrates how out-of-touch the liberal media is with most Americans. Two other polls that we captured bear this out.

A March 7 MSN poll asked, “Should transgender students be allowed to use school bathrooms that match their gender identity?” Another way of saying this is should kids use the bathroom that matches their preferences instead of their plumbing. Over 250,000 people responded and overwhelmingly affirmed that students should not use the bathroom they want, but rather the one that matches their gender of birth, by 54% to 36% (I expect many of those in that 10% who weren’t sure are so confused that they don’t know which bathroom to use, either).

There was also a poll about news consumption in general. This one from January 22 asking about preferred cable news outlets probably didn’t go the way the folks at MSN wanted it to. They pulled it after a quarter-of-a-million votes; I have to admit, that I am a little surprised by how well Fox News fared in this poll and how poorly CNN and MSNBC did. It is worth noting that those two combined (34%) were still several points below the 38% that Fox News received by itself. The 28% of people who don’t watch any of these is also interesting; well over a quarter of Americans don’t patronize and aren’t affected by any of these outlets.

What does all this mean? While you can draw many conclusions by yourself, I think that these polls affirm several points. First, more people like the Trump administration and his new direction than we are being led to believe. Though CNN and NBC cover every protest from coast to coast, those protesters are not representative of most Americans. Most seem fairly happy and on board with the new administration; the marchers and picketers characterize only the most radical and naïve minority of citizens of this country.

More simply, and perhaps more significantly, some of these polls also reveal that the nation is still more oriented toward common sense and conservative principles than some media outlets want us to know. It is too bad that those media outlets are not.

ROMANS: Conscious of Conscience, Romans 2:14-16

The notion of the human conscience has always been intriguing to me.

The word itself breaks down into the words “with” (the Latin prefix con) and “to know” (the Latin word scientia, as in “science”). That is, there are things that we know through observation and science, but there is another way of knowing that is “with knowledge” or “with science.” It is an internal capacity that works along with external observation to help us know right and wrong when science can usually only tell us fact from non-fact.

Conscience is an internal moral compass that helps people navigate the basics regarding right and wrong. As Christians, we believe that it is a reflection of the fact that people are made in the imago Dei, the image of God. Conscience is the intersection of moral decision, intellectual ability and spiritual capability, a capacity which God bestowed only upon human beings.

In Romans 2, Paul discusses the benefit that the Jews had through identification with the Mosaic Law. They had the very oracles of God and a way to know how to please and serve Him. However, that proximity to the Law neither makes them more savable, nor inherently better than Gentiles, for God judges without partiality (Romans 2:6, 11).

In fact, Paul makes the point that many Gentiles themselves practice what was revealed in the law (v. 14). We also know that many ancient law codes before and after the giving of Mosaic law reflect truths and practices in the Law, such as the Hammurabi code, which probably originated from around 1900 BCE.

Paul suggests that some who do not have or are not aware of Mosaic law still do the law “naturally” (the Greek word here is phusis from where we derive the word “physics”). We are naturally bent away from God, but we are also by nature created in God’s image, with an innate (rather than evolved) sense of right and wrong and an appreciation for basic laws and social ethics. As a basic example of this, most societies have laws against murder and stealing; that is, they are both universally seen as bad.

In reality, Gentiles frequently obey the law, whether they know it or not, or whether they have claimed that it originated from themselves (i.e., they “are a law to themselves”). Thus, the principle reflected in the previous verses that the Jews will be judged by the Law applies in about the same way to the Gentiles who also carry out aspects of the Law. Again, those who are not formally under Mosaic law, are still judged because of their natural understanding of good and evil. Like the Jews, the Gentiles are evaluated by their failure to execute justice and morality perfectly even according to their limited knowledge of right and wrong.

In v. 15, Paul further explains the idea of the law being “natural” even to those not under Mosaic Law. They, like the Jews in the OT, have a sense of the Law that works with their conscience, and yet they still do not always follow those moral promptings and they still do wrong. The word that we usually translate “conscience” is the Greek word suneidesis; it also means “knowing along with” or “with knowing.” The word appears thirty times in the New Testament, mainly in Paul (about 20 times), five times in Hebrews, three times in 1 Peter and twice in Acts.

This may be more than you want to know about how the word is used in the NT, but I’ve done the work, so I may as well share it with you (if you aren’t that interested, feel free to skip to the next paragraph!). Often, the conscious is appealed to by a believer in order to emphasize a point, like Paul’s statement in Romans 9:1 that “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit” (Acts 23:1; 24:16; Rom 9:1; 1 Cor 10:25, 27, 28, 29; 2 Cor 1:12; 5:11; 2 Tim 1:3; Heb 9:9; 13:18; 1 Pet 2:19). Elsewhere, Paul notes that the conscience of the unregenerate person is weakened or defiled (1 Cor 8:7; 1 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:15), and sometimes, a young believer’s conscience is so sensitive that mature believers should be careful not to offend it (1 Cor 8:10, 12). Several NT authors note that having a good and clean conscience should be a goal for all believers (1 Tim 1:19; 3:9; Heb 9:14; 10:22; 1 Peter 3:16, 21); not maintaining a good conscience may result in the shipwrecking of our faith (1 Tim 1:19).

In coordination with the conscience, the thoughts of an individual also accuse or defend one’s actions. That is, even unregenerate people frequently understand that they have done something wrong or recognize that they have done something right. Through law, conscience, and thoughts or reason, people are conscious enough of good and evil to be convicted of wrong-doing.

Paul mentions the future time when those dictates of the conscience mentioned in v. 15, which either affirms or justifies one’s actions, will be vindicated or judged by God (v. 16). God will judge the “hidden things” or “secrets” in peoples’ hearts and minds. The word kruptos indicates both negative things that are hidden in the human heart (Matt 10:26 [par. Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2]; 1 Cor 4:5; 14:25; 2 Cor 4:2), as well as positive virtues that are practiced in privacy (Matt 6:4, 6; Rom 2:29; 1 Peter 3:4).

Paul suggests that the idea of God’s ultimate eschatological judgment is consistent with what he had been preaching. The phrase “my gospel” unfortunately communicates something to an English speaker that is probably not intended. By “my gospel” Paul is not saying that the gospel uniquely belongs to him, is uniquely proclaimed by him, or originated from him. Rather, the Apostle has a unique relationship to the Gospel and a unique obligation and calling to proclaim it. For that reason, we could translate this phrase something like “the Gospel I proclaim” rather than the more rustic translation “my Gospel.” Paul further affirms that this relationship that he has to the Gospel, its truth and the privilege of proclaiming it is only “through” or “by means of Christ Jesus.”

There are a few take-aways from Romans 2:14-16. First, God has given us a conscience as a way to help us judge right and wrong. We should rely on it and proceed carefully, especially when others seem to be ignoring that inner moral voice. Second, we should also note that as fallen people, everyone’s conscience has been contaminated by sin to some degree or another. While some people seem more uniquely attuned to their conscience than others, in reality, we have all disobeyed the dictates of our conscience at one point or another. Therefore, as Paul will argue in Romans 3, all deserve the condemnation of God, whether we have disobeyed God’s direct laws or ignored the inner moral guidance of the imago Dei.

Finally, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, our highest goals should include the advancement of God’s Kingdom (Matt 6:33), the pursuit of purity (Proverbs 22:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, 7), and striving for a clean and pure conscience. The conscience can be healed through the ongoing benefits of Christ’s sacrifice, death and resurrection; even the worst sinner who trusts in Christ can have salvation and can enjoy the gradual, conscience-cleansing sanctification that our gracious God provides (Heb 9:14; 10:22).

LAUGH A LITTLE: If I Were President . . .

Come on . . . nowadays we could all afford to laugh a little more!

Here are a few stories shamelessly siphoned from e-mails and from online. Sorry for the lack of citation on some of these, but most of them have circulated for years.

In increasingly tense days, I hope these stories and cartoons help you to laugh a little, too!

OK, so we’re going to start a little political:

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be President someday.

Both of her parents, Democrat Party members, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?” She replied: “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed with pride!

“Wow . . . what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!”

“What do you mean?” she replied.

So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedges, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party!”

Her parents aren’t speaking to me anymore.

This is one of my favorite stories about always remembering the fundamentals:

The captain of a great ocean liner had begun as a cabin boy years earlier and gradually worked up to his high position. He had become one of the most respected men on the high seas. His assistant, who had served with him for years, observed and emulated his every move. But one thing about the captain puzzled him: every morning the skipper went to his cabin, opened the top drawer of his desk, took out a small slip of paper, read it with intense concentration, returned the paper to his desk and locked the drawer.

After many years, the captain retired and his assistant took command. The first thing he did was to open the drawer to discover what was on the slip of paper. The paper had but one sentence on it: “Port is left; starboard is right.”