MARCH 2021

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the March 2021 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, a journal about a little bit of everything!

We are thrilled to have two contributions from the Hornok family in this edition. Regular contributor Jesse Hornok finishes his series about the wrath of God as portrayed in the book of Romans, and we also have a poignant book review from Jesse’s mother Marcia Hornok.

We jump ahead in our verse-by-verse study of Romans and provide some clarification about one of the most quoted, and often misunderstood verses in that grand epistle. We begin a new series called “America in Memes,” and we have a follow-up from our January article about Studio 60 that Browncoats will especially appreciate.

We would love to push up to 300 “likes” on Facebook by the end of this year. If you found anything that you enjoyed or appreciated in this edition, please give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like,” and you’ll get regular updates from there. Feel free to leave any thoughts, feedback, or praises there on the FB page or send it to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

THEOLOGY: God’s Wrath: Part 4 God’s Present Wrath and the Christian

by Jesse Hornok

For Christians who are justified before God, how does God’s present wrath affect them? Paul presents the dynamic reality of faith-righteousness before a just God and then explains in Romans 5:9 that “we shall be delivered (saved) from wrath through” Christ’s life. We must first examine the word “save” which primarily means “deliver.” In context we should always ask what are we delivered from and what are we delivered to? Far too often Christians flatline the word “save” in Scripture, reflexively supposing sozo always refers to initial salvation from sin—deliverance from the penalty of sin to the position of righteousness. However, we can be delivered from many things. In the Bible we find sozo used for deliverance from death, disease, danger, destruction, deception, desire, disuse and more.

Unfortunately, the bulk of commentators flatline the word sozo here. In fact, they seem to misunderstand the progressive nature of Paul’s argument. Chapters 3 and 4 have concluded justification. Paul has now moved into our sanctification. He focuses on the results of justification with the application that “the just by faith shall live” not suffering wrath but righteously reaping eternal life. Indeed we have “peace with God ... access by faith into grace … [and we have been] justified.” But we actually are not saved from any present wrath against sin as if God overlooks our sin because we are believers. Our ungodliness and unrighteousness will reap sin's consequences just as much as the unbeliever. One remembers king David who for his adultery and murder suffered the fourfold death of his sons, as well as disgrace and a disheartening insurrection to his throne.

But wonderfully Romans 5 proclaims the sanctifying possibilities of this declarative righteousness. “How much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath” because we are being delivered presently from our sinfulness? We have the promise of power to be sanctified, not the significant but clinical escape from future eternal judgment. We have already seen that Paul’s use of the word wrath thematically and progressively refers to the present time, not specifically the future. Our hope that does not disappoint is that instead of God giving us wrathfully over to our sinfulness, through the outpouring of God’s love into our hearts by the Spirit, we rejoice as we suffer, producing perseverance, proven character and hope, resulting in the glory of God (5:2-5).

Paul gives the goal that “grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life” (5:21). Grace actually abounds over sin. We can’t miss this. Paul says “much more then” contrasting having been justified with our sanctification-deliverance from wrath. If we thought being justified was good, just imagine how “much more” being sanctified is good! This “salvation” powerfully excites adoration (5:11 “we rejoice”), more than being blood-bought, and instead of being enemies, we are now reconciled and will be saved by Christ's life as we “by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality [and] eternal life” (2:7). What grace, what hope, what escape from wrath! No wonder Paul depicts no subservience to sin (condemnation 8:1) for those who walk in the Spirit, who are children with the privilege of being heirs of God, co-heirs, co-sufferers with Christ as we “co-share” in Christ's glory. Romans 2 now makes much more sense. Truly there is “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” This is justification, sanctification and glorification.

Conclusion to the Series: The present world cries out. The people, circumstances and consequences reveal God’s righteousness and wrath. As we live righteously by faith, we testify to God’s good news, the deliverance from His wrath. The present creation groaning to be redeemed carries the burden of God’s wrath against all forms of sin. God’s power and patience, these are present signs of wrath, we should be thankful that God does this. His wrath isn’t just a future consignment, His strength and love bring color to the world as sin’s darkness is punished, enlightening wisdom’s path. He is the source, the sustainer of the process and purpose of life, the past-present-future Savior, all glory to Him.

AMERICA IN MEMES: Government, Mice and Shirts

by Matt Kasper

For those of you older than 35, a “meme” is a just a picture you would see on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter that either carry some pertinent information, statistics, or just a quote, long or short. Like older political cartoons, memes have a way of streamlining ideas in refreshingly concise ways.

We though that it would be fun to start a series called “America in Memes,” where we showcase some memes, and in some cases, just provide the text of the meme. In a time where both sides seem to be talking past each other and nobody is listening to anyone else, memes can help us appreciate the causes or the root problems of some of these issues, and often do so in a thoughtful, ironic, or even a comic way.

One more qualification: some of these memes claim to be quoting from someone. I have not verified all of these (thus the frequent use of words like “allegedly” below), but even if the quote is not exact or even if it is mis-attributed, the point is still worth considering.

No matter who is in the White House, it is easy to find memes that provide reasonable critiques of government. One meme claims that Milton Friedman said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Relative to excessive taxation, I recently saw a meme which is probably authentically by the very quotable Thomas Sowell: “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

One of my favorite memes about government positions Joe Biden in the top half of the frame saying, “My message to everyone struggling is this: Help is on the way,” which is a tweet that was actually sent out by Biden on December 1, 2020. The lower half of the meme shows Ronald Reagan saying, “The most terrifying words are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help” (adapted from a phrase allegedly used several times both before and after Reagan became president).

Since I lean conservative, I like some of the conservative memes, so they will be unfairly and disproportionately represented in this article. I like the meme with Sam Elliott in the background, who probably didn’t say, but looks like he could have said, “Let me get this straight: A party that supports abortion over life, illegals over its own citizens, and refugees over its own veterans is going to lecture me on morals? I don’t think so, cupcake.” In terms of general political theory, I like the meme that says, “Mice die in mouse traps because they do not understand why the cheese is free. The same thing happens with socialism.”

So, Do You Like Theology?

Theology is one of our specialties here at The Eclectic Kasper. You can see a whole host of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, some concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.

Sometimes memes make you wonder about how information is presented to you. For those of us still wondering about the veracity of the 2020 November presidential elections, one meme pointed out an interesting notion. The meme had Donald Trump’s twitter information in the top half, and Joe Biden’s in the bottom half. The top half has the words 73.8 million votes (a number that has since been adjusted up to 74.2 million), and an arrow pointing to Trump’s “88.9M Followers” on Twitter (that is, of course, back before he was banned from that platform). The bottom half shows several red question marks next to the figure “79.8 million votes” for Biden (again, adjusted now to 81.3 million), and this is pointing to Biden’s “19.5M followers” indicated in Biden’s Twitter account. I have since looked at Biden’s account and he is still only up to 29.2 million followers. Interesting. Speaking of tweeting, one meme had someone tweeting another contrast between Trump and Biden. (I have to rely on memes to get good tweets because I don’t have a Twitter account). Soon after the January 6 riots in D.C., Jordan Rachel allegedly tweeted, “Trump and Biden are both for walls, they each put one up around what they want to protect. Trump put up a wall around America and Biden put up the wall around the government.”

Of course, racial tensions continue to be a hot button issue in our country, and the meme-verse is not silent about this topic. In one meme, African-American commentator Larry Elders allegedly says: “The Left controls every major institution in America. Mainstream media, academia, administrative government, Hollywood, big tech. So if ‘institutional racism’ really does exist, whose fault would that be?” Some memes cut through the nonsense, such as the one that declares, “If you can be offended by a cartoon, a lady on a syrup bottle, a man on a rice box, you may be the problem.”

In some cases, a meme points out the natural illogic of someone’s position. One meme I saw showed an online company selling shirts that said, “There are more than two genders.” Next to the picture of the shirt with that statement, there were options where you could select the color of the shirt and the shirt size. One of the options was “Fit Type” and the only options were “men” and “women.” After reading this article, I’m sure that you’ve enjoyed some of these meme texts, been entertained by some, and been offended by others. In a way, that proves the point of the power of memes; the picture, the text, or the combination of the two can cut to the heart of an issue in ways that may comfort or in ways that may disturb, but hopefully, too, in ways that will compel you to think.

Perhaps, too, you’ve either enjoyed or been offended by the ones that were selected for this article. Well, that’s another issue entirely. And we’ll feature more potentially entertaining and potentially offensive memes in future editions, as well.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: We Will Not Be Silenced

by guest author Marcia Hornok

This reviewer heard Dr. Erwin Lutzer speak in December, 2020, when he gave everyone present a copy of the book We Will Not Be Silenced: Responding Courageously to Our Culture’s Assault on Christianity. He told us he was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but you will question that when you read his book. He certainly has a God-given ability to “discern the times.” The most recent events he references occurred in June 2020, and yet he writes as if the 2020 election was over. Today we face what is known as cultural Marxism. This will include “religious suppression and the curbing of individual rights” (p. 21, emphasis his).

Lutzer attributes this trend to the destruction of the nuclear family, the media’s mockery of Christian morality, and what he calls, “The Silent Church.” His goal in writing is to inspire the Church to courageously stand against the philosophies and attitudes of the radical secularists. He says we must strengthen what remains. “If we think we can fight against this deceived culture by winning the war of ideas, we are mistaken.” We are in “a raging spiritual battle that can be confronted only by prayer and repentance followed by action in keeping with repentance” (p. 37). We do this by praying, becoming informed, speaking up, and taking action for our faith.

In chapters 2-8, Lutzer covers all the bases by addressing why monuments are being attacked, the 1619 movement, rewriting the constitution, climate change, racism and white supremacy, social justice, critical race theory, the BLM movement, suppression of free speech, the transgender phenomenon, COVID-19 bailouts, radical Islam’s goal of destroying America, Antifa, and political correctness. He defines and explains these various movements objectively, not to condemn them but to help readers understand their origins and agendas. Each chapter tells what should be the response of the Church and ends with a prayer. What gave rise to these dangerous philosophies, many of which are rooted in Marxism? A few of the things Dr. Lutzer credits are the removal of a religious presence from public schools, homosexual activists persuading the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify their behavior as normal in 1973, indoctrination of college students to see the United States as systemically racist and unjust, the fascist movement (Antifa) of 2020, and attacks on local churches.

Another major influence has been what Lutzer calls “the corrupting influence of our public schools.” “Using education to change the worldview of children has always been the goal of cultural Marxism” (p. 157). A standard textbook in schools and colleges, A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn (1980), has sold over 2.6 million copies as of 2018. Zinn, a college professor, was “an avowed Marxist who believes America was founded in tyranny [of Native Americans and slaves] and for profit” (p. 48). Lutzer failed to mention Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History that Turned a Generation against America by Mary Grabar, 2019. Zinn’s distorted views and inaccuracies have been uncovered by her and others, but the damage has been done. Lutzer says, “My word to parents: Be very wary of public schools” (p. 168).

Chapter 5 details how propaganda works. Lutzer’s extensive research and writing on this topic (Hitler’s Cross, When A Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany, The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent) lends credibility to his claims, as do the 16 pages of citations at the end of this book.

He also devotes a chapter to market capitalism and democratic socialism, which he defines as “the supremacy of the state over the individual,” or “statism” (p. 178), also called cultural Marxism. Secularists see universal healthcare and climate change as means to give the government more control over the economy. In addition, the “response of our government to COVID-19 will bring about the incremental socialism many have advocated” (p. 192). Lutzer states that we can understand the attraction of cultural Marxism when the capitalistic system becomes corrupt, and the poor want to be liberated. He investigates the socialism of Russia, Sweden, and Venezuela and concludes that even democratic socialism always fails. Why? Because human nature is greedy and corrupt, not “essentially good” as Progressives believe.

In his final chapter, Lutzer compares the Church today to Sardis, one of the seven churches listed in Revelation 2-3. He says we must wake up! Strengthen what remains. “Many tsunamis are coming against the church today” (p. 247). We must neither compromise nor redefine the gospel as social justice. While we should serve those in need, we must always seek “opportunities to build bridges that will lead people to eternal life” (p. 249). He blames Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber for promoting “progressive Christianity.” Gospel-preaching churches must resist that dangerous perspective, while also surviving threats from cultural secularism.

Jesus’ word to Sardis was “Repent!” While Lutzer calls mostly on believers to repent (of being silent and uninvolved), he does say that repentance is “not something we do only when converted; we cannot survive without daily, deep, and sustained repentance” (p. 260). He has written and taught about eternal rewards for believers, and he concludes with, “The glories that await the faithful are beyond description” (p. 261).

One would expect Lutzer’s book to be depressing, but this reviewer found it to be realistic. It does make me sad, but Lutzer encourages readers to boldly share their faith, even if persecuted for it. We cannot ignore the trends or simply pray, “Come, Lord Jesus.” I agree with Dr. David Jeremiah’s blurb on the front cover which enthusiastically states, “I would put this book into the hands of every Christian in America.”

ROMANS EXPRESS: Work Together for Good, Romans 8:28

by Matt Kasper

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (NASB).

In times like those that we are going through now, it is helpful to know that someone is in control. While a verse like Romans 8:28 is sometimes taken out of context, the reality is that God is indeed in control, and that all things are truly moving toward a purposeful goal.

Paul refers to God and His “will” in verse 27 (which actually just says, “according to God”), and this propels the Apostle into a statement here in v. 28 about how we have been called “according to His purpose.” That is, while we get tied up with the discussion about how all things work together for our good, we miss the broader theme of the will and purpose of God, which may not always serve our perception of what is good for us.

Paul affirms something that “we know.” That is, it is axiomatic that there is a good end for the believer that is according to God’s will and purpose, no matter what problems or challenges arise along the way. The believer alone can have this confidence; the Muslim doesn’t know until judgment day whether his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds; the Mormon doesn’t know if he will be good enough to ascend to deity and create his own worlds; the agnostic doesn’t know and the atheist completely denies the certainty of a positive teleology that points people toward a blissful future. Believers, however, know for sure that despite the toil, frustration, and futility of this age, the next age will deliver glory, hope, and complete joy for those who trust in Christ (v. 18).

The phrase “all things work together for good” seems to have become a cliché in evangelical circles, but sometimes without appreciating all of the implications of this phrase. Even the few instances in the NT of the Greek word sunergeo, “to work together,” demonstrate a variety of ways in which people, things, or forces “work together” (Mark 16:20; 1 Co 16:16; 2 Co 6:1; Jas 2:22).

The subject of “work together” is not stated, and therefore has to be supplied, and the most logical candidate is “God.” “All things” (the Greek word panta) agrees with the verb in case, as both the accusative and nominative cases of the word are identical, but it disagrees with the verb in number. The word panta is plural whereas the verb calls for a singular noun, so “all things” cannot be the subject of this sentence.

If we supply the subject “God,” then “all things” must function in the accusative case as the direct object. The result is the phrase, “God causes all things to work together.” This is more than an affirmation of God’s omniscience (“all knowing”) or omnipotence (“all powerful”). Paul affirms beyond these that God is omni-competent, that is, He wields His omniscience and omnipotence to engineer creation toward specific ends and for specific purposes. His tool for doing so is not merely some things, nor just believers, nor just those things that cooperate with Him. God utilizes “all things” to move them toward specific goals and a foreordained destiny. While we don’t want to read too much into this statement, the implications of this inspired generalization are staggering. God uses all things to move the created order toward His perfect eschatological goals. “All things” would obviously include believers, our witness, our compassion, as well as our acts of kindness and benevolence. Less obviously, however, “all things” would include Satan, demons, atheists, and all who oppose God, Christ, and believers. That is, God skillfully positions both those who are for Him and those who are opposed to Him to accomplish His perfect and inscrutable purposes.

Presumably, “all things” would also include blessings and tragedies, joys and sorrows. This reality, must therefore, regulate how we define the word “good.” To put it simply, this verse guarantees that creation is moving toward God’s good, but doesn’t always, and frequently doesn’t, work toward our personal preference and immediate benefit. God may engineer or allow difficulties, challenges, and tragedies into our lives in order to achieve His broader eschatological goals. The tragic premature death of a godly saint and even a martyrdom may be seen as the opposite of good for us, but they are good for God in working toward His plans, some of which we are aware of and some of which we are not.

The idea of “good” for an ancient Greek-speaking person probably did not have the same connotation that it does for us. For the ancient Greek, “good” was more a reference to how all things progress to a place that is commonly beneficial for all involved, for a community, nation, or city-state. Modern Americans seem to gravitate more toward a sense that what is “good” for me is defined by what is easy, pleasurable and gratifying. This is neither what this word means as is clear from the context.

Several times in this chapter Paul notes things that do not appear to meet our self-oriented definition of “good” such as present sufferings (v. 18), futility (v. 19), groaning (vv. 22, 23, 26), and weakness (v. 26). Later in the chapter, Paul will allude to the fact that some believers endure distress, persecution (both mentioned in v. 35), and even martyrdom (v. 36). Thus the good mentioned here refers to the eschatological day of the Lord where God eventually and fully defeats wickedness and vindicates the righteous. Thus, this verse guarantees a future good for God and for all who trust in Christ, but it does not necessary guarantee good and happy endings for believers in all situations in the short-term.

But even this promise of an eschatological “good” ending applies only to “those who love God,” that is, for believers. Unbelievers mainly endure unhappiness in this life and they will have a very unhappy future because they have rejected Christ rather than trusted in Christ.

The final phrase in this verse is in apposition to this phrase: “to those who are called.” That is, someone cannot love God unless they are called. And they can only be called if their calling is according to His “purpose.”

The verse here reflects the broader Biblical theology of election, whereby God chooses from all of hell-bound humanity some individuals that are saved from that fate (Romans 8:29-30; 9:11; Eph 1:3-5, 11; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:9). The salvation provided to those individuals is a result not of their merit or worth but only the result of God’s mercy and grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 1:1-3).

If you are a believer it is worth changing your understanding of good from just things that make you happy. Romans 8:28 asserts that God will utilize all things to bring about a kind of goodness that transcends immediate circumstances. For the believer in Christ, we will face difficulties in this life, but we have the hope that God will make all things achieve ends that will glorify Him and benefit us.

BROWNCOAT BAY: Why a Browncoat Would Like Studio 60

by Matt Kasper

In the January 2021 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we started a series called “Show Within A Show” and we featured one of my favorite shows, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

Our regular readers know how much we love Joss Whedon’s Firefly. As it turns out, there are some interesting similarities between these otherwise very different shows. If you like Firefly, I think that you will like Studio 60. But that works the other way, too; if you like S60, you will like Firefly.

So why would a Browncoat like Studio 60? There are several reasons:

Writing style. These two shows are very different in their premises: Studio 60 is about the inner workings of a sketch comedy show in Hollywood, and Firefly is a space western set 500 years in the future. However, the presentations of these premises are very similar. Both Firefly and S60, are crisply written, and principal characters deliver great one-liners. Both shows feature unusually talented casts who can toggle between drama and comedy quickly, and who preserve that balance in a compelling way. Both have a similar kind of snarky and authentic writing; no matter how bad and desperate the situation gets, you’re never far from a good joke or an aptly-placed pun. While there are few space ships or fist-fights in Studio 60, there is a sustained intensity and witty, substantive and fast-paced dialog that a Firefly fan would love.

Use of Chinese. For some specific plot reasons, Studio 60 has several episodes where Chinese is used frequently. Firefly, of course, cleverly sprinkles in some Chinese phrases, mainly in proving some of the most color expletives; the cleverest but cleanest one that I can relate in this web journal translates to something like “to have the explosive diarrhea of an elephant,” from the episode “Our Mrs. Reynolds.” The Signal podcast did a regular segment called “How to speak Chinese” by focusing on the helpful and colorful Chinese used in Firefly. We could probably do an entire season of “How to speak Chinese” just based on a few episodes of Studio 60. Of course, most of the Chinese in S60 is normal conversation, and one of the cast acts as a translator, so, sorry, not nearly as much creative swearing.

Commentary on Romans

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

Casting overlaps: While none of the main casts between these two shows overlap, there is some interesting casting overlaps, nonetheless. Two fleeting characters in the ‘Verse have significant roles in Studio 60. Interestingly enough, these two characters somewhat bookend the Firefly/ Serenity franchise; the first plays a fairly significant role in in the Firefly pilot, and he plays a secondary role in Studio 60. The second casting overlap has a very small part in Serenity the movie, but she is one of the main cast, one of two primary females, in Studio 60 (we’re referring to characters played by Sarah Paulson and Carlos Jacott). It is really fun to see each of these people play different kinds of roles in the two different shows. But that’s not all: this last time watching through Studio 60, we caught another casting tie-in; the bossy doctor on the Firefly episode “Ariel” pops up as a reporter in the S60 episode “K&R, Part 2.” One wonders if we will find more casting overlaps between these two shows as we continue to watch them.

Only one season: Alas, like Firefly, Studio 60 was cancelled prematurely. While Firefly only received about a half of a season, Studio 60 received a full season of 22 episodes, but those were moved around on the schedule and the show was actually put on hiatus for about two months, as well. At the end of those 22 episodes, a Browncoat will feel a very familiar heartache of having come to love a show that was cut down in its prime.

Topic: Studio 60 is about producing a sketch comedy show called Studio 60; while that premise is very different from Firefly, the very fact that S60 talks about producing a show will, I believe, resonate with many Browncoats. Many of us relish not merely the Firefly franchise as a whole but also the production value of what we see on the screen. Some of you, like me, have not just watched Lord of the Rings through several times, but you have also watched the behind-the-scenes bonus material, as well. A show like Firefly makes us interested in shows; and Studio 60 brings together the concepts of a great show, and a show-within-a-show. Similarly, I have found that there is a disproportionately high amount of Browncoat fans vis-à-vis fans of other franchises who are engaged in fan fic, creating some kind of fan production; Browncoats: Redemption, Bellflower, Mosquito are only the tip of the iceberg relative to the creative output of Browncoats. Therefore, I suspect that many Firefly fans will enjoy the behind-the-scenes drama in S60.

As I conceded in that review article in January, Studio 60 was not a flawless show. Some of the characters were not as strong as they could have been, and the show veered from its premise more than it should have. Firefly, on the other hand, is a near-perfect show; it is well cast, well written, has clever plots and it flies true relative to its premise.

Studio 60 may not have the same kind of universal appeal that Firefly does, but I can guarantee that it has something for most of us. If you are a Browncoat, you will like the crisp dialog, the great chemistry between the characters, and the authentic feel that the show creates. Both shows portray diverse people who come together in different ways; despite their differences, they form a family, and they find that they can produce something greater together than they ever could have as individuals.

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

This article is originally from the July 2017 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

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

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

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

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

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

Here goes . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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