MAY 2011

In this edition . . .

Welcome to The Eclectic Kasper! This web journal is a safe and friendly environment where we can dialog about music, religion, politics, history and popular culture. This edition will be a bit heavier on the Bible/ theology side; I hope you find something you enjoy, and please send us your thoughts at feedback@eclectickasper.com or feel free to post at our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

We had planned on doing a series of articles on the “Emergent church” starting in January 2012. However, this movement is making a resurgence, so it seemed appropriate to move that series up a bit. If you don’t know what the emergent church is, well, you’ve come to the right spot! In this edition we begin a multi-part series on “Emergent Concerns,” discussing postmodernism and how postmodern ideas are invading the church under the guise of the emergent movement.

Below, I sound off on my favorite superhero movies in a new series called “American Pantheon.” Also included are our next installments of “The Essentials of the Faith” and “Tales of Trials, Failures and Entrails in the Bible.”

Thanks for reading, and, stay eclectic!

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH: Part 5, Preaching and Discipleship

We maneuver in a significant and somewhat uncharted direction in our series about the “Essentials of the Faith.” For many, a list of non-negotiable Christian elements is merely an inventory of doctrines, like those we have examined previously in this series. While these doctrines are core to Christianity, Christianity is more than just these doctrines. Christianity is essentially the balance of truths as well as activities and practices that are intricately interwoven and that demand to be held in equilibrium. Doctrine is the grounding and motivation for faith, while worship and ethics are the purpose of the faith. Doctrinal assertions about the faith and moral implications of the faith cannot be divorced from the believer’s relationship to God, nor his relationships with other believers and the unbelieving world.

Thus, having already in this series discussed the Trinity and five fundamental or essential doctrines, we transition into five essential practices that are critical to Christianity. This time, we’ll deal with two matters of “orthopraxy” that discuss the growth of faith among believers and next time we will discuss two activities that define the believing community’s interaction with unbelievers. As previously, the paragraphs below are taken from my personal statement of faith, and are, thus, in “I believe . . .” form.

The Preaching/ Teaching of God’s Word. I believe in preaching the entire counsel of God and doing so for the purpose of helping people conform to the likeness of Christ (Deut 4:10; 6:7; Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:8; Psalm 78:5; Acts 20:20, 27; Col 1:28; 2 Tim 3:16-4:2). Such preaching includes the expositional teaching of Scripture, the faithful proclamation of orthodox doctrine and Biblical virtues and values, the regular declaration of the basic Gospel message, and the specific and relevant ramifications of those truths to every facet of the believer’s life. The primacy and necessity of the clear and complete proclamation of all of Scripture is almost axiomatic for the Biblical writers. The injunction of 2 Timothy 4:2 applies not merely to the pastor, but to all believers. In essence, it is a call to wisely speak the truth of Scripture at every occasion (1 Peter 3:15). Every pastor, teacher, and every believer should be characterized by the faithful proclamation and careful handling of God’s Word (Acts 18:25-26; 2 Timothy 2:15).

The Discipleship of Believers. I believe that the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 specifies that the primary mission of the Church universal is not to win converts but to make disciples (see also, Eph 4:11-14; Col 1:28). Disciples are those who hear, understand and obey the teachings of Christ (Matt 12:49-50; Jas 1:19-25). The highest value of the church must be to train men and women to exhibit a greater capacity of conformity to Christ (Rom 8:28) and increasing commitment to him (Rom 12:1). Discipleship includes spiritual accountability, Scriptural teaching, habitual congregation, participation in baptism and communion, exercising spiritual disciplines and increasing competence in making converts, and then disciples of others.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: Part 1, Big Shift on the Small Screen

For many, the “Emergent Church” is an old tired subject. Others have had minimal information about or have never heard about the emergent church movement. Others, still, may not even have the framework to see the emergent movement or emergent tendencies slithering into their local church. This is the first of a series of articles on the Emergent Church that explores the helpful correctives as well as the dangerous pitfalls of this movement.

As Western culture shifts, so also have the attitudes and practices of some Christians. Protestantism, Fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism reflect many of the broader cultural attitudes and presuppositions of “modernism.” Similarly, the emergent movement heralds its affiliation with “postmodernism.” Emergents emphasize that “reaching the postmodern world requires us to radically reshape the church’s beliefs and practices to conform to postmodernism” (David Kowalski, “Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church Movement”). One must understand postmodernism to understand the emergent church.

Postmodernism can be best understood in contrast to modernism. Whereas modernism tends to be academic, rationalistic and scientific, postmodernism tends to be more affective, holistic, intuitive and mystical. To simplify this discussion, I’m going to put 1990 as a round-figure date for the shift from modernity to postmodernity on a popular and society-wide level, though it manifested itself decades earlier on the philosophical, academic, and artistic plane. This article will illustrate the cultural shift using popular TV shows as a barometer. While there are sure to be some generalizations here, I think that this broad-brush approach will be helpful. The next article in this series will discuss differences between modernism and postmodernism from more of an academic perspective.

Some of my favorite shows of the 80’s (and a few of these flop over into the 90’s) reflect modernistic sensibilities. Knight Rider, A-Team, MacGyver, Air Wolf, and Star Trek: The Next Generation embody the notion that answers can be found in science and reason. In most episodes of these shows, whoever has the most effective, and usually, coolest, technology, wins. In Western culture, a high value on science as the answer to man’s problems and questions goes back to the beginning of the Enlightenment in the early 1700’s. These 80’s programs demonstrate the modernistic fascination with the ability to solve the problem or defeat the bad guy with science, reason, and know-how.

In the 90’s the X-Files represented a definitive shift to a postmodern mentality. The show centers around two FBI agents assigned to investigate unsolved, paranormal cases (that is, mysteries that could not be adequately be solved by modernistic methods). Agent Scully’s scientific and rationalistic sensibilities routinely collide with Agent Mulder’s numinous and metaphysical approach. In many episodes, it is Mulder’s intuitive ability to comprehend both the normal and the paranormal that leads the pair to resolution. This new-found cultural openness to the supernatural and paranormal manifested itself in a variety of other popular 90’s shows, such as Touched by an Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and Charmed. This openness to the paranormal in media has resulted in a public acceptance of it, as reflected in a 2008 Harris Interactive Poll (the same one cited in the “Reincarnation” article below) that asserts of the American public: “Sizeable minorities believe in ghosts (44%), UFOs (36%), witches (31%), astrology (31%), and reincarnation (24%).”

Another shift between modernism and postmodernism is seen in how relationships are formed and maintained. Sticking with the TV-land theme, shows in the 80’s often focused around commitment-oriented, nuclear-family scenarios such as Family Ties, The Cosby Show and Growing Pains. The marriage relationship or the nuclear family was the hub of shows even if they included some additional relational oddity such as inter-racial adoption (Different Strokes), managing a Vermont Inn (Newhart), an annoying English housekeeper (Mr. Belvedere), or even an wise-cracking alien (Alf).

The 90’s, while still featuring nuclear-family-oriented shows, made more of a lunge toward non-committed, non-nuclear-family relationships, exemplified best by Friends and Seinfeld. Friends, for instance, featured individuals with fluid and sifting commitments to one another. Their interactions are not conditioned by marriage, relationship or vocation, but rather, are characterized by the broad and ambiguous moniker, “friends.” In these types of shows, social flexibility is valued, and, in the end, the protagonist(s) must “win” via her or his prowess with social and inter-relational skills. The comic and ironic postmodern contribution of Seinfeld is that in the conclusion of many episodes, one or all of the protagonists end up as the situational loser rather than the winner. Unlike sitcoms of previous decades, wherein episodes end with a satisfying, though sometimes overly simplistic or downright cheesy, resolution, 90’s sitcoms often left situations awkwardly resolved or unresolved. This contributed to the jaded 90’s theme that not everything can be wrapped up into neat modernistic categories and conclusions.

The last ten years have continued to produce TV programs that tread in the metaphysical realm (Angel, Supernatural, Heroes, Ghost Whisperer) and that highlight often ambiguous vocation-driven relationships rather than nuclear family relationships (The Office, 30 Rock). An added overlay from this first decade of the new millennium, however, is a craving for authentic experience, exhibited specifically by the explosion of reality shows. Survivor, The Biggest Loser, Amazing Race, Big Brother and The Apprentice feature (allegedly!) real people placed in unusual circumstances. However, our pervasive postmodern skepticism even leads us to doubt the metanarrative of individual reality shows and to suspect that they are more scripted than they let on to be.

Also, many dramas that currently splatter the popular TV landscape focus on gritty reality. The plethora of modern cop/ forensic shows (NCIS, or the multiple versions of CSI) carry over sensibilities from previous decades; they include an 80’s-style reliance on science as well as 90’s-style highly intuitive Mulder-esque protagonists (such as on The Mentalist or Castle). However, these modern dramas focus less on solving the crime itself as they do on the graphic and disturbing reality that spawned the crime.

In summary, our post-1990’s postmodern inclinations toward mystical supernaturalism (X-Files), multi-level relationships (Friends), and authentic experience (“reality” shows) are reflected and promoted in our pop culture. In the next article, we will discuss this shift from modernism to postmodernism from more of a philosophical standpoint, and in the third installment, this series will begin to focus on characteristics of the emergent church movement itself.

AMERICAN PANTHEON: The Best Superhero Movies

Since the 1930’s there has been a growing fascination with superheroes and vigilantes in American culture. At this point, the movie and media scene is saturated with hero films. I confess my own fascination with this genre: On one hand, I enjoy studying this cultural phenomenon from an academic standpoint, and on the other hand, sometimes I just like to sit down to a great bang-‘em-up vigilante flick! In many ways, Batman, Superman, Iron Man, et al., serve as our own version of the fictitious Olympic gods of ancient Greece. Like the Greek writers and poets of old, we often use our superheroes as vehicles for social commentary, self-criticism, or as a way to demonstrate both the best and the worst traits about humanity. This series on “American Pantheon” will investigate our own modern superhero mythos. Sometimes, we’ll explore the phenomenon from more of a sociological and philosophical perspective, and sometimes, as in the following article, we’ll take the less academic route, and just have fun talking about superhero media and our modern reverence for these figures.

With a surge of superheroes movies coming at us in 2011, I thought it would be fun to step back and talk about the best vigilante movies that have preceded. Below, I list my top five (actually, six!) favorite hero movies ever, in no particular order, and what I liked about them. If you feel like I have missed any really great superhero/ vigilante flicks, let me know by sending me a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com and I’ll include it in a follow-up article.

*** Spoiler Alert: The following may contain spoilers for the movies and franchises described. ***

Batman (1989). From my gushing about the soundtrack in the March 2011 edition, you will probably not be surprised at this pick. The unlikely Michael Keaton and the screen-filling Jack Nicholson play the title role and the Joker respectively, with all the panache as well as sensitivity that one could hope for from actors of this caliber. The move is at times gritty, at times comic booky, but always gothically (pun intended) elegant as only the likes of a Tim Burton could create. I find it curious that many prefer the second movie in this series, Batman Returns, which I believe has serious plausibility issues. It also contains significantly less interesting villains, and turns Bruce Wayne into the comic relief rather than a serious and tormented character. Comments on the third and fourth unfortunate installments of this movie series will be reserved for a future installment of “Movie/ TV Implausibility.” I did enjoy the more recent iteration of the Batman mythos in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, which perhaps beats the previous series in visual effects. However, this more recent series lacks the characterization, texture, and imagination of the 1989 outing. Yes, I said it; it’s almost so plausible that it removes the numinous nature of an otherwise non-superhuman character. The 1989 Batman balances the plausible and the numinous perfectly and is as superb a rendition of the Dark Knight as one could want.

Superman (1978) & Superman II (1980). The first Superman movie is a consummate origins story, while the second is a perfect hero development story. What these movies lack in high quality visual effects by today’s standards, they make up for in heart, plot, and character development. They reflect an “Americana” sensibility that makes the franchise very accessible without being too campy. There is even self-deprecating humor when campiness percolates to the surface, like Louis chastising Clark when he describes his first day on the job by using the word “swell.” I must also laud the first two installments for its chief villain, who maintains his villain-status throughout the series, which is itself commendable. Lex Luthor possesses no superhuman characteristics, but is simply a very intelligent and jaded bad guy. Superman II then overlays marvelous superhuman villains on top of Luthor's character. It also contains significant tie-ins with the origins plot, and a wonderful though not entirely predictable twist at the end, ironically forcing the Man of Steel to defeat his foes with brains rather than brawn. The production of these two movies is a fascinating and somewhat convoluted tale in itself, but we will have to save that for another article.

Spider-Man 2 (2004). I didn’t originally have this one on the list of top five, but I cheated by combining Superman I & II so that I could fit it in. After an admirable first outing, the second Spidey flick was able to develop the title character in both serious and humorous ways as well as to credibly introduce a new nemesis. There are great, plausible action sequences and not-too forced character developments dealing with a variety of personal and interpersonal issues. Peter's friend, Harry, hovers ambiguously in the background of the plot, creating unique trouble and tension for the protagonist. The movie is, unfortunately, speckled with a few moments of cheesiness. These few cringes, however, are worth enduring and are not nearly as bad as entire cringe-worthy scenes that pollute the film's successor, Spider-Man 3.

Iron Man (2008). Ironman is both a visual-effects feast and a profound and natural character study. It frequently leaves you saying “That is so cool!” without completely abandoning reality. There is a balance of humor and sobriety; there is action without over-abundance, and the movie contains tenderness without corniness. The problem with first installments of hero-movie series is giving appropriate time to the origin and background of both the protagonist and the antagonist without the account of the second overshadowing that of the first (which, by the way, is a frequent criticism of the aforementioned 1989 Batman). However, Iron Man devotes appropriate time to the development of both hero and villain. While I enjoyed the sequel, which doubtlessly contained better fight and action sequences, I found that Iron Man 2 simply lacked the charm and discovery of the first outing. My only “criticism” of the first installment is that I wish we could have seen more of Iron Monger. Unfortunately, the brief reign of great villains is endemic to superhero movies, the aforementioned Superman film series being a rare exception to this regrettable rule.

X-Men (2000). It’s hard enough introducing one hero and one villain in a single movie; X-Men had the task of introducing a variety of heroes and villains, giving each just enough depth and screen-time proportional to their contribution to the plot. Speaking of which, the plot of X-Men is interesting and unpredictable enough to keep you guessing without being so ridiculously complicated that you feel like you have to work too hard just to keep up. The ensemble of actors that were pulled together for this movie is amazing. I was especially pleased with Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine, a perennial favorite, which was sober enough to make the character accessible, but contained enough anger and unpredictability to provide continuity with the more typical psychotic versions of the character.

Here again, many seem to prefer X-Men 2 over the first installment. However, I just feel that X2 lacks the relational charm of the first movie as well as the first installment’s scope (saving millions in NY in X-Men vs. saving themselves in remote Alaska in X2). I was also turned off by X2’s campy theme of uniting good mutants with bad mutants, rather than pitting them against each other. And, I’m sorry to say, X-Men 3 was full of imbalance, including over-the-top visuals, underwhelming character development and an overly-cluttered plot.

So, as we enter superhero season, or, the time of year formerly known as “Summer,” that’s my take on the best superhero movies ever. So, agree or disagree? What did I miss? Any underrated or overlooked flicks that you would add to the list? Send in your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com or leave your comments at our Facebook page.

TALES OF TRIALS, FAILURES AND ENTRAILS IN THE BIBLE: The End of Jehoram

The Bible rarely describes death by disease as tragically and as graphically as that of Jehoram, King of Judah in 2 Chronicles 21:4-20.

The reign of Jehoram begins in about 850 BCE on a potentially good note, but quickly takes a dark turn. He succeeds Jehoshaphat, who, despite a few failings, is considered one of the few godly “revival kings” of Judah. Jehoram was the eldest of several brothers who benefited richly from Jehoshaphat’s success (2 Chron 21:2).

However, this goodwill wore off soon after the coronation of Jehoram, who had all his brothers and any other potential candidates for kingship executed (v. 4). He then married into the family of the wicked king of Israel, Ahab, of whom it is said that he did “more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him” (1 Kings 16:30). Throughout his relatively short eight-year reign, Jehoram repopularized pagan worship on the “high places” (2 Chron 21:11), and led Judah astray spiritually from the revivalistic efforts of his father.

This naturally incurred the wrath of God, who delivered a message of condemnation through Elijah (21:12-15). This letter was either written at the very end of Elijah’s life which may have barely overlapped with the beginning of Jehoram’s reign, or written before he was taken up to heaven, but read after that event, which would have been fairly creepy in itself, or simply written by another prophet named Elijah. Part of God’s punishment as revealed in that letter was that Jehoram had to face revolt from Edom, Libnah, Philistines and Arabs. One of these revolts included sacking the royal palace and depriving Jehoram of his wives and all but one of his sons (v. 17).

As further punishment, and with no apparent signs of contrition, Jehoram was inflicted with an “incurable disease of the bowels” (v. 18). Severe ulcers, chronic diarrhea, and colitis have all been suggested as possible candidates for the ailment that afflicted Jehoram, but even these don’t typically create the ghastly result that one reads about next. The first half of verse 19 says: “In the course of time, at the end of the second year, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great pain.” What is notably disgusting about this story is that the bowels did not come out after his died as a biological result of death, but while he was still living. He died soon (hopefully, for his sake!) thereafter, in understandably immense pain.

Despite the horrific entrails in the first half of verse 19, the relational failure mentioned in the second half of v. 19 and into v. 20 are ironic and almost laugh-out-loud hysterical. The people that he ruled did not light ceremonial fire out of respect for Jehoram as they had done for his predecessors (v. 19b). His death was “to no one’s regret” (v. 20), and their low opinion of him was further manifest in that they did not bury him “in the tombs of the kings” (v. 20). This tragic end to Jehoram’s reign should cause us to wonder what kind of impression we are making on those around us, and what they will think of us when we are gone.

The life of Jehoram is an ideal illustration of the cause-and-effect pattern seen in Chronicles. Jehoram kills his kin, makes alliances with wicked individuals, and endorses idolatry and spiritual prostitution. For his unfaithfulness, his reign was plagued by rebellion, a horrific and excruciating disease, and he prompted very little affection from his people. One who lives in rebellion to God should expect rebellion from others. People who cause God great pain with their disobedience should not be surprised by the pain that they themselves receive.

THEOLOGY: A Biblical Response to Reincarnation

“We Are All Hindus Now!” claims religion editor Lisa Miller in the Aug 31, 2009 edition of Newsweek. Miller explains: “Recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, ourselves, each other, and eternity.” One way in which she demonstrates this Hindu trend is in the relatively high percent of Americans that believe in reincarnation.

Reincarnation (samsara), a hallmark of Hinduism, asserts that individual souls are on an ever-revolving wheel of life, death, and rebirth. People’s karma, their good or bad deeds that they accomplish in life, determines the kind of existence (human, animal, insect, etc.) they are assigned to in the next life. According to Hinduism and several of its offshoots like Jainism and Buddhism, people are ignorantly trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnation which perpetuates human suffering. The goal of religion is to be reincarnated into increasingly higher levels of being until one can attain nirvana (release from the material world) or moksha (liberation). An individual strives to climb the caste system from life to life via good karma gained through Vedic rituals, meditation, devotion and by fulfilling religious and social duty (dharma).

Miller discusses the contrast between the Christian and Hindu perspectives on the afterlife:

“Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the ‘self,’ and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit‒where identity resides‒escapes. In reincarnation, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll.”

Twenty-four percent! About one in every four Americans that you interact with believes that their soul has traveled through numerous past bodies before inhabiting their current one. That 2008 Harris Interactive poll also discovers that almost another quarter (23%) of Americans are “Not Sure” if they believe in reincarnation or not!

Reincarnation retains a strong foothold in the New Age Movement. “It is believed by many sages [that] the collective energies contained in our etheric body at the time of death form the karmic blueprint that shapes our next incarnation. The theory is if all negative energies are cleared, there is no reason to take a physical body again unless it is for service to humankind. If uncleared, we bring the samskaras [defined previously as ‘ingrained behaviors’] with us to face once again” (Suzanne Matthiessen, “Spiritual Etiquette in the World: Shadow Energy Detox – Part 1,” Oracle 20/20, January 2007, p. 12). For many in the New Age Movement, the belief in reincarnation is not based on the text or dogma of a specific religious system, but extrapolated from experience or assumed from their spiritistic worldview.

The belief in reincarnation is rare in the ancient near-east. The worship of Ba’al in ancient Canaanite religion understood the seasons to represent a cycle of Ba’al’s death in the Winter and resurrection in the Spring. However, resurrection, including repeated resurrection, is different from reincarnation: with resurrection, one’s soul reanimates the same body; in reincarnation, the soul cycles through the birth-life-death cycle in different bodies. There are occasional references to reincarnation in Greek and Egyptian writings. The Roman poet Virgil discusses reincarnation in Book VI of the Aeneid. The hero Aeneas descends into the underworld to receive advice from his deceased father. In the midst of their conversations his father shows Aeneas, “The spirits to whom fate owes a second body, and they drink the waters of the river Lethe, the care-less drafts of long forgetfulness” (Book VI, 940-943). Note, however, that these spirits are apparently only granted a “second” body, as opposed to multiple bodies. Also, they are assigned a human body, as opposed to that of an animal or insect. Furthermore, this second chance privilege is portrayed by Virgil as only reserved for a few who are deemed deserving by fate. It is also difficult to know if Virgil posits this semi-reincarnation as a valid belief system, or if he is just describing it out of poetic license.

Scripture is clear that each individual has one life, one death, and one judgment. Even without the advanced revelation about the afterlife that New Testament writers were given, Old Testament authors still understood that the afterlife state was permanent (Genesis 3:19; Job 17:13; Ecclesiastes 9:10; 12:5; Isaiah 38:18) and a condition from which one cannot return to the present existence (2 Samuel 12:23; Job 10:21; 16:22). Later OT writers and NT authors build on this by affirming that all individuals will be resurrected to a permanent afterlife of either glory or condemnation (Is 26:19; Dan 12:2; Matt 25:46; John 5:29; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 15:51-52; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:11-15).

So why do 24% of Americans believe in reincarnation? I think that the affirmation of reincarnation is primarily emotionally driven. Modern people want to believe in a second chance, an opportunity to do better next time around. Whereas Easterners of the Vedic traditions affirm reincarnation as a way to eventually escape the suffering of life, many Westerners probably affirm reincarnation because they are disillusioned with the world and disappointed with life. They want a new start for joy and peace, and many feel that their mistakes in this life weigh them down from being all wish they could be. The belief in reincarnation provides them a sense that they can have that new start, but without the shackles of their current existence.

In contrast, Scripture affirms that ultimate freedom from suffering, disillusionment and condemnation, either from God or from self, is found in Christ alone (John 14:27; Rom 8:1, 18; 14:17; 15:13; Phil 4:7). Joy, peace, and contentment will be realized by those with new and eternal life, not simply by breaking free from a pattern of reincarnation.

The illustration above is of souls by the Lethe River before their reincarnation as discussed Book VI of the Aeneid. The portrait is called 'Serenity,' by Henri Martin (1860-1943).

YOUR FEEDBACK: Keep the Eclectic Conversation Going!

We have several “Eclectic Questions” where you can have your say at our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook discussions page. One of our recent Eclectic Questions is relevant as the 2012 presidential race begins to gear up: What Is Your Dream Presidential Ticket? If you’re a Democrat, is there a pair you would support over the current administration? If you’re on the Republican side, what pair would you like to see run against the incumbents and why? And let’s limit the discussion to actual, viable candidates (sorry, conservatives: “clones of Regan” do not count!). Also, let us know what you think of Obama’s handling of Osama, whether you prefer the BC/AD dating system or the BCE/ CE system, and let us know what your favorite superhero movie is!

Note: Since this was written the “Eclectic Questions” and “discussions tab” functionality has been removed from Facebook pages. Anyway, we don't have these questions listed anymore like we used to, but if you want to comment on any of these issues feel free to simply post your reply or thoughts on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

Also, in a few editions, we’re going to start a series on “Difficult Bible Questions.” Or, you can think of this as a “Try to stump The Eclectic Kasper” kind of deal! Let us know about that Bible issue or theological conundrum that keeps you up at night, and we’ll see if we can find a relatively satisfactory answer that we can dialog about. Any other comments, questions or feedback? Let us know by sending a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com!