MAY 2021

Welcome to the May 2021 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, where we know that you will find something that is of interest to you.

This month, we discuss one of my favorite Mozart arias, and we have another article from our series about the differences between charismatics and non-charismatics.

We continue to study through Romans, we discuss some things they did right and wrong in the most recent Star Wars trilogy, and we note some problems in discussions about race relations in our country. There should be a lot of good substance and controversy in here that you will want to check out!

We love your feedback, even if you come at some of these articles and issues with a different perspective or an opposing view. Feel free to send your concerns, critiques and compliments on any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Also, you can post your thoughts and responses on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

MAGNIFICENT MOZART: The Vengeance of the Queen of the Night

It is one of the more majestic and difficult arias in opera history. It is about defiance, assassination, and manipulation. But it is a joy to listen to when it is performed well.

Mozart had recently produced several Italian operas, including The Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni, that were performed in the Imperial Theater or the Burgtheater. Desperately needing money, Mozart was persuaded to write a comic and fantasy-oriented opera, brimming with magical elements and Masonic symbolism, to be performed in the Theater on the Wieden, a smaller theater more for the common folk. The opera was called Die Zauberflöte, or The Magic Flute (K. 620), and it first premiered in Vienna on September 30, 1791, slightly over two months before Mozart died. It was a huge hit with the masses and enjoyed 223 performances just in that theater over the next several years. It continues to be one of the most popular operas in history, and is third in a list of most popular operas by number of performances according to Opera Sense (see https://www.operasense.com/most-popular-operas).

While there are several popular tunes in this opera, none are as epic as “Der Holle Rache Kocht in Meinem Herzen,” meaning, “The vengeance of Hell burns inside my heart,” thus, it is sometimes also called the “Revenge Aria.” It appears in the Act II of the opera, and is the second one sung by the vengeful Queen of the Night, allegedly a representation of Empress Maria Theresa “who sternly opposed the humanitarian and liberal ideals of the Masonic order” (David Hamilton, The Compleat Mozart: A Guide to the Musical Works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, ed. Neal Zaslaw with William Cowdery, 67 [by the way, the title The Compleat Mozart is not a misspelling, but is the actual name of the book]). The three- or four-minute aria is “full of passionate defiance” (Denis Forman, A Night At The Opera: An Irreverent Guide to the Plots, the Singers, the Composers, the Recordings, 410). It bespeaks power and conviction, even though one character is manipulating another character into committing murder.

The piece begins with powerful orchestral cords in D minor that lets you know that the Queen of the Night means business, her voice climbs higher and higher as she discusses the vengeance that must be exacted. She settles into a F Major section temporarily; it is as though the D minor sections demonstrate her defiance, while the F Major sections betray her brazen confidence. However, even in F Major, she continues to threaten that if her daughter doesn’t kill Sarastro, then the Queen will disown her. This section ends with some of the more difficult coloratura in the song, as the singer is challenged to navigate grace notes, eighth and sixteenth notes, arpeggios, and is forced to reach up to a high F a few times. During this section, the singer is accompanied by the woodwinds, and then the strings gracefully echo what had just been sung. Again, these measures are beautiful and majestic when performed well.

The middle section of this piece is probably less demanding vocally, but Mozart manages to channel the power of the orchestra into the confidence and defiance of the Queen of the Night. For a few measures she sings the same note, an F, occasionally dropping down to the octave below, while she spells out consequences if her daughter should fail in her mission: “You will be disowned forever; you will be abandoned forever.” By staying on the same note, it is as though Mozart is portraying her self-assurance and steadfastness. She then moves up to a G, again, occasionally dropping menacingly to the G below, and reasserts these consequences: “Disowned, abandoned, and destroyed.” Then come four measures of eighth-note triplets with a frighteningly calm pulsation of strings to accompany it. The effect is delightfully eerie.

The song ends flawlessly and frightfully. The pace of the song slows as the Queen summons deities of vengeance to “hear,” and this word is repeated three times, just the vocals initially, but immediately followed by an orchestral cord. The first “hear” occurs on a D; the second on an F natural; Mozart has fooled us into thinking that the Queen will complete the triad with an A. However, the Queen should not be underestimated, and she rises instead an eerie half-step above where one would expect, to a B flat, reminding us of her unpredictable rage. The cords are powerful here as she finishes her song, “Hear, gods of revenge, hear, a mother’s vow!” After she finishes, a flurry of notes precede three final cords which strike the perfect tone; not too bombastic or triumphant, but there is a clear finality that reflects her vengeance and her vow.

For a song by a villain about revenge, this piece is a dynamic treat. However, I would be careful of which version of this aria you listen to. You can find this song on collections of famous arias or of popular operatic works, but it is sometimes performed very blandly. For my taste, the most lively and fiery version of “Der Holle Rache” is off of the album “Mozart, Famous Opera Arias,” published by Teldek in 1995. This may now be a difficult album to find, but if you can get it, it is a great collection, and worth the price just to have that rendition of this aria (the version of “Martern Aller Arten” from The Abduction from the Seraglio is a terrific and well-performed aria on this album, also!).

“Der Holle Rache” is one of those songs in which listening to it is fun and impressive, but studying it is a delight. It is Mozart at his finest, and it gives any soprano who can handle it an opportunity to show off her pipes!

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: Action Versus Distraction

I happened to be doing a word study on the Greek word pneuma recently. This is the word that means “wind” or “spirit” in the New Testament. It is used to identify the “Holy Spirit,” though sometimes pneuma just refers to a person’s spirit, or it is used in reference to some kind of consequence (Isaiah 4:4; Romans 8:5) or quality (Isaiah 28:6; 1 Cor 4:21; 2 Tim 1:7).

I’m always fascinated by the distribution of words, that is, where they are found in the Bible, and where they do not occur. Yes, I know that I need to get out more and find an interesting hobby. But word distribution in the Bible can yield some compelling results, nonetheless.

For instance, I was looking at the use of pneuma in Romans. The Holy Spirit is only referred to four times in Romans 1-7, but about 26 times in the rest of the book. In fact, the Holy Spirit is mentioned more frequently in Romans 8 (14 times) than in any other chapter of the NT. Romans 8 is, of course, a pivotal moment in Romans where Paul begins to explain the role of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s spiritual life and growth.

I was also struck by the fact that while the Holy Spirit is mentioned so often in Acts, He is mentioned less and less as the book proceeds. In fact, the third Person of the Holy Trinity is mentioned in Acts 21:11, and then again one last time in Acts 28:25. (The word pneuma is used in both Acts 23:8 and 9, but these are not referring to the Holy Spirit.) And even this last mention of the Holy Spirit in Acts 28:25 does not depict Him doing something dramatic and miraculous; rather it is just a reference to a prophecy that He inspired Isaiah to write.

A while ago in this series, we featured an article called “The Taper Caper.” In that March 2016 article, we set out to demonstrate that the tapering or diminishing use of sign gifts is evident even within the NT itself. For instance, the book of Acts gives a great deal of attention to tongues, signs, and miracles in the first half of the book. But then there is a clear decrease of attention given to them in the second half of the book. As just one example, the word “signs” (semion in Greek), as in “signs and wonders,” is used eleven times in Acts 1-8, the word occurs twice in the middle of the book (Acts 14:3; 15:12), and then does not occur again in the rest of the book.

Are the stories that much less dramatic in the last half of the book of Acts? Great things are being done by and through the apostles, but there are less miracles, healings and no references to speaking in tongues. And again, there are very few mentions of the Holy Spirit in the last third of the book. Could this provide a clue supporting the tapering of the sign gifts and miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, too?

It is important to mention here a few preliminaries that we have discussed before: nobody denies that the Holy Spirit exists nor that the Holy Spirit is meaningfully working among believers today. Nor is it fair to assert that non-charismatics believe that the Holy Spirit isn’t continuing to provide spiritual gifts to the church even at this time (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4, 11; 1 Pet 4:10-11). Cessationism merely suggests that the dramatic sign gifts (tongues, miracles, and healings) are no longer available today. But again, this doesn’t mean that God can’t provide miracles or doesn’t heal people today; that would be silly to assert. Rather, a cessationist would affirm that God continues to heal people today, but through unmediated means, rather than through someone with the gift of healing. Of course, anecdotal “evidence” for one side or the other abounds. But our basis of faith and doctrine is Scripture, rather than experiences, which can be subjective, deceptive, contradictory, and variously interpreted.

As a result of doing my own study, I’ve probably drifted slightly closer to the center on this issue; not that I am more charismatic, but I am less dogmatic about being a cessationist. I don’t see the continuationist position as more Biblical, but I just recognize that there may be some theological overcompensation in our cessationist arguments and that some cessationists may be reading too much into certain verses or suggesting that certain verses mean more than they do theologically.

But in addition to other evidences for cessationism that we have provided in this series, for many of us on the cessationist side, the issue is a concern for distraction. I am sometimes concerned that my own conservative Baptistic and dispensational upbringing spent too much time on eschatological graphs and charts, and not enough time obeying the moral and ethical directives even in those eschatology-oriented books like Daniel and Revelation.

Similarly, I think that the charismatic movement is full of distractions that take away from the exposition of and obedience to God’s Word. Many services in charismatic churches are orderly and substantive, but in many, there is chaos and deceit. Many Christians are gullible, and they yearn to have some supernatural experience rather than to just be content during these times with quiet, rational, experiences as they interact spiritually and cognitively with the Scriptures. Jesus even said of those in His own day that “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign” (Matthew 12:39; see also Matt 16:4). If Christians today similarly desire signs, then what does that imply about us?

At some point, a theological issue becomes a distraction, and it diverts our attention from the mission that the church has during this age. Paul urges Timothy to instruct believers in Ephesus who had become distracted and consumed by non-important religious issues (1 Tim 1:3-4); they were focused on “strange doctrines,” “myths and endless genealogies” rather than “furthering the administration of God” or, as the NIV puts it, doing “God’s work” (see also Titus 1:14 and 3:9). If a Biblical or theological issue takes disproportionate attention from learning and obeying God’s Word, then it may lead many into that same kind of error.

There should be order and structure in individual church services, not chaos (1 Cor 14:33, 40); unfortunately, many – not all, but many – charismatic services feature the distraction of theatrics and experiences, rather than focusing on the action of preaching and teaching God’s Word. Structure and order in worship services need not quench the work of the Spirit, but rather, He can work through the planning of well-ordered services and carefully prepared messages that strive to draw attention to the substance of our faith and the rich proclamation of the Word of Christ (Col 3:16; see also Rom 10:17; Col 1:28).

In Christendom more generally, there should also be order. It is unfortunate that so many non-essential theological issues have caused such deep divides among Christians. Perhaps we should spend less time emphasizing those which divide, like eschatology, social issues, and sign gifts, and spend more time proclaiming those truths which unite and define us as Christians.

I am not trying to suggest that charismatics should just give up on their convictions. I am just asserting that perhaps more Christians, charismatics and non-charismatics, should emphasize obedience and Christian action, like purity, spiritual maturity, evangelism and discipleship. More to the point, I think that charismatics and continuationists create more disruption and distraction by emphasizing a point which so deeply divides Christians. That focus on a non-essential issue may be obscuring the gospel and minimizing the obedience of God’s people to God’s Word rather than enhancing it.

This is a time, perhaps more than any other, where we should embrace Christian action and be careful to avoid theological distraction.

CHURCH: Please Don’t Plant Another Church Here!

I received a call in my office from someone who was looking for rental space in our area. It was an individual who wanted to plant a church, and just wanted a room or two. They must have known that we were a church and they were just blitzing through the phone book or Google looking for some available space to rent.

But in a moment of unusual chutzpah, I jumped in and kindly but firmly asked this gentleman if he would please not plant a church in our area. The city where I minister and interact with other believers and pastors is an area that is already saturated with churches. I know that because over the last several years I have helped maintain a database of area churches.

In fact, the first time I did an online search for churches in this area, I was surprised how many churches there were. Seeing them laid out on a map was amazing. I would then drive around the area and find dozens more churches that weren’t listed online. Of course, many of these are small churches, and if the outside of the church building is any reflection of the spiritual state of people on the inside, I think that most of these churches are already on the raggedy edge of near-deceased.

And then this guy calls me on the phone wanting to plant yet another church in this area. Ugh!

The problem with these dozens of small churches, too, is that it is hard to focus on your mission as a church, and specifically on the Great Commission, if you’re just trying to keep your head above water financially and in terms of weekly attendance. We are fortunate, in that our church is small, but relatively stable in terms of attendance. However, it’s still tough.

And, many small churches in our area are renting facilities. Of course, having your own church building brings its own set of expenses and drawbacks. However, I also know from experience how much more difficult it is to do ministry when you don’t have your own facilities than it is when you do.

I have seen many church planters come and go in this area. My contention with these individuals here is that we don’t need more churches, we need more effective churches. In fact, I suspect that it would make more of our churches more effective if we had less churches.

I have asked people like this gentleman who called me to not plant another church in this area. It is not even that I feel threatened that half of the people in our church will leave and start attending a new plant. It’s just that our area here in Northeast Atlanta is littered with small struggling churches, and we don’t need any more coming into the area.

What I would really like is to see more of these smaller churches cooperate together in a variety of ways. They could pass out tracks and evangelize, promoting both churches and allowing people to pick one or the other. They could cooperate together to hold teen activities, VBS’s, or to help the homeless or needy, and we have done some of this in our area.

Here’s another example: For the two consecutive years before the pandemic, we had several small churches gather together for a Good Friday service, and each pastor was given five (or ten!) minutes to address one of Jesus’ “Seven Last Sayings” from the Gospels. This kind of cross-denominational and cross-ethnic event has been invaluable. We don’t need more churches in this area; we need more churches in this area to participate in these kinds of inter-church activities.

Also, I am a huge advocate of church merges. However, I have also come to appreciate how hard church merges are. There is resistance and doubts by people on one side, or the other side, or inside or outside, or on every side. Many believers circle the wagons and don’t appreciate the long-term benefits of a merge. Our church has begun the merge process with four churches, and they have all failed for one reason or another.

When this man called, I listened politely and then simply asked him to please not plant another church here. He said that he appreciated my honesty about the situation in our area, but he was clearly disappointed that he had called me. He countered that he was tied to a specific ethnicity, and I noted that there were already several churches of that ethnicity in this area.

I’m sure that many people who plant churches do so with the best of intentions, and they believe that God is leading them in that direction. However, I have also noted that many church plants are really just the extension of an individual’s ego. It takes a lot more humility to partner with an existing church in order to make that church more effective for God’s kingdom. Of course, this isn’t what someone with a huge pastor’s ego wants to hear. Also, it’s a lot easier to just plant a church than to actually get a position on staff at a church and work under the authority of another pastor.

Or, if you want to plant a church, at least study the target area to know if there is a genuine need there or if it is a church-saturated area. If you are passionate about planting a church, then plant it somewhere else. If you are genuinely concerned about the target area, but that area is already saturated, then pick one of the churches, and help them improve and grow.

But I can speak for the churches in the area where I work, in the city where I live, and in most other places where I have worked and lived in the past: Please don’t plant another church here! Have the humility to partner with and serve existing churches. Have the wisdom to know that it is better to help a struggling but established church than to do the work of starting an entirely new church from scratch. Help the churches and believers that are already in that area.

And if you don’t want to do that, then you should go find an area where there aren’t too many churches, and where there is a legitimate and genuine need for a new God-honoring, Bible-teaching church. But this is not that place; so either help us or take off!

MOVIES/ TV: Things They Did Right and Things They Did Wrong With Our Favorite Star Wars Characters

*** Spoiler Alert: The following article contains spoilers for several of the Star Wars films. ***

We’re still grousing about the Star Wars sequel trilogy (episodes VII, VIII and IX). We’ve gone over the pros and cons of each in previous articles (you can some of them in the list here).

In this article, we’re going to note some things that the sequel series did right with the original three characters (Luke, Leia, and Han) and some things they did wrong with them. In some cases, the trajectory of the character was fitting. In other cases, the writers and directors clearly mismanaged some of our most beloved characters.

Right: Killing Han

While I didn’t like this moment, as I’ve said before, I greatly respected this move to kill off one of the original three in the The Force Awakens, the first sequel film. By this point, Han’s character arc had somewhat come to an end, and his death at the hand of his son Ben meant so much more to that character’s development than anything else the trilogy could have done with Han.

Wrong: Killing Han, Luke and Leia So, we lost Han in the first film, though we got a bit more Han in Ben’s mind in the third installment. But to kill off each of the original three in each of the sequel films was dumb and unnecessary. While what Luke did at the end of The Last Jedi was awesome, it doesn’t seem right that this strain would need to kill him. And then, because of Carrie Fisher’s death, they added a tribute to her character’s death in the third film. Again, it was OK that they killed off Han in the first film. But killing one of the original three in these three movies was just too much for us emotionally-fragile sci-fi fans.

Like Theology?

We like theology, too! It’s kind of one of our specialties! You can find a whole host of topics and articles of the theological variety in our “Eclectic Archive,” which you can access here.

Right: Han and Leia Divorced

I actually though that this was a nice touch for a relationship between a spoiled princess and a self-avowed scoundrel; the relationship was bound for failure and to not work out in the long-run. They had shared in many adventures, their relationship was inevitable by the end of Return of the Jedi, and they even had a kid; but nobody thought that they could change enough for this relationship to survive. Their split is an interesting bit of reality – actual reality, not political agenda – inserted into these films. I liked that there was some very real tension between them, but they could both admit that they had some good times together.

Wrong: Luke’s Despair

Luke throwing the lightsaber over his shoulder in the beginning of The Last Jedi, was a great gag in the short term, but was a terrible trajectory for the reintroduction of one of our most beloved fictional characters ever. Of course, we all laughed, but then we realized that this symbolized that Luke was tossing the Jedi order behind him; however, it also represented that the writers were disregarding the Jedi order, and frankly, disregarding the fans, as well.

The history and mystery of the Jedi are some of the most dominant and distinguishing elements of this franchise, and should not have been thrown out so glibly, literally and metaphorically. It is unfortunate that things did not work out well as Luke was training Ben, and one can imagine that he has certain feelings about that. However, it does not seem to make sense that he would subsequently become so antagonistic to everything Jedi; Obi-wan had perhaps more reason to feel the sting of losing a pupil, and most of his colleagues, as well; but he didn’t freak out and abandon the entire thing. We all wanted to watch a sequel that revived the Jedi order, even if Luke only raised four or five followers to take the franchise into the future. Instead, we saw one of the last Jedi express his contempt for the Jedi order, and simultaneously, we felt the disregard and contempt that the writers and producers have for us as fans.

Wrong: Inconsistent Princess

I really liked how they portrayed Leia in The Force Awakens; she was a military figure, tough, and a bit cranky, embittered by losses and difficulties. She was more of a general than a Jedi; in fact, there was no hint at all that she pursued the Jedi way after the original trilogy. But then in the second sequel film, she’s in some kind of fashion-diva royalty outfit, slapping her best pilots around, surviving an explosion and floating through space; it was simply too hard to take her seriously at all. The shift from respected general to quasi-Jedi diva just didn’t sit well with fans.

Right: Finding Balance

Perhaps one of the more brilliant and underappreciated aspects of the Star Wars universe is how the Force loves balance and always strives to achieve it. By the end of the prequel series, all the Jedi have been killed except for two, Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi, and there are also two Sith, Darth Sidious and Darth Vader. As it turns out, Vader did bring balance to the force (we come to find out in other media that there are more Jedi than Yoda and Obi-Wan, but I’m not counting them!). Then you have a really clever twist in The Last Jedi when the most powerful individuals on both sides of the force, Snoke and Luke, both die, allowing their apprentices, Kylo and Rey, to fill in that void. That was a clever move in a trilogy that was notoriously lacking in clever plot.

So what else do you think that the sequel trilogy got right and wrong about Luke, Han and Leia? Send your thoughts and ideas to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish them anonymously in a future edition.

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 6, Worship is Private and Public

This article was originally presented in the March 2019 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

We have been exploring the different dimensions of worship in Scripture, and considering the need to achieve balance between different extremes. Biblical worship balances attention to the Father and to the Son, strives to find healthy equilibrium between too much emotionalism and too little, and recognizes that worship is both a corporate liturgy and an individual lifestyle.

In this installment of “Dimensions of Worship” we build off that balance between corporate and individual to show how worship can be both private and public.

Private worship experiences abound throughout the Psalms. Many are dominated by an individual expressing personal praise to God (See, for instance, Pss 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 101, 102, 108, 109, 116, 119, 130.). Accusations that contemporary worship music (hereafter “CWM”) is too individualistic because it frequently employs first person singular pronouns are indefensible considering that “I” and “me” are utilized so often in the Psalms. Often the Psalmist is alone, for one reason or another, and therefore, “I” and “me” pervade the Psalm. And the precedent of individualistic worship is valid even though worship in the OT was usually focused on corporate gatherings at the Temple.

However, the individual, subjective element can certainly be taken too far. I usually wouldn’t quote Emergent author Brian McLaren favorably, but I did appreciate his comments back in 2001 in “An Open Letter to Worship Songwriters”: “Too many of our [CWM’s] lyrics are embarrassingly personal, about Jesus and me. . . . It’s about how Jesus forgives me, embraces me, makes me feel His presence, strengthens me, forgives me, holds me close, touches me and revives me” (Brian McLaren, “An Open Letter to Worship Songwriters,” Worship Leader 10, no. 1 [January/ February 2001]: 44-45). He asserts that this kind of Christian worship is “almost spiritually narcissistic” (p. 43).

Western individualism makes it easy to fall into this narcissistic trap. For example, mega-pastor Rick Warren claims that “Worship is your personal expression of love for God” (Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission [1995], 284-285). However, worship must not be equated with personal preference (Deut 12:8; Judg 17:6; 21:25), and a worship philosophy that makes the individual the standard for worship must be emphatically rejected.

The validity of individual worship is balanced by many Psalms that portray the corporate worship experiences of the believing community (see, for instance, Pss 44, 48, 60, 65, 74, 79, 80, 85, 90, 103, 115, 123, 126). In Paul’s references to corporate worship meetings, he asserts that the purpose both of public gatherings and of every element of the service is for edification (1 Cor 14:26). The Apostle teaches in Ephesians 5:18-20 and Colossians 3:16 that, as in the OT, worship in a corporate setting must have edification as a high priority. “The worshiper gains increasing understanding of God’s person and truth because proper worship teaches theology” (Kenneth O. Gangel, “Reexamining Biblical Worship,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 566 [April – June 1985]: 166).

As stated previously, the element of human education is not mutually exclusive with divine adoration. Nor is such education merely “intellectual,” but it is emotional and volitional as well. “When the singing of the church is a manifestation of the rich dwelling of the word of Christ, that singing will admonish as well as instruct” (Frank Griffith, “The Role of Singing in the Life and Worship of the Church,” Reformation & Revival 4, no. 4 [Fall 1995]: 45). He goes on to suggest that “Much of what passes for ‘Christian music’ neither instructs nor admonishes” (p. 46).

The value of community also lies in accountability. There is an ever-present propensity for people to be carried away into false worship (Deut 4:19; 4; 28; 13:2, 6, 13; see also Acts 10:25; Rev 13:12; Rev 19:10, 20; 22:8), because false worship is more natural to the fallen human heart than is true worship (Jer 13:10). Paul refers in Romans 1:21 to those who do not honor and worship God; he demonstrates that the degeneration of mankind into its various evil practices stems from the decision to worship the creature rather than the Creator (v. 23-32). The community of believers, therefore, is instructed to be careful and vigilant to avoid false worship (Deut 11:16; 13:1-11; 29:18; 2 Kings 17:37).

Balanced worship has an identity forming and identity preserving effect on both the individual believer and on the Christian community that helps us maintain distinction from the world. “Corporate worship . . . is the Church’s perennial defense against enculturation. The societal ethos of consumerism, the secular reduction of a person to an economic entity, and the cultural repudiation of mystery are all confronted by the alternative Christian vision of life sustained by worship” (Paul H. Jones, “We Are How We Worship: Corporate Worship as a Matrix for Christian Identity Formation,” Worship 69 [4], July 1995: 360).

In western culture, it is progressively more important to place community health above individual inclination. When a worship method, or a style of music that is used in worship is determined on the basis of the sensation that it evokes from the worshiper, whether this be a chorus that plays on the emotions of the congregation, or a gospel hymn that fills the singer with nostalgia, then this determination, or criteria, must be seen as anthropolatry, or a worship of the human creature rather than the immortal Creator.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: A Race We Are Losing

Let’s face it: when it comes to issues about race in our country, this is a race that we are losing. As with many other issues in our country now, there is a severe shortage of listening and a detrimental lack of grace and compassion. We are facing hurdles of ill-defined words and concepts and unhelpful vilification of our opponents. The finish line keeps moving and some of us are getting tired of running with no end in sight.

In this article, I want to point out some things about race discussions that are causing us to lose this race rather than run it well.

Again, we are plagued by poor definitions, making interaction nearly impossible. The most ill-defined term in issues relative to racism is the term “racism.” Racism doesn’t just mean that one person doesn’t like another person because of the color of their skin or because of their ethnic heritage; I believe that there is much less of this kind of antagonism now in this country than there has been in the past or than we are being led to believe. And most kinds of humor that reflect race or ethnicity are also not racist. Ethnic humor may be inaccurate, caricatured, over generalized, it may even be tasteless or mean. However, it is usually not racist.

True racism is asserting the fundamental superiority of one ethnicity or skin-color over another, or the inherent inferiority of one people group relative to others. The assertion that one group of people is inherently better or worse than others rarely actually happens, expect by the most radical fringe groups who, by definition, do not represent many people.

“Race” is another poorly defined term, and this lack of clarity shrouds the false notion that there are many different races. Actually, there is one that we are a part of, namely the human race. Maybe we should stop talking about the different races when there is, in fact, only one true race.

Given these corrections, we should also be careful about throwing around the label “racist.” We should, of course, try to think the best of someone before we automatically demonize them for some superficial reason or another; we were kinder in that regard in times past. But aside from that, most people do not fundamentally believe that their ethnicity, or “race,” is superior to another or that one is inferior to all others.

Another cheap thing about calling someone a racist is that having done so, you then don’t need to actually debate them and come up with your own persuasive arguments. Calling someone a racist today is an express trip to winning a discussion without needing to have the discussion; after all, why bother arguing with a racist? You win!

Another problem is that race issues depict some groups as experiencing a disproportionately-high amount of difficulties relative to other groups. Of course, black Americans have endured and are continuing to face many challenges. However, there are other difficulties that people go through that perhaps don’t get the attention that they should because they are eclipsed by our national obsession with race. All people of all backgrounds and socio-economic levels deal with bigotry, bullying, and discrimination, as well as physical, emotional and psychological obstacles. However, these legitimate difficulties tend to get marginalized relative to issues related to race.

There are some other arguments that we should retire from debates about race today. The notion that someone cannot address race issues because they are white is absurd. The statistics and data are the same whether I am white, black, Hispanic, Ugandan or Cambodian. The notion that someone’s opinion is more legitimate than others is dangerous and completely undermines free speech and common sense.

Similarly, I wonder about people who talk about the “black experience.” This seems to be a way of placing all black people into a single category, as though their lives and beliefs are identical to each other. I understand that the experience of many black people is very different from mine, and yet, the experience of many black people is quite similar to mine. And, we don’t talk about a “Korean experience” or an “Irish experience” that many people from those countries have had to endure. We don’t because we would sound silly, as though every person from those backgrounds have had identical experiences. Why then do we buy the lie of a “black experience”? Why do we treat black people as though they all think alike, act alike, and vote alike? Isn’t this talk of a monolithic “black experience” inherently racist and degrading? How about we treat African-Americans, and treat all people, as though they are individuals, not cattle and not a convenient voting block for one party or the other. Someone may be black, Korean, or Irish, but we treat them like a person with unique gifts and strengths, unique interests, and as an individual who has had unique experiences.

One more pet peeve before we conclude. I was at a meeting with a group of other pastors recently. In our area we have a racially diverse group of pastors who not only respect each other professionally, but have also developed great friendships. We’re close enough that we tease each other rather liberally, but I wonder if sometimes we go too far. One pastor referred to another pastor using the “n” word. No, not that “n” word, the one usually reserved only for whites: Nazis.

It was a joke; however, to anyone who is vaguely familiar with World War II, it was a tasteless joke. But this “n” word is really quite offensive for another reason. Nazism is an ideology with historical roots and specific sets of assumptions and prejudices. Thus, it is a worldview, a philosophy, and an ideology to which one subscribes willingly. Using a different n-word for an African-American person is wrong, but it points to something about them that they cannot change, specifically the color of their skin. This is, of course, as dumb as making fun of someone because they are short; it is something about themselves that they cannot change. However, to call someone a Nazi doesn’t just point to a quality about someone that they can’t change, again like skin color or height, but something that he or she does have control over, mainly, a willingness to adhere to an evil and genocidal ideology.

It just strikes me as odd that we still use this word to casually joke about some people who wanted to create a master race. With all the other things that are being canceled now, I just don’t believe that making jokes using either ‘n’ word is helpful to race discussions today.

There are, of course, many other wrong ways of stewarding this discussion about race that is causing us to lose this cultural race for fairness and equality. We will deal with more of these in a follow-up article in a future edition.

ROMANS: Saved from Wrath, Romans 5:9-11

Sometimes you don’t even know that you have a serious problem: a pipe in the wall that is about to bust, or a problem with our car that will soon render it inoperative.

Humanity has a problem far more serious than these, specifically, the problem of the deserved wrath of God. God is justifiably angry with the multitude of sins of people on earth, and His holiness compels Him to judge. While we are quick to talk about the love of God, we usually avoid talking about God’s justice, anger and wrath; we fail to appreciate that these are as foundational to His character as God’s love is.

Of course, Jesse Hornok has provided a great series here in The Eclectic Kasper on the wrath of God (you can access those articles in our “Eclectic Archive” here). But here in our verse-by-verse treatment of Romans, we encounter a few verses that refer to the wrath of God. There is only one way to avoid the wrath of God that we all deserve, and that is through trusting in Christ as our Savior. In Romans 5, Paul has discussed several benefits of being justified, or receiving through faith the righteousness of Christ. Some of those benefits include peace with God (Romans 5:1), and love from God (vv. 5, 8). Being saved by Christ also preserves us from the wrath of God, as Paul discusses in Romans 5:9-11.

Verse 9 begins with the phrase “how much more,” which signals the logical extension of an argument; this phrase is used elsewhere to the same effect (Matt 6:30; 1 Cor 12:22; 2 Cor 3:9, 11; Phil 2:12). Paul uses this phrase four times in this passage in vv. 9, 10, 15, and 17.

The heart of this verse seems to be the different tenses that it presents. “Having been justified now” is a guarantee of the fact that we “will be saved” in the future. We have been justified by Christ’s blood through His death (v. 8). The mention of Christ’s blood in v. 9 refers both to the literal shedding of His blood, but also refers to the totality of the cross event – including the torture, beating, thorns, suffering, crucifixion, death and then resurrection. Mention of “blood” also reflects how Jesus’ sacrifice fulfills the expectations of Levitical law (Heb 9:15, 26; 10:10-14).

The role of Christ’s spilt blood is pointed out frequently in NT epistolary literature. Here in Romans 5:9 Paul says that we are “justified by His blood.” Our forgiveness is procured by the shedding of Christ’s blood (Heb 9:22); more specifically, God has “released us from our sins by His [Christ’s] blood” (Rev 1:5). Other verses point to the significance of the shedding of Christ’s blood for our sake (Rom 3:25; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7). Here in Rom 5:9, another benefit of Christ’s sacrificial shed blood is that we can also be delivered from God’s wrath, which we as sinners completely deserve.

Verse 10 elaborates on this and we could almost rephrase it in the following way: if we were reconciled by Christ’s death while we were God’s enemies, then we can be certain that we will be saved by Christ’s life and resurrection.

In order for the second half of the verse to work, Paul’s audience needs to understand the magnitude of the first half. That first phrase reminds us that while we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to God by God, specifically through the death of Christ. The word katallasso means “to reconcile to” or “to restore relationship with.” Romans 3 is clear that all individuals are enemies of God from the day we are born. But humanity was created to have a right relationship with God in Eden; this was ruined by human sin, but can now be restored through Christ’s work of reconciliation and restoration.

Paul’s emphasis here is that Christ accomplished this reconciliation by the act of His death. Paul makes another “how much more” argument and the contrast is two-fold: the first element is that if God reconciled people when we were enemies, how much more certain can we be that He will save those who have been reconciled. The other contrast is that if Christ accomplished reconciliation with enemies by His one-time death, how much more effectively can He guarantee the salvation of reconciled people with His ongoing, resurrected life.

Christ has provided the only way by which sinful humans can be placed in right relationship with God and spared from God’s wrath; Christ’s effective work in the past assures the believer of our complete salvation and glorification in the future.

Paul continues in v. 11 to talk about how great the promise of salvation is and how believers can rejoice in it despite difficulties and obstacles. This passage is a list of escalating wonders and benefits of our salvation, including the ability to rejoice in tribulation (v. 3), to have hope that does not disappoint (v. 5), to have God sacrifice for our salvation despite the fact that we were enemies of His (vv. 6-8), to be preserved from deserved wrath (v. 9), and to be reconciled and saved (v. 10).

Also, this is the second time that the passage has used the phrase “but not only this.” The first time in v. 3, Paul argued that we can “rejoice” or “boast” in our trials. Here in v. 11, he says that we can “rejoice” or “boast” in God and in Christ. Of course, we rejoice in difficulties for secondary reasons, which he explains in vv. 3-5, namely, because of the character and godliness that these difficulties encourage in our lives. But we can exult and boast in God not just for secondary reasons, but also because God and Christ are directly responsible for providing salvation, sanctification, and glorification to the believer.

We have heard the word “saved” before, but Paul is here clarifying all the things that we are saved from. Perhaps people want to be saved to live a better life or to feel better about themselves.

Many do not even realize the threat that they live under, specifically, the threat of God’s wrath being poured out on humankind. There is only one way to be saved and to escape God’s wrath, and that is through the salvation provided by trusting that Jesus Christ died a sacrificial death for our sins and then supernaturally and literally rose from the dead. By trusting in Christ’s death and resurrection we can be forgiven, saved from God’s wrath, and given the privilege of sharing eternal life with Him forever.

Romans 5:9-11

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.