NOVEMBER 2014

First, we would love to have you give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like.”  You do not even have to agree with all of our articles to “like” us on Facebook; if you enjoy free speech or the exchange of ideas, give us a “like” and post your thoughts, reactions and feedback on the FB page.   

 We often send out regular e-mail notifications when new editions of The Eclectic Kasper are released.  To be placed on that notification list please send your e-mail address to feedback@eclectickasper.com with the word “subscribe” (and we promise that your e-mail will only be used for The Eclectic Kasper notifications).

Also, you can send in your thoughts, praises or criticisms about any of our articles, both in this edition or in past editions to feedback@eclectickasper.com.  You can access previous editions of our little web journal using the sidebar on the left.  We would love to have your feedback which we usually include in subsequent editions.  

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: Putting Christ Above Crisis

    Do Christians regularly deny association with Christ and routinely marginalize our faith in moments of crisis, social pressure, and temptation?

    Recently, I had the opportunity to teach through Luke 22:54-62, which records one of the best-known and also most heartbreaking stories in the Bible.  It vividly portrays Peter’s denial of association with or knowledge of Christ while Jesus endured mock trials, beatings and insults. 

    Though initially unsure of what “new” information I could present about such a familiar story, I soon found myself plummeting into layers of emotions, culture, and struggles the more I investigated Luke’s account of Peter’s denial of Jesus. 

    Having done so much work on this episode, or pericope, I decided to turn this message into a series of articles, simply called, “Distance and Denial.”  I don’t expect this to be the happiest and most uplifting series that you will read in The Eclectic Kasper, but I can guarantee that you will see this story in far greater depth than you probably ever have.  Hopefully it will challenge your own thinking about how frequently many believers today deny their faith in even small ways by failing to apply truth and doctrine in their life and relationships.

    On the Friday morning before I was to preach these messages I received some bad news; it wasn’t horrible, just a car repair bill that was higher – far higher – than I had anticipated.  We’ve all been there; there is denial, panic, anger, and then more panic, whole layers emotions that flash through our consciousness in mere moments. 

    Of course, this was not a situation where I audibly or publicly denied my faith in Christ.  I did not raise an angry fist to the heavens or cry out dramatically “Why, Lord, why?”  This repair bill did not tempt me to throw my faith out the window.

    However, in a far more subtle, and thus, more dangerous, way, I found myself tempted to deny my theological presuppositions even for a moment; to deny the sovereignty of God, the gracious provision of Christ, and the strengthening of the Holy Spirit in times of crisis and difficulty.  I was tempted to react based not on truth, but based on emotions, in fear, anxiety, anger, or, in short, in ways that were more reflective of a pre-conversion mindset than of the mindset of one trying to follow and serve Christ. 

    While I did not publicly deny my Lord or in any way abandon my faith, I found myself tempted to deny the Lordship of Christ in my actions, in my speech, and in my mentality.

    But I didn’t.  Perhaps since I had been living under the shadow of this passage in Luke 22:54-62 for several weeks, I thought about Peter’s temptation to deny his association with Christ, and I considered my own temptation to deny Christ’s Lordship even for a moment.  I contemplated how denial begins in the mind, the decision to put self before God, or to put crisis above Christ.  This passage tempered my carnal mentality and caused me to bring my need before God sooner than I may have otherwise.  For all the times I have denied Christ’s Lordship in my mind, I found myself turning to Him in this particular instance, and putting Christ above my crisis.

    Peter’s denial stands forever as a sobering reminder that any of us could deny the Savior, and disavow our knowledge of Him in a given situation.  We all can – and do – slip into pre-conversion or pre-discipleship ways of thinking rather than immediately turning to the Savior for aid, guidance and provision.

    The danger, however, is not just the one slip, but the threat that one instance of slipping away from Christ’s Lordship in our lives becomes a pattern, and that pattern becomes a habit, and that habit of denial and distancing ourselves from the Savior becomes a lifestyle. 

    We are always one circumstance away from minimizing our loyalty to Christ.  We would like to think that we are better than the disciples, but the truth is, I see a lot of my own foolish disciple-hood in these foolish disciples. 

    With that in mind, I want to spend a few articles investigating this episode of Peter’s denial in great depth, beginning with “The Importance of Proximity” a few articles below.  I want us to approach the text with fresh eyes; our familiarity with the story should not lull us into a stupor where we miss important details and applications for our own lives.  Hopefully, as a result we can recognize and renounce our own subtle devices for denying God’s sovereignty, and be more intentional in putting Christ above crisis.  

POLITICS: Lessons from the Mid-terms

    We here at The Eclectic Kasper do not gloat.  We are good winners and good losers.  When the Republicans secured impressive mid-term wins in 2010, we didn’t just celebrate with abandon, but we published an article about “Holding Their Feet . . . To the Fire” (note that this was in our inaugural January 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper).  When Obama won the White House again in 2012 we didn’t sink in despair, but rather, we published an article called “The Bright Side of Getting Your Buns Kicked” in the November/ December 2012 edition.  In that article we used some objective metrics to assess the election results and recognize that the situation wasn’t as bad as it initially seemed. 

    So here again, to gloat that conservatives have “won” in this last mid-term election may be premature.  We should be glad for the results, but we should also recognize some important, and in many cases, sobering lessons from the mid-terms.

    First, let’s recap what actually happened in the mid-terms.  In these elections, the GOP gained eight seats in the senate, and ten seats in the house (these numbers may go up in the next few weeks as more races are finalized).  I have heard that this represents the highest amount of Republicans in the US Congress since before World War II.  The Republicans gained two governorships while the Dems lost three; there are now 31 GOP governors to the Dem’s 18.  In fact, the republican shift at the state level is very revealing: there are about 24 states that have GOP control of both the state legislatures and the governorship, as opposed to about seven for the Dems.  Real Clear Politics reports that because of the 2014 elections, Republicans control “68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party” (see article here).  Those are the facts.  Whether this is a win, a wave, a walloping, or whatever, these are simply the facts; interpret them as you choose.

    With those facts laid out and with a few weeks perspective, here are some lessons that we can cull from the 2014 mid-term elections. 

    Work not done.  Tremendous amounts of money and work went into these elections on both sides.  Both sides labored hard and even pulled out some Clintons, Bushes and other throw-backs to help with the efforts.  But winning an election is a means, not an end.  The goal must be to slow-down economic, social and cultural decay; our new GOP leaders must right this American ship away from socialism and redistributive government and return back to a conservative model that emphasizes free-enterprise, individual and state liberties and American exceptionalism.  The job is not over for the newly-elected Republican leaders; they have to continue to work hard and do what they were elected to do. 

    Not a “Work-Together” Vote.  It has been amazing to hear democrats interpret these elections to mean that the country wants republicans and democrats to work together.  This is ridiculous on its face; if the nation wanted the GOP and Dems to work together, then they would have voted in more democrats!  The message is clear: stop Obama, and turn the country in the right direction.  The voters are not as afraid of Washington deadlock as liberal pundits say; many people like Washington deadlock!  It means that radical agendas are being stopped appropriately and that cultural decay is being slowed.  Voters do not want compromise; they have given conservatives a chance at the state and federal levels to minimize Obama’s overreach and to make decisions that will improve our economy, our business climate and our national security.  Republicans need to seize that opportunity and not misinterpret what this election meant.    

    The Proving Timeframe.  I have heard several conservative pundits suggest that the GOP has two years to prove itself; to pass legislation, make changes, and prepare for the 2016 elections.  This is naïve, short-sighted, unrealistic, and frankly, this is part of the reason why Republicans don’t do better in elections.  Here is the reality for Republicans in Washington: YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS!  Yes, sorry, for the “all caps,” but I believe that this message is that important.  Republicans have a mere half year before the nation makes decisions about whether they are leading well or not.

    Here’s an analogy: most individuals and families that visit a church almost completely make up their mind as to whether they will come back to that church within the first two or three minutes.  The sermon may be great, the worship may be substantive and engaging, but by the time they get to the worship and the sermon, it is often too late.  The decision is weighted by early impressions: Is the church clean?  Are they greeted warmly?  Are the facilities accommodating?  Does it “feel” right?  Eighty to ninety percent of the decision process occurs within those first few minutes, and then everything that happens after that either inches them away from that initial reaction or simply confirms it. 

    I believe that the same is true with the American voters.  This GOP “wave” will turn into a ripple if there is not decisive legislative action soon.  It does not matter if every bill that gets sent to the White House is vetoed; that will only make Obama look like he is the one interfering with progress.  The Republicans have only six months to prove that they were worthy of being voted into office and to provide a positive vision and agenda for the country.

    A Concise Plan: There is not enough concurrence by Republicans around central conservative issues, such as fiscal responsibility, states’ rights, and national security.  Conservative candidates simply have not put forward visionary plans, such as the Contract with America in 1994 or our “Plain” Plan that we introduced in the September 2014 edition.  The problem of not having a plan is that conservatives are then judged on assumptions and speculations rather than on an agenda that they set forth themselves.  Republicans won the mid-terms despite lacking a clear plan; they mainly won because they had a clear enemy.  But, as we have seen in the last several years, you can win mid-terms with a clear enemy; but it is much harder to win the White House without a clear plan.

    Conservative Converts?  This is the most sobering reality from the mid-terms, and I will have to attribute the Rush-meister on this one.  He has consistently suggested that many liberals may vote against Democrats when they feel that their party has abandoned them, but then will drift back to voting for them after a few cycles or whenever the present a more compelling candidate.  That is, we are not winning hearts and minds to conservativism; we merely won many votes away from liberalism for a time.  Many of those people drifted back to voting for Obama in 2012 after the 2010 mid-terms.  The 2014 elections represented Americans voting against Obama, Harry Reid, Obamacare, and an inept administration, not just people voting for conservative ideals.  I would be leery of anyone who interprets this election to mean that the nation is becoming more conservative. 

    So, what must happen now?  Republicans have to forge a clear vision for the country, they have to pass meaningful legislation as soon as possible and make Obama look like the obstructionist; they must proclaim why conservative principles are in the best interests of our country, and they must do this in the next six months.  Otherwise, we may end up repeating the mistakes of 2012 in 2016.

      Do you agree or disagree with our analysis of the elections?  What other lessons could we take away from the mid-terms?  Send us your thoughts and opinions at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

    And . . . can't get enough politics?  You can access our other political articles in our “Eclectic Archive” under the heading “Politics/ Culture.”

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Part 1: “Done Away”

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away (1 Corinthians 13:8).

    In this edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we will examine a key verse that sheds light on a persistent debate about sign gifts, such as miracles, prophecy, and the use of tongues, or previously unknown languages. 

    In one corner we have a group of people called continuationists, frequently associated with Pentecostals or those in the Charismatic movement, who argue that the use of all spiritual gifts, including the more dramatic sign gifts, are still operative and should be used in churches today.

    In the other corner is a group call cessationists, who believe that these sign gifts ceased early in the history of the church.  As those gifts ceased, the other gifts listed in the New Testament, such as teaching, encouraging, service and mercy, became more prominent and those non-sign gifts should be encouraged in churches today.

    We have already looked at some preliminary issues regarding this debate and the questionable history of the charismatic movement.  A few editions ago we examined different approaches to the book of Acts and how that factors into the debate.

    In this edition, we will examine 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, a text that is claimed by both sides to support their view.  In fact, there is so much material from these verses that we have split this discussion up into two separate articles, the second of which will appear in the next edition.  We will walk through what we believe these verses are saying and how this informs the continuationism vs. cessationism debate.   

    Let’s keep the context in view here.  Chapters 12 and 14 of 1 Corinthians are discussing confusion regarding the use of spiritual gifts in the early church, especially sign gifts.  Paul takes a break in 1 Corinthians 13 to describe the importance of love, and how the virtues of faith hope and love should promote Christian unity even when there is disagreement over non-essential doctrines – a principle that we should apply more often both in this debate as well as in other theological exchanges.

    After a vivid description of Christian love in 1 Cor 13:1-7, verse 8 compares the permanence of love with the temporary nature of sign gifts.  Specifically, the gifts of prophecy and knowledge will “pass away” or “be done away with.”  The Greek word here is katargeō (used twice in v. 8), meaning “to render ineffective, nullify, cancel; destroy, abolish.”  Both times this verb occurs in this verse it is in the passive voice, indicating that God will do away with them when they no longer serve their purpose.  In fact, this word is used again in 1 Cor 15:24 and 26 of things that Christ will definitively abolish. Again, in this context the nullification of these temporary gifts contrasts the fact that love, hope, and faith are permanent.  Thus, Paul exhorts his audience to focus on the enduring virtues rather than the temporary gifts.

    The gifts of prophecy and knowledge, or the giving of special revelation in a specific situation, were important to the early church before the completion of the canon of the New Testament.  However, as the apostles and their associates finish writing the NT, these gifts were no longer necessary (some appeal to verses like 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:15-18 and Rev 22:18 to emphasis this).

    Sandwiched between the mention of prophecy and knowledge being “done away with,” Paul asserts that tongues would “cease.”  This word pauō means “to stop, keep from, to be done with.”  The verb is in the middle voice which could translate “they will cut themselves off” or “cease of their own accord.”

    Some have argued that inanimate objects cannot “cease on their own,” and in a sense, that is true.  However, Luke 8:24 provides a grammatical precedent: Jesus rebukes the wind and the waves, and the text says that they also cease of their own accord (using this same verb pauō  in the middle voice).  The Biblical author personifies the water as a force and in the next verse the disciples note that the waves were not forced to do what Jesus said, but rather, they “obeyed,” as if doing so entirely on their own.  Most of the times that this verb is used, it is in the middle voice, indicating someone or something stopping or in some cases, not stopping, themselves from doing something (Acts 13:10; 20:31;  21:32;  Eph 1:19;  Col 1:9; 1 Pet 4:1).  First Corinthians 13:8 is fairly clear that tongues were not to be used for perpetuity, but rather, at some point after Paul wrote this passage, they would cease to be used and they would cease to be necessary.

    Also the verb “to cease” as it is used in the NT indicates a definitive end, rather than a gradual fade.  The word describes the end of a prayer, a conversation, or in some cases, something that should definitively not stop.  While we will argue in a future article that we can see a tapering of the sign gifts in the NT, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the sign gifts just faded away.  Rather, the tapering means that there were fewer references and less attention given to sign gifts in the later NT writings as opposed to the earlier ones.  Again, the verb indicates that there was a time when tongues simply ceased to be necessary, useful, and therefore operative. 

    To put it another way, there is no partly speaking in tongues.  Nor is there any sense that some believers or denominations have to speak in tongues to verify their salvation while others don’t.  Sign gifts are either definitively operative for all believers, denominations and churches, or for none.  I also think that this verb refutes the notion that sign gifts appear in some contexts but not others. If they have ceased, this means that they are not being used in new missionary contexts or in isolated revivals.  They have either ceased for the church universal, or they are still in effect. 

    Adding to this point is the word that Paul uses here in 1 Cor 13:8 for “if.”  This word is the particle eite, which when used by Paul and Peter, always points to realistic situations that are being used in an example.  Romans 12:6, for instance, says, “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith.”  Paul uses the realistic scenario that someone may at that time have the gift of prophecy, and as an example, that person should use it for the body of believers.  Similarly, 1 Peter 2:13 says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority.”  Peter mentions authorities, but then mentions a king as a realistic example of a human authority to whom his audience would need to submit.

    Thus, with this word eite, Paul is not saying that these gifts may be done away with; he is citing them as examples of things that certainly will cease to be used at a future point in time.

    Verse 10 especially adds to this discussion: the Apostle repeats the verb katargeō from v. 8: when the perfect comes, the partial will be “done away with.”  Clearly, Paul sees faith, hope and love as virtues that add to the perfection of the Christian community and sign gifts like prophecy and tongues are “partial” which would cease to be necessary and operative. 

    But what, then, is “the perfect,” which seems to give an end point to the use of miracles, prophecy and tongues?  We will explore the interpretation of “the perfect” in part two of our analysis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 in the next edition. 

SOMETHING TO PROMOTE: Carbonite

    On occasion, I want to take the opportunity to mention some products, services, or talents I think you may enjoy or benefit from.  I have nothing financially to gain from this; I’m not getting commission from any of these!  I just get the joy of sharing things that I hope will be beneficial to you.  

    In the January 2014 edition we highlighted Cryo Designs & Photography, Josh Kasper’s graphic design organization (check out his Facebook page here, and give it a “like”).  But this month I wanted to sing the praises of Carbonite. 

    I was very gratified recently when a friend came up to me and told me how glad he was that I had recommended Carbonite to him, because soon thereafter, his aged computer suffered irrecoverable damage.  He was grateful that all his information had been backed-up off-site.  

    I began using Carbonite in November of 2009.  This turned out to be a prophetic move, because about two weeks later, my seven-year-old laptop was hit by some horrendous cyber-critter that seemed to wipe out most of my files and documents.  Within just a few hours, however, I had restored all of my lost documents, because they had been backed-up safely by an off-site source.  Since then, my wife and I have purchased new laptops, but we have the content on both of them backed-up by Carbonite.

    Several years ago, when my wife and I lived in Texas, we experienced a burglary; someone broke into our house, stole our computer along with other valuables that were never recovered.  With the loss of our computer, we lost countless pictures, hours of writing, and other material that we will never get back.  It was heartbreaking, especially for my wife: pictures, thoughts, and memories that will never be seen by us again.  We could have easily recovered all of that information if we had subscribed to an off-site back-up system. 

    As pathetic as it may sound, many of us spend a good deal of our lives in front of a computer terminal.  Many of us have hundreds or even thousands of files, papers, pictures of family and friends, and hours of memories all on our computer. 

    Don’t take what’s on your computer for granted.  If your computer gets lost, stolen, damaged, or hit by one of the many varieties of destructive computer viruses, everything that is not backed up could be lost forever.  Get a safe, reliable, and affordable off-site back-up system for your machine.  I have used Carbonite and am very grateful for it.

    Check out Carbonite at www.carbonite.com.  For those of us who spend countless hours in front of our computers, cyber security equals some peace of mind!

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: The Importance of Proximity

    In this article, a follow-up to “Putting Christ Above Crisis” above, we will explore the setting of Luke’s account of Peter’s denial in Luke 22.  Taking a fresh approach to this story includes noting the important proximity cues in the passage, especially in verses 54 and 55.  Some of these cues help us appreciate the setting that contributed to Peter’s dangerous steps toward denial of his Lord.  

    The context is that Jesus has been successfully apprehended (vv. 47-53) and He barely put up a fight.  Jesus’ antagonists can see the finish line, yet, the religious authorities fumble around with Jesus, dragging Him from trial to trial rather incompetently in the next chapter or so.  Their fumbling and squabble with Roman authorities are in stark contrast to Jesus’ supreme competence and confidence in His words, deeds and responses.

    Speaking of fumbling and incompetence, Luke 22:54 focuses on Peter.  We like Peter and we relate to him, but that’s mainly because he’s a fumbler.  He’s rarely right; he’s either too much, or too little, silent when he should say something or yammering when he doesn’t know what to say (Mark 9:5-6).

    Here in v. 54, Peter isn’t even sure where to be.  The text states that he “followed at a distance” (v. 54).  Elsewhere in Luke, the word “distance” (makrothen) demonstrates disassociation between two people or parties (16:23; 18:13; 23:49).  Here, too, Peter wants some space of disassociation between himself and Jesus.  Peter is concerned, but distant; he is curious enough to follow, but not committed enough to be too close.  Peter’s motives are revealed in Matt 26:58: “But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.”  He wants to know what is going to happen to Jesus, but he wants to remain incognito.

    I am reminded how we sometimes want to pretend that we are very spiritual and close to the Lord, but at other times we downplay our faith especially in public.  This is ironic, because the book of Luke is about commitment, bold decisions, public association and discipleship to Christ that does not shirk back even when faced with pain and death.  Others are seen as following Christ closely, even when doing so may have negative ramifications for them: the women identify with and follow Jesus even thought he was being treated as a criminal (23:27).  And after Jesus’ death Joseph and Nicodemus asked for His body even though sympathizing with Jesus could be politically costly for them (23:50-51; John 19:38-39).  In contrast, Peter embraces a non-committal stance, and tries to maintain this distance from Jesus later when called to account.

    This is a bit off topic, but only slightly; later while preaching through Luke, I exhorted our congregation to consider that many modern American Christians don’t recognize the significant difference between being a Christian in name only versus actually following Christ.  Some people walk an aisle and pray a prayer (neither of which, by the way, save you) and even make a genuine profession of faith.  But then having received their “fire insurance” (meaning they’ve been saved from Hell), they pretty much don’t think about their faith much, except for obligatory church attendance and tithing.  That is, even as Christians, they seem to maintain their distance from Christ.

    But try reading through the gospels again: an overwhelming percentage of Jesus’ teachings are about discipleship and following Him, not just about getting saved.  This is critical for understanding the depth and nuance of the four Gospels. 

    To put it another way, if I had to characterize modern American Christianity, I wouldn’t be so pessimistic as to suggest that many Christians are not following Christ.  But I would be realistic enough to suggest that many Christians are following at a distance.  Like Peter, many believers are curious enough or they feel guilty enough to follow, but do not follow closely enough to associate with Christ as zealously as they could or should. 

    There is another proximity note, specifically, the word mesos, “in the midst of” or “in the middle of,” a word that appears twice in Luke 22:55.  The crowd that had just arrested Jesus (v. 47) also handed Him over to the high priest (v. 54).  They now wait outside in his courtyard for their next set of orders.  This crowd will be the first to hear news of Jesus’ fate, and Peter dares to hide among them.  This crowd from the previous passage includes, scribes, temple officials, priests, soldiers, armed individuals, and servants who work for the high priests.  Peter is clearly “in the middle of” enemy territory.

    It is a cold, dark night, so they light a fire.  Naturally they do this “in the middle” of the courtyard so more people could access it.  They then sit around it.  Peter not only joins them, but he tries to sneak in and sit “in the middle of” or “among” them.

    Are there any implications to this?  Is Luke trying to communicate something with these dual uses of the word mesos, “among” or “in the middle”?  I think so.

    First, sometimes giving in to temptation is easily explained by the fact that we are so near it that it is very difficult to not fall into its tentacles.  In physics, there is the principle that the closer you are to a large object like a planet or sun, the stronger its pull will be on you, otherwise known as Newton’s law of universal gravitation.  I believe that temptation works the same way; its power and influence is greater the more we allow ourselves to dance around its orbit and flirt with its gravitational pull.  The closer you get to it, the greater its attraction, until, before you know it, you are caught and cannot get out.   

    Similarly, Peter is right in their midst, in their territory, surrounded by them, and even enjoying their fire.  Given his proximity to all of these antagonists of Jesus, falling into temptation seems almost inevitable for our hapless protagonist. 

    Scripture is clear regarding temptation: 1 Corinthians 6:18 instructs the believer to “flee immorality.”  1 Corinthians 10:14 similarly exhorts us to “flee from idolatry.”  Paul similarly urges his protégé Timothy to “flee” from temptation and youthful lusts (1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22).  Flee temptation, flee spiritual danger, don’t flirt with it for a second.

    Second, Scripture says that though we are in the world, we should “not [be] of the world” (John 15:19; 17:14, 16).  That is, while we are physically on this planet at this time, we should not be characterized by its godlessness and fallenness.  Our physical proximity to the world should not dictate our spiritual proximity to it.

    Here, Peter’s proximity demonstrates that he is both “in” the crowd that is antagonistic toward Jesus and his denial will betray that he is also “of” them.  The stage is set, and poor Peter is in the wrong place.

    In the next article we will explore the first movement of Peter’s three-stage denial of Christ.  For now, we will conclude this article by noting that Luke uses these notes about proximity to challenge the reader regarding where we stand with Christ.  Are we following faithfully, closely and zealously, or are we constantly finding ourselves following at a distance, lagging far behind the Savior, intermingled in the worldly crowd, and warming ourselves by the fires of Christ’s enemies?

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK -- AMERICAN PANTHEON: The Super-Craze of Superhero Films

    The following article is originally from the August 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

    Modern superheroes and supervillains are like the Olympian gods of our day. They are a pantheon of virtues and vices, a canvass upon which a society projects its own aspirations and fears, joys and discouragements.

    In the book It’s So French: Hollywood, Paris, and the Making of Cosmopolitan Film Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) Vanessa Schwartz describes the two-way cultural exchange of cinema between Paris and Hollywood during the 1950s and 60s. Over half-a-century ago the Motion Picture Association of America saw the potential for film to create interests and meanings among broad groups of people: “The community of film spectators is a symbol of the world community yet to come” (quoted in Schwartz, p. 160). Films created an international and “cosmopolitan” film culture that was shared by many people in different countries and continents. Schwartz believes that investigating film can create a “critical axis of analysis” (ibid., p. 6) and that the movies of a period reflects broader social and cultural realities. The epic films of the 50s and 60s, such as Around the World In Eighty Days, The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, were especially significant because they created a “canon of important texts, events, and legends” (ibid., p. 197). 

    Similarly, superhero films over the twentieth century, and especially over the last two decades reflect significant legends and ideals in American culture and provides a critical way to analyze American society.