NOVEMBER 2015

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the November 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

This month, we continue our series through the book of Romans, with two articles: “The Righteousness of God” and “Relativism is Irrelevant!”

Turning to politics, we highlight the artificial activities of many Washingtonians and candidates in an article called, “Gauging and Faking Achievement.” Also, how fast is stupid? I’ll give you a hint: it’s a lot faster than smart. See this month’s social commentary: “The Speed of Stupid.”

Also, we have an “Eclectic Flashback” to a 2014 article called “Cultural Disconnects in Superhero Cinema.”

We are up to 160 “likes” on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page! If you have not yet given the page a “like,” please do so and you will get regular notifications on posts and updates. Also, you can start a thread there or leave a comment on any of our articles.

As always, we would love to hear your comments, feedback, and input. Feel free to send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

POLITICS: Gauging and Faking Achievement

In political speeches and debates lately, we hear candidates cataloging their accomplishments and achievements. We are sometimes so mesmerized by these lists, that we don’t always stop and think about how vacuous and unimpressive they really are!

But gauging the achievements – proclaimed and real – of candidates should be America’s top priority right now. In less than a year, we are going to hire someone for a very important position. Part of that hiring process of gauging someone’s achievements includes assessing whether we have good metrics for achievement. Otherwise, we will continue to fall for these fake lists of accomplishments, some of which, are actually failures in disguise.

This article is an elaboration of a paragraph from the August 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper: “We have to remember that we are conditioned to be impressed by certain metrics for competency and success which are really not that impressive. Politicians point out that they have held one or more offices, that they boldly filibustered, that they sponsored a bill, that they visited a critical area of the globe, or that they wrote a book on some issue. That is, they cannot distinguish between things that they do on one hand, and real, actual, measurable accomplishments, on the other.” Brilliant words indeed, but words that, perhaps, require some amplification.

Not too long ago, I saw a meme from a Ted Cruz supporter (picture at right). It is a list of fake political achievements. I don’t mean that anything here is untrue or fabricated. What I mean is that none of them are anything other than academic and legislative achievements. They may look great on a resume if you are trying to be a professor or a lawyer, but they are far less impressive if you are aiming to be the U.S. President. Conspicuously absent from this vapid list of fake accomplishments is how he led a successful business, or served in the military, or turned around a corporation heading for failure, or forged an international treaty, or started new companies in new markets, or provided hundreds of jobs to people. Heck, if he had been mayor of a relatively large city for four or eight years, then that would make him more qualified to be president.

In fact, I’ll translate this entire graphic out of political-speak and into reality: Ted Cruz graduated, wrote, supported, and voted. That is, he has done much of what many of us have done, but just to a greater and more high-profile degree.

By the way, having strong views and airing those views in the face of opposition is not an accomplishment. After all, many an arm-chair politician in living rooms and bars across the fruited plains can express strong views in hostile venues. But, of course, I wouldn’t vote many of these people onto city council, let alone into the White House.

Think about how the political-speak of fake achievements would translate into your life. Imagine sitting down in your boss’s office to convince him that you deserve a promotion. You tell him that you wrote a proposal, you went to a conference, you expressed your opinion, you attended the annual holiday party, and you met with some people. While I don’t deny that these actions take place in many organizations, none of them are accomplishments, but merely activities; and most of us (that is, those of us outside Washington D.C.) are smart enough to comprehend the difference.

If I were the boss, I would be glad that you showed up at the meeting, but then ask what the meeting accomplished. It is good that you have an opinion, but did you win the room to your opinion, and then put that opinion to work in a way that benefited the organization? I may be glad that that you wrote a proposal, but I would want to know if you successfully implemented that proposal. Then, and only then, would I celebrate your accomplishment, and not just your activity.

Here are some metrics that may sound more impressive to your boss. You increased the factory’s efficiency by ten percent, and reduced production costs by five percent. You gained two more major clients for your product line. Your marketing efforts over the last few months led to increased sales in Q3. You have trained five new managers, and all of them demonstrated measurable improvements in their respective departments.

But, here again, Washingtonians can’t grasp the enormous chasm between activity and achievement.

During the GOP debate on October 28, Brit Hume tweeted: “Ted Cruz going on about all the fights he has led in Washington. Never mentions the number of fights he won. The answer is none.” Hume’s conclusion, specifically, that Cruz had won “none” of these fights, has come under scrutiny. However, I concur with his larger point; Cruz talks about being a fighter, but he does not verify that he is a doer or even that in these fights he has been a victor!

This is part of the problem with some of our candidates who are too green (that is, in terms of their lack of experience, not friendliness to the environment). We made this point vehemently in the May 2015 edition in our article called “Cruzing Toward Amnesia,” but I’ll reiterate it again. There are three GOP candidates who are senators, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, all three of whom have not even completed a full senatorial term. Rand and Marco entered the senate in 2011 and have served there for less than five years; and in this last year, they have probably been doing more candidating than senatoring.

Cruz only entered the Senate in 2013; he has held office for less than three years! This, by the way, is less experience than Obama had when he became president; conservatives legitimately excoriated Obama for being too naïve and inexperienced to jump from the Senate to the White House, and he has repeatedly affirmed the validity of that concern.

These three senators are young, talented and dedicated, and they hopefully have wonderful political careers ahead of them. Yet, they lack the experience that would help them see the difference between activity and accomplishment. They boast about how they opposed the liberals, or opposed Obama and Reid, or opposed a political stance like more gun regulation or raising taxes. Opposing someone or something is not an achievement, but a stance. It is even less of an achievement when you oppose, and yet are defeated anyway. They declare how boldly they filibustered, but that usually doesn’t accomplish anything beside delaying the inevitable (the “inevitable” usually being GOP capitulation!). They say that they fought, but they cleverly conceal that they lost several of these fights.

I do believe that there is benefit in slowing down liberal decay by blocking the efforts of democrats and socialists in Congress; in fact, this is what Republicans should have been doing in Congress all along! But they have failed to slow down and reverse the process of liberal and socialistic decomposition. In fact, when they boast about slowing down the liberal agenda, republicans are admitting that they have not successfully stopped it, let alone reversed it, which is what we sent them there to do during the 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections. Therefore, their affirmations that they “opposed,” “fought against,” and “slowed down” is a barefaced confession that they have not accomplished anything, including thwarting liberal decay of our country by any legal and Constitutional means possible.

GOP outsiders are making so much progress in this election cycle because the Washington insiders have done so little. Some of the outsiders, governors and business-people have achieved legitimate, measurable accomplishments.

This is why I think that Donald Trump’s achievements are exactly what we need now; I won’t rehash the argument here, but I will just refer you to the article “Trump’s Most Critical Quality” and let you think through this on your own.

The American people are the bosses and we are hiring someone to do a job, a job that is critical to the health and well being of all of us corporately and individually. We need to do a better job gauging the achievements of candidates and winnowing out those fake accomplishments that actually masquerade as inactivity and failure.

ROMANS: The Righteousness of God (Romans 1:17)

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, just as it has been written, “But the righteous person will live by faith.”

It could be said that Romans 1:17 encapsulates the theology of Romans. In this article we will carefully walk through this verse and examine how it sets the theological themes and tones for the rest of the book. We will then end with some summary points of what is critical for people to remember about this verse.

Following Paul’s assertion in v. 16 that he is “not ashamed” of the gospel (see our article “Not Ashamed” from the October 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper) Paul describes why the Gospel of Christ is so worthy of our confidence and trust.

The word “for” is gar which here probably has an explanatory nuance. Paul’s eagerness to preach the gospel to the Romans, as mentioned in v. 15, is explained with the conjunction “for” in verse 16 in that Paul was not ashamed of the Gospel or any of its truths or implications. Similarly, Paul’s confidence in the Gospel is further explained in v. 17 with the conjunction “for” in that he recognizes that the Gospel’s power lies in its relationship to the righteousness of God, which is reflected and explained in the Gospel.

“Like” us on Facebook!

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

The word “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. The related adjective dikaios (used 79 times in the NT) means “upright, just, righteous,” and is used of God or of humans, in legal or religious situations. The verb dikaioō (used 39 times in the NT) means “to acquit, to declare righteous, to vindicate,” or “to be pronounced and treated as righteous” (BAGD 197, 3a). Here in Rom 1:17, the noun dikaiosunē means “righteousness (a declared state), uprightness (a lived state), justice, conformity to divine statues and standards.” Righteousness is the capacity to do what is right and just and this capacity is only inherent and intrinsic to God. Theologian Louis Berkhof argues that for God, righteousness is “that perfection [“characteristic” or “attribute”] of God by which He maintains Himself over against every violation of His holiness, and shows in every respect that He is the Holy One” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 74-75).

However, at least since the fall, holiness and righteousness are not intrinsic and inherent to humans. Thus, righteousness must be given to humans (the fancy theological term is that righteousness must be “communicated to” humanity). This is done by God through His gracious legal declaration based on the work of Christ for the undeserved believer who confesses his need for and faith in Christ. That sinner-turned-saint then begins a life of striving to emulate that declaration of righteousness by forsaking sinful ways and living in obedience to God based on His Word.

Several times throughout church history, the question has percolated regarding the relationship between the words “righteousness” and “God” in this 1:17. The phrase “of God” is in the genitive case, basically identifying possession (“my car” or “the car of me”). The genitive can also provide a description of something else, such as “children of light” in Eph 5:8, or “word of power,” i.e., “powerful word” in Heb 1:3. What specific relationship between “righteousness” and “God” is intended by the genitive?

Many commentaries will answer this question better than I can here, but there basically seems to be three options. The genitive phrase “of God” could be taken as genitive of possession, meaning that this is “righteousness belonging to God.” It could also be description, meaning “righteousness that describes or characterizes God.” It could also be a subjective genitive, where the noun in the genitive case produces the action implied in the word modified, in this case, rendering the phrase, “righteousness produced by God.” I’m sure time in the commentaries would reveal even more ways that the genitive phrase could be rendered.

In any of these scenarios, the key is that the righteousness described in this verse has a close relationship with God and is alien to humanity. It is something that belongs to God, created by God and associated with God, but not so with man unless it is graciously communicated to man by God. It can be imposed upon man in the case of God’s judgment or it can be imparted to man in the case of justification. Either way, it is foreign to man without God’s intervention.

Paul suggests that this righteousness has a relationship to the gospel mentioned in the previous verse: “in it.” This pronoun is such that euangelion, “the gospel” from v. 16 can be the only antecedent. The grammatical case of the pronoun is ambiguous and could be “in it,” “with it,” or even “through it.”

Specifically, God’s righteousness “is revealed” in the gospel. The verb apokalupto, from where we get the word “apocalypse,” literally identifies something that comes “from hiddenness” or “veiledness.” The verb kalupto means “to cover, hide” (Matt 8:24; 10:26; Luke 8:16; 23:30; 2 Cor 4:3; Jas 5:20; 1 Pet 4:8); but here in Rom 1:17 it has an apo prefix meaning “from” or “out from.” Thus apokalupto means “to reveal,” “to uncover,” or “to disclose.”

The word apokalupto is used one hundred and eleven times in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) of uncovering someone’s nakedness, or exposing someone (frequently in Lev), or revealing someone’s identity, ability or characteristics (1 Sam 2:27). It is used of uncovering someone’s eyes (Num 22:31; 24:4, 16; Ps 119:18) or the word of the Lord being revealed to someone (1 Sam 3:7; 9:15; 2 Sam 7:27; Amos 3:7).

The word apokalupto also describes the revelation of content or secrets especially of divine truth. For instance, Psalm 98:2 says, that the Lord has “revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations.” Isaiah 56:1 has the Lord saying, “Preserve justice and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come and My righteousness to be revealed.” Thus, apokalupto focuses on the contents and basic truths about something being revealed.

The phrase in Romans 1:17 “from faith to faith” seems to be an idiom that refers to the totality or a high degree of something, perhaps not unlike the Hebrew infinitive absolute, conveying certainty of something or a profound degree of something. Psalm 84:7 says “They go from strength to strength,” which means they go to Zion with great strength and vigor. Jeremiah 9:3 says “‘They bend their tongue like their bow; Lies and not truth prevail in the land; For they proceed from evil to evil, And they do not know Me,’ declares the LORD.” Here the phrase “from evil to evil” could mean “from one evil deed to another evil deed,” or could, again, just represent a high degree of evil. Other examples of this construction are in Proverbs 27:24 and 2 Corinthians 2:16.

In the case of Romans 1:17, Paul is communicating that the righteousness of God is revealed and provided to the believer completely and exclusively by faith. This is supported by the quote from Hab 2:4 as well as by the context of the rest of the book, where Paul argues vigorously that grace and salvation are received by faith and not by works. Our relationship with God and reception of his righteousness and grace begins with faith and continues with faith. Paul will argue in Galatians, also, that we are not saved by faith and then sanctified by works of the flesh (Gal 3:3). We are saved by grace through faith and we continue to grow in that grace through faith. Faith should never be absent from the believer’s life and thought.

Paul emphasizes his previous statement about the importance of faith by quoting Habakkuk 2:4: “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.” This verse is quoted in the NT twice by Paul and once in Hebrews. In Rom 1:17, the emphasis is clearly that the person becomes righteous or just by means of faith. Hebrews 10:37-38 uses this quote to demonstrate that one’s life must endure in the faith even after justification; faith remains a critical element of one’s spiritual walk, and the repetition of the phrase “by faith” in Heb 11 demonstrates this principle from the OT.

We have discussed a lot of technical stuff in this article about the words of Romans 1:17. But we will summarize with a few take-home points. First, righteousness is not inherent to people. It has to be revealed, brought out of hiddennesss and provided to humanity by an extraordinary act of God’s grace.

Second, people receive God’s grace through faith that is placed – as the book of Romans will clearly articulate – in Christ alone. By the grace of God that we receive through faith we also receive forgiveness from personal sins and the gift of eternal life, or the opportunity to live in a blissful existence with our Creator and Father God in the future (John 4:10, 14; Rom 6:22-23; Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 5:11; Rev 22:1-5).

Finally, the Christian faith must be believed, but it must also be lived. The quote from Habakkuk 2:4 emphasizes that the character and the faith of an individual will come out in the way he or she lives. This, I believe, is the best way to reconcile Romans with what James says in 2:26, namely that, “faith without works is dead.” Paul and James are not at odds: Paul declares here and elsewhere, that people are not saved from deserved wrath through church attendance or acts of benevolence, but by believing in Christ. But James is right that if one’s belief is not lived out and applied to one’s decisions and interactions, then it makes that belief somewhat irrelevant (see also James 1:26).

Righteousness is a gift of God. People have to believe that this gift of righteousness and eternal life only comes through Christ. Then followers of Christ have the privilege and the responsibility to embed that righteousness in everything that they do.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: The Speed of Stupid

Back in August, a man attending an Atlanta Braves game took the game a bit too seriously.

As the Yankees’ Alex Rodriguez came up to bat, the sixty year old man leaned precipitously over the railing, heckling and jeering the batter. The man plunged about 50 feet from the upper deck into the stands on the lower-level in front of a sellout crowd.

I take this particular death personally, not because I knew the guy, but because a few days earlier, I was standing in line to buy four tickets to attend that very game! Had the prices not been so ridiculously high, my wife, my two youngest children and I would have witnessed this folly first hand.

I talked to someone after the event who said that the stadium’s managers were planning to lengthen the netting behind home plate.

But I wondered how long that netting would have to be. How high must guard rails be in order to stop people from falling over them but also without obstructing our view? How much safer do playgrounds have to be before they completely cease to be fun? How many more restraints and constraints do we need to place on people before they can no longer breathe?

At some point, someone will have to wrap every American in netting, and then in bubble wrap, and then encase them in Styrofoam so that they don’t hurt themselves by doing something dumb.

But even then, I don’t actually think that would help. Do you want to know why?

Here’s my brilliant maxim for the day: Safety can’t outpace stupid; stupid runs too fast.

A few years ago, a grad student was atop a large granite mountain near Atlanta, brilliantly called “Stone Mountain.” At some point, he climbed over a four-foot-tall fence that differentiates between the safe places and the not-so-safe places; these fences are laced with warning and danger signs, as well. Having recklessly traversed this fence, the student found himself on ground steeper and slicker than he had anticipated. Soon thereafter, Antony Edge—yes, that’s his real name—plunged about 600 feet off the side of the mountain, and was found dead the next morning.

Here’s the real horrifying part of this story: we do not know for sure if he died immediately, or if he lay there for the last few minutes or hours of his life, thinking about those warning signs on that fence and considering how a bit of self-regulation and sense could have altered the trajectory of his life, literally.

So, what do we do as a society? Should a fence be so high that it blocks the panorama? Should the entire mountain be encased in netting obstructing one’s view of the sky? Should a giant grinder crush down the granite mountain until trespassing the safety fence means that someone risks falling a mere three feet to their potential slight discomfort?

How high, strong and safe does something have to be in order to completely thwart folly?

The answer is simple: Safety precautions are always slower than the speed of stupid.

Here is another way of saying this: no amount of externally-imposed safety measures can solve someone’s internally-driven stupidity. Life frequently provides opportunities either to impose safe restrictions on our own behavior, or to disregard those impulses and give way to stupid. The motivation to be self-restrained, for our own safety and for the safety of others, is often a stronger and more effective deterrent to foolishness than are externally imposed precautions.

Not to get too preachy—though it is a vocational hazard!—but the Bible frequently points to the virtue of self-control and self-regulation (see, for instance, Ps 39:1; Prov 16:32; 25:28; Acts 24:25; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:25; Gal 5:23; 1 Thess 4:4; 5:6, 8; 2 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:8; 2:2; Jas 1:26; 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; 2 Pet 1:6). Biblical self-control or sober-mindedness is distinct from government control or some kind of externally-imposed mind-control and behavior-control. Also, self-control does not negate our faith in God and dependence upon Him. Self-control is listed as one of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:23; that is, we show our dependence on God and on the Holy Spirit by exercising self-control.

Unfortunately, we cannot make everything slow enough or safe enough or dull enough to prevent someone from doing something stupid. We cannot print enough signs, because stupid ignores the ones we have anyway. Regulations cannot be created fast enough to prevent all foolishness, and those regulations also tend to restrict freedom more than they catch up with stupid.

Prison is a good example of this; those who cannot control their behavior and interactions with other citizens must be highly confined and regulated for their own safety and for the safety of others. Their freedoms must be removed in order to thwart their stupidity.

This is of course, the problem with the nanny state that we’re living in, where every other person seems to be dependent on government for something. The government is increasingly going to use safety as an excuse for providing more and more regulations at the expense of individual freedoms. Many Americans created a hyper-regulated environment for all of us because of their fast foolishness.

But, even the quick encroachment of the government cannot outpace stupid. We can’t build a fence high enough to stop stupid; we can’t make a net wide enough to catch stupid; we can’t monitor enough people to prevent them from foolish habits; there are not enough educational programs to coach people away from stupid.

Let’s face it: stupid is fast! It moves fast, and it spreads fast. In a race, stupid beats smart and safe every time.

But there is one hope for slowing stupid, and that is personal responsibility. Legislating behavior does not thwart stupid as effectively as individual self-restraint does.

Any thoughts on the speed of stupid or the slowness of smart? Send your thoughts, responses, reactions and critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll re-post good feedback in a subsequent edition.

DIALOG: Questions for a Seventh-Day Adventist

The October 31, 2015 online article “The Only Reason Why I’m a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian” by Kevin Wilson caught my attention. I have had some interaction with Seventh-Day Adventism (herafter, “SDA”) and I have found their unique theology to be puzzlingly un-Biblical. I searched this article to understand why SDA believes that they have captured a more faithful and more Biblical Christianity than my own Protestant, conservative and evangelical perspective.

The following paragraph is emblematic of the author’s perspective: “How we [that is SDA] understand the life, death and resurrection of Jesus elevates Christ as the theme and song of all Biblical history. We believe that His account isn’t localized within just the first four books of the New Testament, but from Genesis to Revelation, every chapter and every verse, echoes His love ultimately manifested through His sacrifice on the cross.” The article ends with the curious, and unsatisfying, statement, “I don’t have 28 reasons as to why I’m a Seventh-Day Adventist. I have One [i.e., Jesus Christ]. And He’s all I need.” (By the way, “28” is a reference to the official “28 Fundamental Beliefs”of Seventh-day Adventists”).

Again, then, what is it that is uniquely SDA to his beliefs? How do the distinct doctrines and practices make SDA a better version of Christianity than mainstream evangelicalism?

I couldn’t let this article slide without response. This is what I posted in reply:

I like what you are saying in this article about the crucial importance of the God-story and the Jesus meta-narrative and how all of Scripture points to Him. But most of what you described are Christian truths represented in several strains of Christianity, and does not merely belong to the Seventh-day Adventist movement. You have not demonstrated how unique elements of SDA are more Biblical or more spiritual than the rest of Protestant evangelical Christianity.

What is the spiritual benefit of continuing to be enslaved to the OT dietary laws despite Acts 10 (see also Matt 15:11; 1 Tim 4:1-5)? Why the obsession with Ellen G. White, her visions and her writings? Why the insistence on meeting on Saturday even when the Bible demonstrates that the early church met on Sunday, the “first day” of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2), which was intended to honor Christ’s resurrection (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19)?

I believe that SDA’s distinctives – again, including unnecessary observance of the dietary laws, obsession with Ellen G. White, soul sleep, and meeting on Saturday – obscures the Christ-story, rather than spotlights it. How is this not falling into the legalism that Paul explicitly warned about in Col 2:16 (see also Mark 2:27; Rom 14:3, 17; Gal 4:9-11)? The gospel is veiled behind tertiary – and unbiblical – theological distinctives of SDA.

I am not trying to be critical, I really want to have some dialog with you about this; but that is just my honest assessment of your article and of my interaction with SDA.

Soon thereafter, the author responded to my post:

Hi Matt! thank you for stopping by and engaging with the content of the article. To be sure, the purpose of the article is two-fold: to write out what I have been feeling about my faith for a while and also to show where Christ fits into our unique theology. As far as your questions on the distinctives are concerned, I’d rather engage them with you on a question by question basis over email rather than on the blog post. My email is spencer050890@gmail.com. Looking forward to the dialogue.

That is, he mentions SDA’s “unique theology” but otherwise completely dodged my question about SDA distinctives.

A few weeks later, I took up his challenge and e-mailed him back. I’ve edited out some of the pleasantries from the following for the sake of brevity. Here’s my response:

Thanks so much for your very gracious reply to my response to your article “The Only Reason Why I’m a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian.” . . . Your response to me is refreshing and gracious, and I thank you for that, brother! . . .

You want to talk about specific issues; I love that! I usually get personal smear tactics relative to my political or theological views, not people wanting to dialogue about a specific narrow point, and then come to some conclusion to it.

So, I’ll mention a two things for now that we can dialog about; pick whichever you want to start with, and we’ll go from there.

1) In my response I mentioned SDA’s “obsession” with Ellen [G.] White. Let’s be honest about the dangers of personality cult, and I’ll start with some full disclosure. I consider myself a Calvinist (about a 4.5 pointer, if that means anything to you). I am, however, not interested in or obsessed with Calvin, but I do believe that Calvinism is an accurate reflection of what the Bible teaches regarding grace, predestination, human depravity, etc. The difference is, I don’t quote Calvin constantly, or hardly ever, but rather, I try to affix my beliefs in Scripture. More self-disclosure: I went to Moody Bible Institute (named after D. L. Moody), and I am currently studying Martin Luther in my PhD. program. Nonetheless, I would not say in any way that my faith pivots around, is obsessed with, or seen through the lens of the unique teachings, writings or experiences of any of these individuals.

My perception (and I have had more interaction with SDA folk than the typical evangelical has) is that SDA is too dominated by the teachings and visions of White, and not sufficiently balanced with other great teachings and teachers. Before you try to deny “White-obsession,” consider this: I searched your own website and found 4 articles that cited Ellen White. In your list of favorite quotes, you had quotes from prominent political or religious leaders, including one from the extraordinarily-quotable C.S. Lewis, also one from Ronald Reagan, Stephen Covey, and George Knight. You had one quote from several lesser-known luminaries, such as (a theologically-questionable quote from) Edwin Rosado, and quotes from DeVon Franklin, Isaac Suh and Don Magbanua. There were also two quotes by Glenn Russell, two by Victor Harewood, two by David Asscherick, and two by Oswald Chambers. This list of favorite quotes contains a whopping and statistically-significant (drum roll please . . . ) SIX quotes by Ellen White (six of 25, or almost 25%!). [By the way, she is also referenced in article 18 of the above-mentioned “28 Fundamental Beliefs.”]

That is, if you try to convince me that there is not an Ellen White obsession beyond what an MBI grad has for D. L. Moody or a Lutheran has for Luther, I would heartily disagree from your own website as well as from my own anecdotal evidence dealing with SDAers. Do you agree with all of her teachings? Do you acknowledge the potential for dangerous imbalance in this approach? How do you handle the dangerous cult-of-personality intrinsic in SDA theology and methodology?

2) The second and last issue that I will raise in this correspondence (though there are many more issues to discuss in the future) is about SDA’s New Testament-defying approach to the Old Testament dietary restrictions. In fact, I will merely reproduce the question from my response: “What is the spiritual benefit of continuing to be enslaved to the OT dietary laws despite Acts 10 (see also Matt 15:11; 1 Tim 4:1-5)?” We could probably add Rom 14:17, 1 Cor 8:8, Gal 4:9-11 and Col 2:16 [and Heb 13:9] to this list, as well. How do you handle all of these texts in light of the unnecessary self-imposed dietary restrictions of SDA?

I believe that the author is trying to genuinely understand faith and life through the lens of SDA theology. However, I simply believe that SDA has completely missed the mark exegetically and theologically in many ways. Hopefully, some dialog can help realign this individual with Scripture, or at least challenge him on some of his beliefs.

And while I wait for his response, I want to get some response to this dialog from you! If you would like to contribute to this dialog about the unique doctrines and practices of SDA, feel free to reply back at feedback@eclectickasper.com or you can post your opinions on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

AMERICAN PANTHEON: Cultural Disconnects in Superhero Cinema

This article is originally from the May 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper and is reproduced here with minor modifications.

We have pointed out some cultural disconnects that are revealed in superhero films. In the August 2013 edition, we spotlighted how super heroines have fallen on some hard times and seem severely underrepresented. We also mentioned the same for African-American super protagonists (see Superman or Super White? Racist Hegemony in the Modern Hero Genre in the February 2013 edition).

There are at least two other cultural disconnects that superhero films reveal about our society, that is, two areas where our society claims to believe in one thing, but wants something different represented in our superhero films.

Capital punishment, i.e., execution by death sentence, is on the decline in our country. Once a hot button topic and a conservative pillar, it has virtually faded into the cultural background as something barbaric, rarely utilized, and then only in the most backward states. A 2012 report from Amnesty International claims that two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, except for backward countries like China and the U.S. That report claims that the death penalty is unfair and racially biased. Gallup tracking demonstrates that those in favor of the death penalty for someone convicted of murder has declined from 80% in 1994 to 60% in 2013.

However, superhero cinema demonstrates a different attitude toward the death penalty, which is especially curious coming from the Hollywood segment of our country that typically leans left.

I did a survey of the most popular superhero movies since 2000. This consisted of almost thirty films that were in the top 100 grossing films for their respective year according to Box Office Mojo. When surveying these movies, I discovered that in over 60% of the time, the villain was killed. (For stat nerds, here are the specifics: out of 28 movies, I counted 33 villains, 12 of whom [36.4%] survived the movie, and 21 [63.6%] died or were killed at the end of the movie. I’m willing to admit some flexibility and interpretation in these numbers, but the results are fairly clear.)

In some cases, the villain survives with the intent of possibly bringing him back for a future movie, such as the Joker in The Dark Knight, or Loki in The Avengers and the Thor movies a fact which, by the way, statistically skews the numbers. In some cases the exact fate of the villain is a bit more ambiguous, such as Doom in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (of course, the bigger question with that terrible movie is, Who cares?!?). In many cases, the antagonist dies directly at the hand of the protagonist, such as Zod in Man of Steel.

So, here is the cultural disconnect: while we claim as a society to increasingly oppose the death penalty, we think that it is acceptable for the villain to die at the end of most superhero movies. In fact, movies where the antagonist does not die seem somewhat incomplete (cue Sandman drifting off in Spider-Man 3 still claiming that he’s not a bad person!). But it seems satisfying when the bad guy “gets it” at the end of the movie; it provides a gratifying ending to know that the super villian has met his demise, and again, over 60% of the time, Hollywood agrees! Apparently, death sentences that result from vigilantism are far more acceptable than judicially driven capital punishment.

You thought that was a controversial disconnect? Wait until you hear the next topic . . .

Another important disconnect between what society claims and what society pays to see in superhero cinema regards the issue of homosexuality. I was at a loss to note a single gay episode or gay protagonist in these superhero movies that I surveyed. There have been, of course, some openly gay characters lately, most notably, Marvel’s character Northstar. Yet he is curiously absent from any of the numerous Marvel incarnations that have been produced in the last decade and a half (of the 28 movies in the yearly top 100 gross, 21 are Marvel movies). Filmmakers had plenty of opportunities to integrate an openly gay character into the panoply of protagonists, but chose not to do so.

Of course, some will take my comments here as an anti-gay rant or some version of homophobia, but that is to entirely miss the point. I have not subdued these super-homo-heroes; it is the writers, directors, and producers of these 28 movies who apparently felt that this particular element was not appropriate or marketable for their superhero films. This demonstrates a huge cultural disconnect; our society claims to be more homo-friendly than we used to be (at least that is what we are told!), and yet, homosexuality is absent from our super silver screens.

It seems that what we say we want, or what we are told that we want is very different from what we actually pay to see. We want the bad guy to get it at the end of the movie because people like the sense of right-ness that a death-penalty-conclusion provides. Also, we prefer to watch the protagonist save the girl probably because an overwhelming majority of people in our society connect with the blossoming of a heterosexual relationship rather than a homosexual one.

Inevitably, someone in Hollywood will come out with a chief protagonist in a superhero film who is openly gay (not just indicated by a side comment, but a character who is openly and obviously gay). I will be curious to see the box office results for that movie. And despite the fact that we are told that we are more open and accepting of homosexuality, I suspect that Hollywood, too, will be surprised from those box office results about how conservative the American public still really is.

So, have you seen any other cultural disconnects in sci-fi, high fantasy or superhero cinema? If so, or if you have any civil comments about this article or any of our other articles, send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com!

ROMANS: Relativism is Irrelevant!, Romans 1:18-19

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodly and unrighteous people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known about God is evident to them; for God made it evident to them.

Relativism is Irrelevant! The notion that there are different standards of morality in different times and different places is one of the greatest hoaxes of the modern age. Notions that some moral truths are binding on one person or race or gender but not another is as preposterous as declaring that gravity works unevenly for different people.

You Like Theology?

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

The discussion about universal depravity that extends through the end of Romans 3 begins with Paul’s powerful statement regarding universal sin in Romans 1:18-19. That is, the need that all people have for a Savior is based on the fact that all people are subject to the absolute moral principles of God as revealed in His Word. The “for” at the beginning of Romans 1:18 probably provides a contrast with those who receive wrath in this verse, with those who are justified by faith in v. 17. Paul will proceed to explain that those who are delivered by faith in Christ are a merciful minority relative to the majority of those who will experience the wrath of God.

Just as the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel (v. 17), so also is the “wrath” of God revealed (the world for “revealed” is in the same form as in v. 17). Many can live their lives without any sense of God’s wrath; it is hidden from evident and obvious experience, but will be revealed especially in the eschatological period, that is, in the end times. The word for “wrath” here is orge, which though sometimes used of human anger, is usually reserved for the deserved wrath of God in light of the preponderance of human sin (Nah 1:2; Zeph 1:15; Matt 3:7; Col 3:5-7). The addition of the phrase “from heaven” suggests the otherworldly nature of this wrath; it is no mere human anger. The mention of the wrath of God prompts the question regarding how people can be saved from God’s wrath, a question that the book of Romans sets out to answer thoroughly.

Like the phrase “righteousness of God” from v. 17, the phrase “wrath of God” also merits some examination regarding the precise nature of the genitive construction, or the English word “of.” That is, does “of” suggest possession (“wrath belonging to God”), description (“wrath known by its God-like extent”) or is it subjective (that is, “wrath produced by God”)? All seem exegetically tenable, and a combination of these nuances is not beyond the scope of possibility.

The focus of this wrath is upon those who generally exhibit “ungodliness” and “unrighteousness.” This includes, as Paul will argue in the next three chapters, the totality of humanity except for those who have trusted in Christ and received God’s mercy so as to avoid His wrath.

The ripeness of humanity for judgment is emphasized in the last phrase, specifically addressing how humanity strives to “suppress” the truth about God. The verb katechō means “to hold fast, keep; possess; hold back, restrain, or suppress.” It is used positively of the crowd trying to retain Jesus (Luke 4:42) or Paul retaining Onesimus (Phlm 1:13). It is used of owning possessions (1 Cor 7:30; 2 Cor 6:10) or heading from a ship to the shoreline (Acts 27:40). It is also used often of holding fast to God’s Word, maintaining the apostolic traditions (Luke 8:15; 1 Cor 11:2; 15:2; 1 Thess 5:21) or our confidence and confession in Christ (Heb 3:6, 14; 10:23).

Negatively, the word is used of the constraining effects of the Law (Rom 7:6) or the restraint of the Holy Spirit on the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess 2:6, 7). The verb, therefore, indicates preventing something from having its full effect. Here, in Romans 1:18 Paul accuses the majority of humanity of preventing God’s truth from being spread throughout God’s world. The problem is not that people do not know the truth; truth is known, as Paul will argue in vv. 19-20, but it is prevented from wider access through a variety of mechanisms of suppression. The last phrase of v. 18 expresses either the motive (“in unrighteousness”) or the means (“by unrighteous methods”) by which this suppression takes place.

The conjunction “because” at the beginning of v. 19 seeks to explain this statement from v. 18. The non-Christian reader may object that she or he is not suppressing truth; in fact, they are more likely to argue that religion is suppressing truth! They may even suggest that if they are suppressing any religious truth, they are doing so accidentally, but not intentionally. But Paul counter-objects that unrighteous people are not ignorant; rather, they are aware that divine truth exists, but they reject and suppress it.

Paul suggests that what can be known about God is “evident” to them. That is, knowledge is not coy, or hidden, but plain and available. This is similar to the portrayal in Proverbs of Lady Wisdom, who makes herself available to all who pass by (see our previous article on Prov 1:20-21); she is both known and accessible or available.

God could have kept his truth hidden; he could have made knowledge of Himself unavailable, not evident and not accessible. Rather, the truth about God is “evident.” The verb phaneroō is used twice in this verse and means “to make known, to reveal, to show” or “to make evident or plain.” Paul argues that the truth regarding the Creator God is evident “within” them, and he will go on to verify that it can be understood from nature as well. In fact, verse 19 ends by affirming that God Himself is the agent of making truth about Himself evident to humanity.

This brings us back to the reality that relativism is irrelevant. Truth is truth, whether we like or believe it or not. God has made His universal morality evident in nature (1:20), in the human conscience (Rom 2:14-15), and in the revelations and oracles that He has provided to humanity (3:2; see also Deut 4:8; Ps 147:19; Is 2:3; 51:4).

God has made enough of His truth evident such that people are culpable for rejecting it; humanity has no excuse for rejecting God in light of what God has graciously provided to us.