NOVEMBER 2018

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the November 2018 edition of The Eclectic Kasper! This month, we have several articles from the book of Romans, including two articles about one of the most interesting verses in the book!

We do a post-mortem on the recent mid-term elections, we note the main reason for the poor reception of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and we wonder why some people think that white men are terrorizing our country.

You don’t have to agree with every article or perspective in order to visit our Facebook page and give us a “like.” If you like the free exchange of ideas and civil discussions, then please give us a “like” and feel free to dialog with us on any of our articles. We have a goal to get over 250 “likes” by the end of 2018, and we would love your help with that.

Also, you can also send your thoughts and comments on any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we will reprint good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

ROMANS: The Joy of Justification, Romans 3:24-26

Romans 3:23 is one of the more popular verses in Romans, but one that in isolation leaves us hopeless: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Yet, the despair regarding our inability to redeem ourselves should drive us toward the joy of knowing that we can be truly justified based on a gift that only God could provide.

Given the absolute premise of v. 23, how can anyone be saved? Rather than leaving the reader hang on this critical question, Paul immediately answers it in v. 24. The answer reflects the spirit of v. 23 in that there is no human work, effort or proclivity involved in the reception of redemption. It is a work entirely of, from and by God.

The very first verbal form in v. 24 illustrates this in that it is a passive participle. We are justified as a result of God’s choice and mercy, not on account of our own goodness, efforts, will or proclivities. It is a “gift”; the word dorean usually refers to something received “without cost” (2 Cor 11:7; 2 Thess 3:8; Rev 21:6; 22:17), or something that has occurred “without cause,” or without a motivating reason or action that merits a counter-reaction (John 15:25; Gal 2:21). That is, the salvation given to humanity is without a cost exacted from humanity and also without a causal element that enables humanity to feel any sense of deservedness.

This transaction is “by His grace,” again, a critical distinction from anything that is earned by works or by the flesh. This duality is also noted in Eph 2:5, 8, 9, 2 Tim 1:9 (see also Acts 15:11; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This grace leads to the “redemption” of God which is only possible because of Christ (John 16:4; Acts 4:12). In ancient Greek “redemption” (the Greek word apolutrosis) referred to a release effected by payment of ransom. Theologically, it is being purchased and then exchanged from a state of captivity to a state of freedom.

In v. 25, then, Paul continues to describe how Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished justification for undeserved sinners.

The word protithemai literally means “to place before,” but can also mean “to plan, purpose, intend” and perhaps “to show openly or publicly.” Paul refers here to the public manifestation of the means of redemption, specifically the public execution of Christ and the resurrection witnessed by hundreds. Christianity is not based on someone’s individual experience, but on a public demonstration of God’s wrath and of God’s compassion for humanity.

By knowing that Christ would be the propitiation for sin, God could overlook the sins committed beforehand and afterward as well. Therefore, He could be faithful to His holiness, but also merciful to people by venting the fullness of stored-up wrath upon Christ. Therefore, this justification has a senses of being retro-active; applying to sins that were previously committed (v. 25).

In fact, the attribute of God mentioned in v. 25 is “forbearance” (anoche), a word used in the NT elsewhere only in Rom 2:4. This is the capacity of God to not retaliate, but to have the control to deal with sin at a later time even though immediate retribution would be very well deserved. That God doesn’t strike each of us dead when we sin is an exercise of his extreme compassion, mercy and patience.

In v. 26 Paul reaches back to the word “demonstration” (endeixis) that he had used in the previous verse. Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection is a sign and an expression of God’s righteousness, specifically, that the moral debt that man owed to God was paid by Christ, who alone could have paid it.

We take the joy of justification for granted, the fact that we have been saved by God’s grace through Christ’s work. But we often miss the profound dilemma that God was in. The problem was that a sacrifice to God’s holiness had to be paid on man’s behalf. But no person, nor any group of people, could pay that. Only the Second person of the Trinity, incarnated in human flesh could pay that debt. Only a person could redeem humankind, and only the eternal God-man could pay the price for all humankind.

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross allows God to both exercise justice and extend compassion to those who deserve punishment. He can be just to fully punish sin, but He can also compassionately extend justification and declare sinners perfect and holy based on the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus’ perfect life, sacrificial death and literal resurrection allow God to be both the righteous and just One and also the One who justifies, without any compromise to His character or attributes.

And of course, one of the main themes of Romans is that one can only be justified, or one can only appropriate this gift of redemption through “faith in Christ.” We can both truly appreciate how just and holy God is, but also recognize the profound mercy and compassion that He shows to believers by justifying us.

A few great implications can encourage us to have joy in our justification. First of all, we can revel in the fact that through the sacrifice and resurrection of the God-Man Jesus Christ, God is able to continue to be just, and also be the one who provides justification to those who don’t deserve it and who could never earn it. It is a free gift, that we don’t need to work for, but we can receive it as a gift of God’s love.

Also, the joy of justification means that we can be free to stop apologizing for sins we committed years ago. We can stop feeling guilty for past indiscretions that God has forgiven us of. God’s wrath has been turned away and we have been forgiven. When we do something wrong, we need to sincerely confess it, reject that sin, and move forward into greater purity and holiness.

The joy of justification means that we can also rejoice when others trust in Christ and are justified. We can strive to extend this joy of justification to others and strive to extend mercy and joy, not judgment and condescension.

POLITICS: A Mid-Term Post-Mortem

Some of you may have heard of this, but there was an election a few weeks ago, the 2018 mid-terms.

For most presidents, mid-term elections, especially their first one taking place just two years after he enters the White House, is a complete drubbing, and several have noted that fact.

First, some historical perspective: In only three mid-term elections since 1914 has the sitting president picked up additional seats in the House of Representatives; Franklin D. Roosevelt gained nine in 1934, Bill Clinton gained four in 1998, and George W. Bush gained eight in 2002. There have also been some huge losses in the House in the mid-terms: Warren Harding lost 77 seats in 1922, the aforementioned FDR lost 72 seats in 1938, and more recently, Barack Obama lost 63 in 2010. Here in 2018, President Trump will probably lose between 27 and 37 seats; not great, but not horrible.

The U. S. Senate is a similar story of bad news for a sitting president, only six of whom have gained seats in the Senate during a mid-term since 1914. The largest was in 1934 again where FDR gained nine seats. The biggest losses were in 1946 where Truman lost ten Senate seats and in 1958 where Eisenhower lost twelve. Big Senate losses more recently include Clinton’s loss of ten seats in 1994 and Obama’s loss of nine in 2014. It doesn’t look like Trump will lose any Senate seats, and may even gain one or two.

Most of the time, presidents were mature enough to recognize and face their losses. George W. Bush referred to his loss of 38 congressional seats and also six gubernatorial losses as a “thumpin’” by the Democrats. In 2010, when Obama lost 69 congressional seats and six gubernatorial races, he labeled the mid-term a “shellacking.”

The bad news for the GOP in 2018 is that they lost the House of Representatives, a loss which will give Nancy Pelosi the false sense that she is relevant. The good news is that the 2018 mid-terms were not the drubbing for Trump that previous presidents have endured.

Though mid-term elections are often, and perhaps legitimately, seen as referendums of the current president, a few other factors need to be considered, especially in terms of what the 2018 mid-terms may imply about the 2020 presidential elections. For instance, in a November 11 article, Wayne Allyn Root summarized: “Where Trump campaigned, GOP Senate candidates won 9 of 11 races. Trump’s energy pulls the GOP train. The GOP lost the House only because Trump couldn’t be in 435 places at once.”

“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”!

Both sides will see victory in these midterms, which means that both sides risk ignoring legitimate lessons that defeat could give them. The Dem’s barely got the House back; the house could flip back very easily in 2020 as a result of Pelosi’s clueless ineptitude. Also, there seems to have been a genuine Kavanaugh bounce in the GOP’s favor against some of the characters in the Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation fiasco. For example, Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota lost to her GOP challenger Kevin Cramer fairly substantially. This may have factored into the losses of other Democratic senators who opposed Kavanaugh, including Joe Donnely in IN and Bill Nelson of FL, and some suspect that Democrat Joe Manchin’s victory was the propped up by his support for Kavanaugh. But the mid-terms raise some questions about the GOP, like What’s wrong with the GOP? Where is the GOP’s strong message of conservative principles? (By the way, I was concerned about GOP messaging before the 2014 mid-terms, also; you should check out our article, “A ‘Plain’ Rally Cry” from the September 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.)

Also, what happened to the winsome messages of compassionate conservativism that encourages the success of the successful without having to sacrifice the well-being of those who are legitimately in need? And also, Why are there close elections and strong Democratic turn-outs in states like Georgia, Iowa, South Carolina, and Mississippi? Is there a plan in place to re-assert conservative principles in these states, and hopefully, make them solidly red?

In the end, I would have preferred the GOP to maintain the House, but I can also see the silver lining in that loss. If the Republicans hadn’t lost the House, I believe that the GOP would have become too complacent moving toward the 2020 elections especially regarding their messaging. A defeat in the House should serve as a wake-up call, and a reminder that conservatives may not only re-elect a Republican president, but also take back the House, and maybe even pick yet a few more seats in the Senate.

So, what’s your take on the 2018 mid-term elections? Send your thoughts, responses and feedback to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll present good feedback in a future edition.

MOVIES/ TV: The Dark Side of The Last Jedi

***Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the movies described.***

Almost a year after the release of Star Wars: The Last Jedi (hereafter TLJ), we’re still sore about how it turned out. Fans were similarly disappointed with Phantom Menace, but there was some trilogy redemption with the second film, Attack of the Clones, and a pretty good payoff with Revenge of the Sith.

There are many individual critiques about TLJ, several of which Luke Kasper discussed in his article “The Good, The Bad,and The Last Jedi” in the January 2018 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

But I believe that most of the problems in this movie center around one dark reality: the makers of the TLJ – writers, directors and producers – were more interested in making political statements than they were interested in making a good movie. They wanted to promote their social agenda and were far less concerned about honoring this great franchise or honoring their faithful fans.

While the writing in the film is weak and the plot is questionable and the characters are weird, the most egregious parts of the movie are the result of nods to political issues. These gestures toward politics rip us out of the Star Wars universe and remind us too much of political divides in our own reality; ironically, it is exactly these political discussions that we long to escape from when we pop in a sci-fi movie. The political lunges make TLJ preachy and manufactured and profoundly erodes one’s ability to enjoy the film.

The Last Jedi attempts to feature strong, independent women. In fact, it seems passé anymore to have a young man as the main protagonist. The Force Awakens and Rogue One both featured females in the lead roles.

There are many “strong women” in TLJ. The only problem is, nobody likes any of these women. The females in TLJ are neither winsome, nor pleasant, nor good examples for anyone. Some of them strike us as nasty, witchy women, like Leia, as in when she slaps Poe, or Vice Admiral Holdo, as in everytime she opens her mouth. Rey spends most of the movie trying to petition for aid of a man (how does that play with the feminist agenda?). The character of Rose Tico was so bad and clueless that it almost made us miss Jar-Jar. Unfortunately, many fans attacked actress Kelly Marie Tran for her role as Rose. Just as unfortunately, others misinterpreted these attacks to be motivated by racism or misogyny rather than the fact that Tran is a bad actress who played a horribly-written character. Some female characters, like Maz Katana and Captain Phasma, served very little real purpose in this movie; they were barely placeholders. It pains me to see such a great franchise participate in the broader social project of imposing a feminist agenda. But in this aim, the film failed miserably.

Then there’s the ubiquitous race issue. Finn is a black character who we really tried to like, but he was almost completely useless in this film. Maybe they should have taken a cue from great black characters in the franchise like Lando Calrissian and Mace Windu. And they cram in Rose Tico, an Asian character. Lest anyone call me racist, I want to emphasize that nobody minds non-white characters. What we do mind is characters that are distractingly bad no matter what race or gender they are. In this move, the worst characters were the black guy, the Asian gal, and the lady with the purple hair. This profoundly undermines the diversity agenda that the film seems desperate to support.

And then there is the trip to Canto Bight, the casino planet, a section of the film widely acknowledged to be one of the most useless digressions in any Star Wars movie, if not in cinematic history in general. This had no function other than to take pot-shots at rich people and to promote an image about their excess and exploitation. In this useless sequence, Finn and Rose destroy parts of a swanky casino and free a group of horse-like creatures. After this last act, Rose utters, “Now it’s worth it.” It is worth observing, however, that they liberated the animals, but didn’t try to free the children who were being exploited; I guess the kids just weren’t “worth it.”

Rose also delivers the most distractingly clueless line of the entire franchise. The problem is that the line epitomizes the naïve liberal stance on geo-politics, and seemed to serve as a rebuke to conservatives. Right before Finn was about to sacrifice himself on Crait to save the remaining rebels, which would have been his only useful act in the entire movie, Rose prevents this act of heroism. By way of explanation, she claims, “That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, [but by] saving what we love.” But if that’s how she felt, why did she get into a speeder to attack the First Order on Crait in the first place? If that what she believes, why did she join the Rebellion at all? The contradictions were painful to watch.

It is hard to imagine more naïve sentiment and a more unnecessary dichotomy. Of course, we are driven to defend what we love and preserve it for ourselves and others. However, that is not mutually exclusive with a profound dislike of all that opposes our personal and national safety and security. Besides, I suspect that those who destroyed death stars and the star-killer base in previous installments of the franchise had a far different philosophy than what Rose espouses here. Hate can be a good motivator when it isn’t personal as much as ideological; we hate the unwarranted slaughter caused by Nazi fascism and the atrocities accomplished by Islamic extremism. The irony is that while Rose seems to be the character that epitomizes the liberalism and feminism of the Left, she comes off as ditsy, naïve, and clueless.

Some suggest that we have Star Wars fatigue. But that is not because there are too many Star Wars movies coming out; it is because of the low quality of some of these movies. After all, there are three times as many Marvel movies being made, and we are not experiencing Marvel fatigue! What we’re tired of in Star Wars is all the political agenda.

But this is not even the same critique that we had about the prequel trilogy. The prequels had a lot of politics in them, but TLJ was political. That is, the prequels had too much politics about its own context: endless intrigues about the senate, the separatists, and blockades dragged these films down. However, TLJ had too much of our politics imposed on the Star Wars context. So again, the prequels had too much politics, but, even worse, TLJ was just too political.

As with The Force Awakens (which I critiqued here) I really, really, really wanted to like The Last Jedi. But it is simply impossible to enjoy a movie, the drama, the effects, the soundtrack, while the makers are cramming a socio-political agenda down your throat.

The makers of this movie have a right to their opinions on political issues. And modern society affords us innumerable outlets for expression of our social and political views. But ruining a Star Wars movie just because you want to make political statements is a disservice to the franchise and to fans. Leave the social critique to Star Trek and just make good Star Wars movies without all the politics.

Franchises depend on fan loyalty; you want to create new fans and also avoid alienating current ones either with bad movies or with your political and social agendas. These first two installments in the sequel trilogy were weak on many levels that we have previously discussed. But, TLJ seemed to indicate that the franchise is now more interested in making political points rather than making great movies. Succinctly, if the Star Wars franchise goes into hyperdrive on political issues, it risks losing its fanbase entirely.

ROMANS EXPRESS: Presenting Our Bodies, Romans 12:1, Part 1

We are doing a verse-by-verse and passage-by-passage study through Romans (you can access previous articles in that series here). We started this series in the January 2015 edition, and we are only in Romans 3.

So, once in a while, we’ll warp speed ahead to a verse or passage toward the end of Romans, just because they’re so great, and we can’t wait to get to them. And Romans 12:1 is certainly one that merits our immediate attention.

One of the few things that we carry around with us our entire lives it our bodies. Different shapes, sizes, different limitations and capacities, and yet all created for the same purpose, specifically, to glorify God and to do His work here on earth. It is interesting, then, that after a long description of the sovereignty and mercy of God in Romans 9-11, Paul would launch into a series of exhortations about how we can use our bodies to reflect God’s rule and mercy even in this present age.

The “therefore” that begins Romans 12:1 includes everything that has preceded in Romans, including the depravity of man (chs. 1-3), the undeserved justification of some people through Christ (chs. 4-5), the merciful invitation to serve God (ch. 6), the gracious aid through spiritual struggles both internal (ch. 7) and external (ch. 8), and God’s compassion toward rebellious Israel (chs. 9-11); everything that Paul has been discussing up to this point revolves around the incredible grace and mercy of God toward fallen sinners like us. Perhaps to emphasize that point, Paul uses a rare word in this verse for “mercy” or “compassion” (the Greek word oiktirmos); it is rarer than the usual word for mercy, and is only used elsewhere in 2 Cor 1:3, Phil 2:1, Col 3:12, and Heb 10:28. While many think that God is all about wrath and punishment, God seems to delight more in mercy and compassion. The previous few chapters in Romans discuss God’s profound mercy, and the exhortations in these chapters that follow (especially Romans 12-15), should be understood as responses to that mercy, not as ways to earn God’s mercy.

God’s mercy, therefore, becomes the platform for exhortation. In light of that mercy, Paul “encourages” believers to offer themselves to God. It is worth noting that while Paul refers to believers as “brothers,” he nonetheless commands them to offer themselves to God, betraying his sense that even though they have already been justified, they have not entered sanctification to the point of personal sacrifice and service.

The verb paristemi means “to place beside, to present, stand by, appear.” While one would expect it to be used often in the LXX (remember, that the LXX, or the “Septuagint” is a Greek translation of the OT that was created in the 3rd or 2nd century BCE) in relationship with sacrifice, the word usually, instead, means placing something before someone as a sign of honoring them (Gen 18:8; 1 Sam 5:2), or literally of putting something or someone next to someone else (Gen 45:1; Num 23:3; Ps 109:31 [108:31]). It is often used of the Levites, priests or prophets of “standing before” the Lord either literally or in terms of their permanent service to Him (Deut 10:8; 17:12; 18:5; Judges 20:28; 2 Kings 3:14; 5:16; Zech 4:14). Thus, this act of presenting something before God is less about presenting an animal sacrifice that is slaughtered and placed on an altar; rather it refers more to standing before and attending to the will of the Lord as a living servant and sacrifice.

As the word in the OT is often used about presenting oneself physically before a lord or monarch, so also we are exhorted to present our “bodies” to Him. Our sacrifice for the Lord involves our body; this includes our physical presence in church, in the aid of another believer, or in the proclamation of the Gospel. This does not suggest that our minds and feelings are not involved in our obeisance to God. Too many believers are present in church on Sunday mornings in body only! We should not just show love and fealty with our minds, or souls, but also with our bodies, in tangible acts of love and fellowship. And wherever the body goes, the capacities of the mind, soul, emotions, and volition follow. In an increasingly virtual world, it is important to remember that we still need to maintain a physical presence in this world in meeting needs, edifying other believers and in proclaiming the Gospel.

What kind of service are we to provide with our bodies? What should that self-sacrifice of our bodies look like? We’ll address that below in our discussion of the rest of Romans 12:1 in the article “Our Personal Worship Service.”

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: The Terror of White Men

Dictators, ecological crises, a Central American caravan, terrorists, rogue mass shooters: Which of these are most dangerous for our society?

None, according to Don Lemon, faux-journalist on CNN.

On Monday, October 29, during Cuomo Prime Time, Lemon warned twice of the danger of demonizing others. Indeed, too much demonizing of the opposite political camp or of individuals takes place in our national discourse. Way to go, Don Lemon!

Commentary on Romans

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

He then proceeded to assert that we need to “realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.” Well, I’m glad that he doesn’t want to demonize anyone! He noted that there was a “Muslim ban,” which is not true; President Trump spearheaded a ban (Executive Order 13769) on countries with the highest tendency of exporting terrorists; this was not a ban on all Muslim countries and not even on the countries with the largest Muslim populations, like Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But those are facts, and CNN doesn’t seem to care much about them.

After mentioning the alleged “Muslim Ban,” Lemon then noted that, “There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?” It is interesting that he not only noted that there was no “white guy” ban, but then urged for some kind of action: “What do we do about that?” Does he want an actual ban of white males? And nobody thinks that this is racist and sexist?

These comments were in response to a series of explosive devices that were sent to several prominent liberal politicians and media people by a crazy person named Cesar Sayoc. These were truly reprehensible deeds, nobody disagrees with that. Despite what liberals think, conservatives don’t promote violence in political discourse. The beauty is that conservatives don’t have to resort to violence, but we can use good conservative ideas as a means of persuasion. We can discuss ideas like a smaller, streamlined, and more efficient government, and the lower taxes for all citizens that would ensue. We can promote less regulation, so that large and smaller businesses can have more freedom. We don’t have to use shouting or violence to get these good ideas across to people; in fact, I wish more conservatives and Republicans would just discuss these ideas more.

It is also interesting to me how quickly liberals identified Sayoc's actions as “domestic terrorism.” These are clearly acts of terror when perpetrated by white conservative-leaning males. Yet, liberals cannot bring themselves to recognize the scourge of black-on-black violence in many major American cities, and they cannot bring themselves to use phrases like “Islamic terrorism.”

There was some backlash to Lemon’s statements about the terrorization of our country by white men on the right. Though, as we have pointed out previously, many others have lost their jobs for far more innocent statements, for which they afterward apologized profusely. But Don Lemon is still on CNN.

Two days later on Wednesday, October 31, when given the opportunity to clarify or back off these statements, Lemon refused to do so, but doubled down on his racism and demonization: “I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming.” Really!? Tell that to Steve Scalise!

And is there a pattern emerging here about Lemon’s hatred of conservative white men or anyone who would dare to associate with them? Leading a panel on CNN on Oct 11, Lemon suggested that Kanye West’s meeting at the White House with Trump was a “minstrel show” (a term with obvious racial implications) and it was “embarrassing.” He even took a potshot at West’s deceased mother, suggesting that she “is rolling over in her grave.” “He’s an attention whore, like the president,” added panelist Tara Setmeyer, who then noted that West is Trump’s “token negro.”

So much could be said about Lemon’s and Setmeyer’s ignorant comments and how poorly they reflect on CNN. However, I will just vent a little and say that as a white middle-class male, I am tired of being blamed for a disproportionate amount of society’s ills, especially in a society that claims to be tolerant to all view points.

What Don Lemon did was beyond hypocritical. You can’t warn against demonization in one breath and then suggest a ban on white men with the very next.

Ultimately, racism goes both ways. We all have to be careful about what we say, whether the statement is edgy or whether it falls into full bore racism. This applies to everyone, and doesn’t excuse a high-profile black person like Don Lemon from proposing a ban on white men.

What do you think about Lemon’s comments? Is our response to his statements too much, too little, or just right? Send your responses or thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint good feedback in a future edition!

ROMANS EXPRESS: Our Personal Worship Service, Romans 12:1, Part 2

We’ve fast-forwarded briefly in our exegetical study of Romans to Romans 12:1. We covered the first half in the article “Presenting Our Bodies” above, and we now continue in this verse to see how we are to use our bodies to worship the Lord.

The issue of worship continues to divide Protestantism. Many churches have settled into a stalemate where they embrace a “blending” of old and new songs, but not always well. I have been to many of these services and they should probably be called “bland” worship rather than blended worship.

On the other hand, many worship services mistake theatricality for genuine worship. Many believers equate worship with certain song styles and specific kinds of instruments that they like best. We even have a series in The Eclectic Kasper about our study of worship called “Dimensions of Worship” (you can see all of those articles here).

But is there an even more fundamental notion about worship that that takes precedence over the style of the songs or the debates about instruments?

Ultimately, worship is supposed to include the element of sacrifice, a sacrifice of time, as sacrifice of our voices, of our energy, of our resources. Additionally, worship is supposed to catapult us into a sacrifice of our will and agenda and into an embrace of God’s will for our lives. It’s too bad that we’ve spent so much time arguing about tempo and musical style and not enough time discussing how we should submit our wills to God’s.

In Romans 12:1, Paul clearly summons believers to offer ourselves as a sacrifice of worship in response to God’s mercy. We are to be a living sacrifice, not one that smolders on the embers of an alter, but one that radiates with the joy and truth of salvation and justification.

Paul exhorts believers to present our own bodies as a “sacrifice.” In the LXX, the word thusia, meaning “sacrifice, offering, act of offering” translates a variety of Hebrew words, which are used for a variety of animal and grain offerings. These sacrifices are consecrated for the Lord and their existence terminates in their service to and worship of God. For us, too, believers are sanctified and consecrated for the Lord’s service, and this service is to continue throughout the duration of our lives.

The kind of self-sacrifice that Paul exhorts us to offer is described with four modifiers here in Romans 12:1. Paul notes that we are “living” sacrifices. The OT grain or animal sacrifices ended on the altar; but for the believer, our life continues on a metaphorical alter of not just dying for God, but living for God in an ongoing state of sacrifice.

The second modifier is “holy.” Moral purity, righteous living, moral excellence is not an option, but an expectation for every believer (Lev 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7; 20:26; Joel 3:17; 2 Cor 1:12; 7:1; Eph 4:24; 1 Thess 3:13; Heb 12:10; 1 Pet 1:16). As the OT sacrifices were supposed to be without blemish, the sacrifice that God provided, namely, Jesus Christ, was also holy and blameless (Heb 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19). Similarly, we, as Christ’s followers, are to be sacrifices pure and without blemish.

The third modifier is “pleasing to God.” The word euarestos means “acceptable” or “pleasing.” It is used nine times in the NT (Rom 12:1, 2; 14:18; 2 Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; Phil 4:18; Col 3:20; Titus 2:9; Heb 13:21; see also Wis 4:10; 9:10), always of something that is pleasing or acceptable to the Lord. While the NASB translates this “acceptable,” I believe that the NIV’s “pleasing” is more appropriate; it raises the bar and reminds us that we do not want to just be “acceptable” to God but to be pleasing to Him as our highest priority and as our grandest privilege.

The fourth exhortation about the kind of sacrifice that we are to offer is that it is to be a “spiritual act of worship.” What does this mean?

The problem may be one of translation. The translational history of this verse compels modern versions to render the Greek word here as “spiritual.” This is a rendering of the word logikos, meaning “rational, reasonable,” and it is the etymological predecessor for our word “logical.” While the idea of “spiritual” may be part of what Paul has in mind here in Romans 12:1, I believe that this word is pointing more to the notion of “logical,” and this connotation aligns with the context better.

While our personal sacrifice has a spiritual component to it, the more predominant idea seems to be that offering our entire self is a service that is “reasonable” and rational. Given human depravity, justification, the transfer of righteousness from God to people as a result of His mercy and grace, the only reasonable and logical response is for us to present our bodies and our whole lives to God.

Not only this, but Jesus asserts that the most important command in the Law is Deut 6:5: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (see the parallel passages in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27; see also Deut 11:13; 30:6). To love and serve God with our whole being is the most logical response that we can have to His love for us and gift of salvation that He has granted to us. Isaac Watts’ hymn “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” ends with the line, “Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.” Rejection is unreasonable, apathy is unreasonable, continuing in sin and ignoring or skewing God’s grace is unreasonable. The least that we can do as believers is to sacrifice our all for what God has done for us.

Finally, the word for “act of worship,” is latreia from whence we get the word “liturgy.” It is used only a few times in the NT (John 16:2; Rom 9:4; Heb 9:1, 6), and it hints to the fact that our service is to be sacrificial and should reflect the content and truth of our faith, as well.

Our Christian life should be an ongoing liturgy of worship, including pursuing holiness, placing God’s will above our own, and doing this as a reasonable response for the redemption and salvation that our gracious God has provided to us.