NOVEMBER/ DECEMBER 2012

In this edition . . .

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: The Logical Fallacy of Atheism

POLITICS: The Bright Side of Getting Your Buns Kicked

INSIGHTS ON ISLAM: The Basic Background

THE ECLECTIC KASPER IN REVIEW: Twelve Favorites From 2012

EMERGING CONCERNS: Off the Deep End, Part Two

THE QUEST FOR THE IDEAL MEDIEVAL FANTASY SERIES: The Problem of Length

WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Eucharist

READER FEEDBACK: Musings About Politics

After a break during a busy November, The Eclectic Kasper returns to educate, elucidate, and entertain.

This November/ December 2012 edition is book-ended by the joy of the Holiday season on one hand, and the horrific shootings that occurred at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut on the other. It seems somewhat trite to talk about politics, Marburg, and medieval-fantasy literature in light of this devastating tragedy. However, we have decided that “the show must go on” for now; but you can believe that we will have some relevant articles about the nature of evil and the debate about gun laws in future editions of The Eclectic Kasper.

This month, we have a special post-post-election article. Yes, we are not just in post-election mode, but doing some post-post-election analysis. We want to provide reasonable thoughts and legitimate statistics that will help you make sense of what happened on November 6 and what the election means for our country (and by the way, it may not be as bad as many of you think!). Also this edition: more from Marburg, another segment on bizarre statements from Emergent Church authors, the problem of length in medieval-fantasy series, and the logical fallacy of atheism.

Thanks for reading, stay eclectic, and have a great Hanukkah, Christmas and New Years!

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: The Logical Fallacy of Atheism

We have had several articles already about “Arguments or the Existence of God” (see our first one in the August 2012 edition). I doubt that these will convince the hardened skeptic, but for the rest of us, some of these arguments bring a measure of intellectual plausibility to what we know to be true by faith.

While those who claim to be pure atheists are a relatively small percent of the population, they are, as we shall see in this series, a rather vocal minority. What they often don’t realize is that the staunch assertion that God does not exist is a logical fallacy. I will prove theoretically the logical fallacy of atheism, but first I will give you an illustration:

Look at your hand. Go ahead – look at it! Is there a spider on your hand? Hopefully you will answer, “no!” Then, I would respond, “How do you know that you don’t have a spider on your hand?” That is, what knowledge is necessary for you to ascertain the answer to this question? Now the issue is less about the existence of something, but your knowledge of the existence of something.

So, how do you know whether or not you have a spider on your hand? To answer this query adequately, you must have two kinds of knowledge. The first is that you must have knowledge of the subject, in this case, a spider. I am not referring to some microbiological form, but an arachnid that is large enough to be seen with the naked eye and that is identifiable as a spider. You must have adequate knowledge to identify a spider in order to know if you have one on your hand or not. Second, you must have complete knowledge of the arena, which in this case, means that you must have thorough knowledge of the outside of your hand; for this is the arena in which the spider’s existence is in question. Again, it is not enough to simply have complete knowledge of the palm of your hand, but also complete knowledge of the back of your hand and of your fingers in order to be able to ascertain whether or not there is a spider on your hand.

So, let’s review: in order to determine whether there is a spider on your hand, you must have adequate knowledge of spiders (enough to be able to identify one), but relatively complete knowledge of the outside of your hand, perhaps not down to the cellular level, but knowledge that is complete enough to know that every surface of your hand is accounted for.

So let’s take this to the next step; we’ll stick with the subject, a spider, but change the arena. In fact, consider your house, perhaps, a typical middle-class, two-story home. Do you have a spider in your house? Again, in order to ascertain this answer with any measure of certainty, you have to have adequate knowledge of a spider but complete knowledge of your house: every crack and crevice, every closet and corner. To definitively assert that there are no spiders in your house, you must have complete and exhaustive knowledge of the entire structure; for to have anything less than complete knowledge of every aspect of your house may result in missing a small section where a spider dwells, thus undermining your thesis that there are no spiders in your house. I suspect that even if some exterminators came through to inspect and spray, they still couldn’t guarantee at the end of their task that they had eradicated every spider from your abode. Therefore, the claim that there are no spiders in your house is completely absurd since that assertion requires such exhaustive knowledge of your house.

Well, you probably see where I’m going with this, but let’s play it out, just because we’re having so much fun!

So let’s change the subject from spider to God. Remember, we don’t have to have exhaustive knowledge of God, but rather, just enough to recognize and identify him.

But what about the arena? When one states confidently that God does not exist, the unstated arena is the entirety of existence. And remember what kind of knowledge one has to have? We only have to have adequate knowledge of the subject, but exhaustive and complete knowledge of the arena! But searching for a spider entailed complete knowledge of merely the physical realm. Locating God requires not merely complete knowledge of the physical realm (where there may perhaps be evidence of his existence) but of the non-physical (or spiritual) realm as well! That is, asserting confidently that God doesn’t exist requires one to have complete knowledge of everything.

Now here’s the part that’ll boil yer brains . . .

While Biblical Christianity has many doctrines that are distinct from any other faith system, there are a few truths which most faith systems share. These are the extension of general revelation provided by God through common grace. For example, virtually every religion acknowledges that their god, or the chief deity in their pantheon, is all-knowing, all-seeing, or, more technically, omniscient. The being who knows everything, hears everything, sees everything is called “god.” Again, this is a universally recognized property of what it means to understand and define god.

So, let’s get back to our foolish atheist. When he boldly asserts that God does not exist or that there is no God, this assertion requires him to have sufficient knowledge of the subject, but exhaustive and complete knowledge of the entirety of existence. He must be all-knowing, all-seeing, completely omniscient in order to claim that he has looked everywhere – behind every rock, within every galaxy, in all places known and unknown, in every realm physical and non-physical – and can definitively conclude that God does not exist anywhere.

That is, in order to claim that God does not exist, the atheist has to claim to know all things (foolish), presuming himself to be completely omniscient (doubly foolish), which is to claim himself be the very being, namely, God, whose existence he initially set out to disprove (ridiculously foolish!).

So that’s the illustration; now I’ll put it now in theoretical language:

1. Contextualized and isolated assertions (such as “There is no spider on my hand”) must be based on adequate knowledge of the subject (spider) and relatively complete knowledge of the arena (the outside of my hand).

2. Absolute assertions (such as “There is no God”) must be based on adequate knowledge of the subject (God) but exhaustive knowledge of the arena (all things material and immaterial that exist).

3. A specific example of point #2 is that to assert God’s non-existence requires one to have exhaustive knowledge of all existence.

4. Only God, as defined by almost any religion, has exhaustive, omniscient knowledge.

5. Therefore, the one who asserts God’s non-existence presumes himself to be God and essentially claims to be God himself.

So, as you see, atheism is a logical fallacy, as only God can prove that God does not exist, which God won’t do because he exists.

But this also takes the heat off the individual who believes that God exists. We are often backed into a corner, tasked to prove that God does exist. However, the burden of proof is not upon one who believes in God to prove that He exists (a claim that we expressly admit is based on faith!). Rather, the burden of proof is on those who definitively deny that he exists, because they must possess exhaustive knowledge and convincing evidence in order verify their claim.

And Scripture has already created apt titles for anyone who claims that there is no God (Ps 10:4; 14:1; 53:1)!

So what do you think? Do you understand and agree with the logic here? Send your civil thoughts, questions and interaction to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

POLITICS: The Bright Side of Getting Your Buns Kicked

Well, let’s face it: Republicans got their buns kicked in the November election. The polls we clung to that portrayed Romney as being ahead were wrong, and the ones we accused of oversampling democrats were accurate. (And by the way, someone needs to tell Karl Rove, Bill Cunningham and Dick Morris that elections are not won on the basis of one’s confidence in their own polling, but on how people actually vote!) We over-estimated America’s attraction to a moderate, and we underestimated people’s affection for a president that is clearly in over his head. We had inflated hopes after the 2010 mid-terms and those hopes were dashed two years later in November 2012. We were fools, all of us, to put so much hope in a right-talking moderate. Frankly, we deserve the feeling that we have after this bun-kicking.

However, the situation may not be as dire as some claim. Let’s look at the raw data, something that we’re good at doing here at The Eclectic Kasper.

Despite the November bun-kicking, the statistics reveal some positives that nobody on the conservative side seems to be talking about. First, Obama won by a much slighter margin in 2012 than he did in 2008. Four years ago, Obama beat McCain with 52.9% of the popular vote against McCain’s 45.7%; that is, Obama won in 2008 by a fairly wide 7.2% margin. In November 2012, Obama beat Romney 51.0% to 47.3% (based on the latest statistics I could find), a mere 3.7%, which is about half of the 2008 margin. Similarly, the electoral college vote dropped for Obama from 365 in 2008 to 332 in 2012. This is a solid sign that citizens—several states-worth of them—are growing less enamored with liberal policies that do not seem to be working.

Put simply, the raw number of people who voted for Obama dropped drastically. In 2008, almost 69.5 million people drank Obama’s “hope and change” Kool-Aid. This time, only 65.6 million people voted for the president. That is, almost 4 million people saw through the hype and flimsiness of the Obama administration and decided not to cast a ballot for him. Conversely, more people voted for Mitt in 2012 (almost 61 million) than for voted for McCain in 2008 (just shy of 60 million). What is most significant about this is the rhetoric about voter enthusiasm. Both sides trumpeted their swelling voter excitement. In reality, the GOP base grew slightly from 2008 to 2012 (about 926,000 more votes for Mitt than for McCain) and the Dem’s base dropped by about 5.6% in those four years.

This is critical: While all the focus right now is on how the GOP should change in light of two consecutive presidential losses (and should cave regarding the fiscal cliff), the numbers tell a different story. It was the Dems who lost significant ground in this election, and it was the GOP that gained. If the Dems lose another 5.6% of their base by 2016, and the GOP voter enthusiasm and turn-out continues to grow steadily, then that bodes poorly for the Democratic party. Of course, all of this depends on the actual candidates in 2016 on both sides, but still, the declining Democratic voting base and the increasing GOP base is a trend that Democrats should be very concerned about.

Here’s another significant and telling fact: The 2012 election represented the first time in 180 years that a president won a second term with a smaller percentage of the vote than he did the first time. In Andrew Jackson’s second presidential victory in 1832, Jackson won 54.74% of the popular vote after winning 55.93% in 1828 (a drop of 1.19%). Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote in 2008, but this dropped to 51.0% in 2012 (a 1.9% drop). That is, he fell in popularity by almost twice the percent that Jackson did in 1832. This fact should temper the mandate-language that has been batted around by the Dems since November 6.

Election history can provide us with some helpful and hopeful perspective in another way, as well. For those thinking that we’re beyond the tipping point, and that we will never recover, we can gain some comfort by a simple examination of how drastically the American electorate shifted during less than a half-century between 1928 and 1972. We’ve included the following electoral college chart to help you visualize the difference. As you can see, the country swung back and forth violently over the course of these elections. The 1928 election was won overwhelmingly (444 electoral college votes to 87) by Herbert Hoover, the Republican candidate (red), only to swing almost entirely democrat (blue) when Franklin D. Roosevelt won eight years later in 1936. Our nation continued to swing back and forth from Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower’s win in 1956, to Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s victory in 1964, and back to a Republican landslide in Richard Nixon’s second victory in 1972 (and these last three margins were within a span of less than 20 years!).

The moral of the story is, though the GOP took a bit of a beating in 2012, don’t worry; if we are vigilant and if we post good candidates, the nation may swing back to our side and vote for genuine conservative principles.

But getting back to the popular vote, one of the nagging questions is, what happened to those 4 million people that voted for Obama in 2008, but not in 2012? We could say that almost 1 million of them drifted to the GOP side this time, but this still leaves 3 million people who did not defect to our side, not to mention millions more that were so uninspired by both candidates that they didn’t even vote at all!

That’s your question, America; let’s do some analysis: Why didn’t Mitt get these voters? What do you think the GOP and/ or the conservative movement has to do to either get these 3 million people or broaden the base in general (or at least win a presidential election)? I have my thoughts, but I want to hear yours! Send your own insightful analysis or reactions to this article in to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll compile them in a future article or feedback section.

INSIGHTS ON ISLAM: The Basic Background

Last edition we began to describe this series on “Insights On Islam.” It is important for Christians to understand Islam so that we can discuss the differences between Christianity and Islam based on facts and not on ignorant presuppositions. In this article, we will provide some basics about Islam. My hope is that believers would commit some of these facts to memory so that their discussions with Muslims would be better informed.

Muhammad was born in Mecca around 570 CE. He was an orphan, worked primarily as a merchant, and at age 25 he married a wealthy woman, named Khadija. He “founded” Islam when the Angel Gabriel allegedly began to reveal divine truth to him in 610. Over the next 22 years he recorded revelations, which would later be canonized into the Quran (Koran), which is the Arabic word for “recite.” Muhammad intended to use this revelation to curb the chaos and violence of the Arab tribes and unite them in submission to the god Allah. His message was largely rejected in Mecca, his birthplace, and he and his followers relocated to Medina in 622. There, he allied with Arabic tribal leaders, built an army and returned to conquer Mecca in 630 and establish it as the headquarters of his new faith. Islam has radiated out from there over the last millennium-and-a-half; there are currently over 1.5 billion people globally who profess faith in Allah, mainly in Arab and Asian countries, and there are six million Muslims in the U.S.

The fundamental idea of Islam is submitting to Allah; the word “Islam” is a derivation of the verb “to submit.” The basic confession of Islam is: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” They often add that, “God has no partner and no son”; that is, they are quick to deny the polytheism of other religions, but especially adamant to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the true Son of God. Muslims believe that people sin when they reject the guidance of Allah. This can be forgiven through submission to him and no atonement is necessary for sin. Salvation is seen as the merit one gains as one obeys Allah and follows the Five Pillars, which include:

1) Reciting the confession, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”

2) Prayer five times every day at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, evening, and night

3) Fasting during the month of Ramadan

4) Zakat or almsgiving for the poor and needy

5) The Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, which is to be made at least once during a person’s lifetime

Generally, Muslims believe that one enters heaven if their good deeds and intentions outweigh their bad ones.

The Quran, written between 610 and 632, is the most holy book of Islam. It contains basic teachings, ethics and rules for Muslims to follow. It is seen as inspired, but not mediated by human beings like the Bible is. Additionally, the Hadiths are collections of sayings of Muhammad; Sunni and Shi‘a Muslims have different collections of Hadiths. Reading the Quran makes it clear that Muslims consider themselves not a completely separate religion, but rather in continuity with Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad is considered to be the last of a succession of prophets (Sura 3:144 [a “sura” is a chapter in the Quran]), and considered the last, final and perfected revelation from god to mankind. Muslims believe that Jesus is a unique prophet, but only a human prophet specifically appointed to the Jews. They assert that Jesus’ teachings are superseded by the revelations to Muhammad. Jesus is mentioned in the Quran about 90 times, and according to Muslims he foretold of the coming of Muhammad in John 14:26.

“Jihad” means “striving” or “struggle,” and is usually used in the context of a spiritual struggle to serve Allah. However, “The more common interpretation, and that of the overwhelming majority of the classical jurists and commentators, presents jihad as armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates” (Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University, Wall Street Journal, Sept 27, 2001). The Quran itself, says, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads . . . And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray. He will guide them, and dispose their minds aright, and He will admit them to Paradise, that He has made known to them” (Sura 47:4-6).

So, there’s the basic background. If there is anything that you would add to or correct about this brief historical and doctrinal sketch, feel free to send your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com. In the next few articles, we’ll discuss the different divisions within Islam and we’ll also investigate an infrequently-mentioned doctrine of Islam that you will probably find both interesting and troubling.

THE ECLECTIC KASPER IN REVIEW: Twelve Favorites From 2012

As another year closes we wanted to mention some of our favorite — and most commented-upon — articles from 2012. For those of you new to our ranks, we would encourage you to go back and check some of these out. And we always welcome your kind comments, affirmations and disagreements with any of them which you can provide by sending a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

So, here are our top twelve articles from 2012 that we enjoyed the most and that best represent the content of The Eclectic Kasper over the last year:

POLITICS: A Simple Solution to Global Welfare (January 2012)
DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: An Excursus about Worship and Emotion (February 2012)
THE QUEST FOR THE IDEAL MEDIEVAL-FANTASY SERIES: Part 2, Illustrating the Principle (March 2012)
MOMENTOUS MOMENTS: America’s First Flirt With Communism (1623) (March 2012)
BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17!; Part 5: The “Fear Factor” (May 2012)
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Seeking a Great Protagonist (May 2012)
BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – Through the Engine! (June/ July 2012)
EMERGENT CONCERNS: Off the Deep End (June/ July 2012)
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: Classical Arguments, Part 1 (August 2012)
WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Issue (August 2012)
POLITICS: In Your Own Words, Too (September 2012)
CULTURE/ SOCIETY: One Nation Divided (October 2012)

EMERGING CONCERNS: Off the Deep End, Part Two

As with all topics that we discuss in The Eclectic Kasper, I’ve tried to be fair, and journalisticly honest in how I present different views. I have certainly tried to be that way with our numerous discussions about the Emerging or Emergent church movement (terms which I chose to use interchangeably). Emergent leaders and authors have made some very valid criticisms about American Evangelicalism. Many church services are painfully boring and superficial, many Christians are self-destructively narrow-minded, and the church as a whole has completely abdicated its Biblical mandate for social concern as a ramification of adherence to the Gospel of Christ. I resonate with these concerns that come from the emergent church and its most prolific writers.

However, in trying to rectify this situation, many in the Emergent camp jettison essential orthodox doctrines and minimize Scriptural authority. We have described these tendencies throughout this series. But unfortunately, many authors go even farther than just that. I will again utilize the imagery of David Kowalski, whom we quoted in the August 2011 installment of “Emergent Concerns” (David Kowalski, “Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church Movement”). Kowalski claims that some emergent leaders are “wading in the [Emergent] lake at a shallower depth,” meaning, that they also resonate with the concerns of the emergent movement, but haven’t completely abandoned historic orthodox Christianity. Kowalski continues that other emergent authors and teachers are “swimming in its deepest spot,” meaning that they have so bought into the post-modern tenants of the emergent movement that their orthodoxy is questionable.

Back in the June/ July 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we listed some quotes from leading emergent figures that are simply “Off The Deep End.” This is another installment of those bizarre ideas, quotes and methods. The following reflects those who have simply gone off the deep end, and plummeted into some kind of heretical belief system or new-ageism that bears minimal resemblance to Biblical Christianity.

Disturbing among emergent authors is their inability to accept on fundamental, orthodox Christian truth clearly revealed in God’s Word. Emergent granddaddy Brian McLaren suggests: “Sit down here next to me in this little restaurant and ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever’s) is orthodox, meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet . . . I’d have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong . . . To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall . . . Do we have it [Christian doctrine]? Have we taken hold of it? Not fully, not yet, of course not. But we keep seeking” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 293). I affirm that Christians are not living out Christian truth to the full extent that we should. But that is an application issue, not a doctrinal one. What major doctrines – regarding the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, the penal substitutionary death of Christ, His resurrection, the eternal state – which ones do McLaren think we are still “seeking” two millennia later? This level of uncertainty (“we probably have a couple of things right”) is frightening and clearly antithetical to the Biblical ideal that we have “full assurance” (Col 2:2, 1 Thess 1:5, Heb 6:11; 10:22; 1 John 3:19) and that we “know the truth” (Prov 22:20-21; Luke 1:3-4; John 8:32; 2 Pet 1:12; 1 John 2:21; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:12).

I have quoted several times in this series on Emerging concerns from Leonard Sweet. If Brian McLaren is the granddaddy of the movement, Leonard Sweet is the goofy, bizarre, flower-child-like uncle. In fact, the two have collaborated on numerous projects including the the 2003 book A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church.

In fairly clear dissonance with Romans 3, Leonard Sweet proclaims, “Postmodern culture is hungry for the intimacy of psychospiritual transformations. It wants a ‘reenchantment of nature.’ It’s aware of its ecstasy deprivation. It wants to know God ‘by heart.’ It wants to light an inner fire, the circulating force of divine energies flowing in and flowing out. The primal scream of postmodern spirituality is for primal experiences of God” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 74). Also, Sweet: “God claims everything one is. God claims every rationality. God claims every sensibility. Quantum spirituality is more than a structure of the intellect; it is more than a structure of emotion; it is more than a structure of human being. It is most importantly a structure of human becoming, a channeling of Christ energies through mindbody experience” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 70). Here and elsewhere, Sweet seems to merge broad Christian language with new-age sensibilities.

The anecdotal approach that makes some emergent authors seem winsome may sometimes also mask doctrinal errors. Don Miller, a closet Emergent, cutely, but erroneously, claims: “I started to sin about the time I turned ten. I believe it was ten, although it could have been earlier, but ten is about the age a boy starts to sin, so I'm sure it was in there somewhere. Girls begin to sin when they are twenty-three or something, but they do life much softer by their very nature and so need less of a run at things” (Blue Like Jazz, p. 5). I presume that he’s just trying to be folksy and charming, but, more importantly he is flat out wrong about the age and extent of individual sin (Job 15:14; 25:4; Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Is 48:8; Eph 2:3).

Again, if you find any good or bizarre quotes, send them in to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll print them in future editions. I don’t think that we’re done with these “Off the Deep End” segments; I have the feeling that there is plenty more emergent silliness to go around . . .

THE QUEST FOR THE IDEAL MEDIEVAL FANTASY SERIES: The Problem of Length

Sometimes length is a good thing.

But sometimes length is a bad thing. A long speech . . . a recital that just won’t end . . . a sermon that goes far into the lunch hour . . . or a decent medieval fantasy tome that is very, very long.

What if that very, very long book is part of a very long series of books!?

I’m concerned that there is some great medieval fantasy out there, but much of it is prohibitively long, and therefore, virtually inaccessible. Even in the least busy times of my life, my schedule was still pretty full, and I had more to do than to read a brutally intricate and lengthy, multi-volume medieval fantasy series.

I would love to read more medieval fantasy, except that many are just ridiculously long. I enjoy immersion, and completely sinking myself into a culture, story, or scenario. However, I simply do not have the time to invest in some of these ludicrously-long series.

For instance, I am fascinated by Brandon Sanderson’s The Stormlight Archive series. However, the series is expected to be ten books long and the first outing, The Way of Kings, weighs in at a whopping 1,007 pages! Similarly, I have been looking at Steven Erikson’s 712 page Gardens of the Moon but then found out that the entire series The Malazan Book of the Fallen also consists of ten volumes, the last five of which are each over 1,200 pages long! The series that I’m in now, Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Tad Williams is only four books (the edition that I’m reading splits up the last book of the trilogy into two books; because it’s so long!!), and is still taking me much longer than I would like! There is simply too little time to trudge through these series and far too many such series to enjoy them all! The sheer cost of these series can be as prohibitive as the time it takes to read them. The Way of Kings (again, the first book of The Stormlight Archive) by Brandon Sanderson is about $9, which is $90 for the whole series. Steven Erikson’s books in The Malazan Book of the Fallen are about $10 each, again, getting into triple digits for the entire series. Of course, because it is so long, you may be spreading this expense out over several years. However, reading the series with any speed is practically prohibitive relative to holding a steady job where you could afford to buy all of these books!

We have already established that length does not always equal content. I would point to the Tad Williams series Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn to prove that; it easily could have been half the length. And, cutting it down by fifty percent would have helped the story to move along at a better pace which would have made it more engaging. Thus, excessive length can be a double-whammy, making the story both too long and too tedious. Similarly, Christopher Paolini’s Eragon, the first in his Inheritance Cycle, was at least twice as long as it needed to be; far too much filler, far too little substance. In fact, I didn’t finish this series because of its very high amount of pages and its low amount of quality.

Many of these books are marketed for teens and college students, who presumably have lots of time on their hands, though this is not true for many teens and college students that I know. However, these series are that much more of a burden for someone who wants to continue to read sophisticated medieval fantasy into their 30s and 40s, but have a job, kids, another job, maybe additional schooling, and who, . . . say . . . write their own monthly web journal on the side.

So if you’re like me, and a bit lacking in time, try something shorter, and cheaper, but still revered. Though I haven’t personally read these yet, I’ll suggest two briefer, but highly recommended series (which I hope to read soon!). One is an older series, The Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny, which consists of 10 books, but each of which are around 200 pages long. Or you could try The Farseer trilogy by Robin Hobb, which is only an average of just over 600 pages per book, but again, there are only three volumes (though, keep in mind that the initial trilogy has several follow-up trilogies as well). If you have any other suggestions for good, but shorter, medieval fantasy series, let us know by sending an e-mail to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Eucharist

What was the Marburg Colloquy of 1529? Why should this event be significant even to modern believers? Can contemporary Christian churches learn for the failure at Marburg?

Back in the the June/ July 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we introduced you to the Marburg Colloquy. This was a meeting between prominent Protestant reformers, namely the German professor Martin Luther and the Swiss pastor Ulrich Zwingli, to find agreement on diverse issues which threatened to tear the infant Reformation apart. In the August edition, we revealed the that most prominent issue of debate was the different approaches to the Eucharist (a.k.a., Communion). All the Reformers rejected the medieval Roman Catholic view of communion known as “transubstantiation,” which asserted that the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. But the German and Swiss Reformers could not agree among themselves about what was the proper Biblical alternative to transubstantiation.

These Reformers of the early 1500s fought against what they perceived to be the superstition and corruption of Roman Catholicism. A specific concern was the transubstantiation view of the Eucharist. While all Reformers viewed transubstantiation as unbiblical, they differed regarding the extent to which Jesus’ presence was in or with the communion bread and wine or whether these elements stood as mere symbols of Christ’s crucifixion and propitiation. The specific issue was the interpretation of the word “is” in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body,” and whether that word should be taken literally or symbolically. That is, did Christ mean that the bread literally became his body, or that the bread actually symbolized his body?

Luther promoted “consubstantiation,” suggesting that Christ’s actual presence is mystically with (represented by the Latin prefix con-) but not changed into the bread and wine. While this distinction seems immaterial to many modern believers, the difference was critical to Luther. Both before and during the Marburg Colloquy, Luther tenaciously clung to Christ’s words from the Last Supper, “This is my body” (recorded in Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24), and saw in that phrase as proof that Christ’s body is somehow physically represented in the communion elements.

Zwingli, on the other hand, was influenced by the rationalism of his day against the alleged superstition of transubstantiation. Therefore, he championed the memorial or symbolic view of the Eucharist table, which affirms that the Communion elements are mere symbols of Christ’s body and blood. He asserted that it was foolish to assign any spiritual benefit to physical substances, saying, “As the body cannot be nourished by a spiritual substance, so the soul cannot be nourished by a corporeal [i.e., physical] substance” (Ulrich Zwingli quoted in William C. Placher, Readings in the History of Christian Theology, Volume 2, 22.). Whereas Luther believed that Christ’s presence was still in the elements during communion, Zwingli emphasized Christ’s presence with the believing community during communion. Zwingli also felt that Luther’s consubstantiation view had not created sufficient distance from the former monk’s previous Roman Catholicism.

Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, who called the meeting at Marburg, hoped that at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 Luther and Zwingli would peacefully resolve their differences. A simple meeting between the German and Swiss Reformers should allow these great theological minds to come to some agreement regarding the Eucharist. Alas, this was not to be the case. In the next installment of this series “Why Marburg Matters,” we will examine one of the primary reasons why the Marburg Colloquy failed, and the ripple effect that this failure has had on evangelicalism.

READER FEEDBACK: Musings About Politics

For all the topics that we present in this web journal, it is intriguing how political issues can get people thinking, and can get people writing! All of the following responses deal with politics and the latter two were received by The Eclectic Kasper before the election. Thanks for these comments, and we’d love to hear what more of you have to say.

Early every year The Eclectic Kasper has done an article concerning the enormous strain put on our economy and culture by the philosophy that we have to hand money out (tax-payer money!) to practically every other country in the world, including the ones that hate us. The first such article was “A Global Welfare State” from the March 2011 edition, and the second was “A Simple Solution to Global Welfare” the following January 2012. We would be remiss if we didn’t do another this coming Jan/ Feb! Anyway, referring to the second of these articles, one reader recently wrote in: “In regard to the Jan[uary] 2012 article on reducing foreign aid, I agree completely. It makes perfect sense, which is why it will never happen!”

The following is a response to our article “POLITICS: In Your Own Words, Too” from the September 2012 edition: “Thank you for Politics In Your Own words. Anyone can say what they will about a subject, but when a person’s words are out there in print or audio-video, they cannot be denied as truth, and what the person really believes.”

This next response is from our article “CULTURE/ SOCIETY: One Nation Divided” from the October 2012 edition: “Found the above topic very, very interesting. I must offer the following comment because this is the most critical presidential election ever -- even in the senate and house. Probably from many more years of seeing what has happened . . . I make the following comments to your last paragraph. Yes America is resilient and ‘will survive’ . . . . But at what price for religious freedom. I sincerely believe by 2016 either we will have no religious freedom or Islam will be it. Nothing will stop this for centuries if any of us can. And why—simply put—it will be the ‘religion’ of USA as well as in other countries under some notion of ‘tolerance’ for all; since all current religions (the federal government will say) do not embrace/ incorporate Islam’s religion then all these others should/will not exist. . . . If only our country would recall what the DNC has done [or should I say almost done] taking God out of their platform [there were more and louder vocal noes than yeses] -- a signal. We must have our country return to religious morals; stay with THE DEFINITION of marriage; and quit trying to do everything better than what the states should be doing.”

Thanks so much for the feedback; we would love to continue to hear your thoughts and reactions to any of the articles we do. Or are there any other topics that that you would like us to cover in the future? Send your thoughts, disagreements, praises, or ponderings to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse