OCTOBER 2015

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the October 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper! This edition is one of our most eclectic editions of the year, and one of our most personal, too.

In this edition, we explore the issue of religious liberty granted to us by our M.V.P: “Most Valuable Pope.” We continue our running commentary on the book of Romans and discuss Romans 1:15-16. We also review Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, and we present a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And, I channel my inner Kermit to answer the question of how I felt when I sent my eldest off to college in the article, “Pictures in My Head.”

Thanks for your comments and feedback. See our Feedback section below with great comments from some of our readers. Then send us your feedback, either on our Facebook page or by sending your thoughts and critiques to feedback@bellsouth.net.

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: M.V.P.: Most Valuable Pope

Well, America survived the recent “Pope-ocalypse.”

For a week our society bounced between the extremes of Pope worship (“Pope-olatry”?) on one hand and those who abhorred all of the Pope praise (resulting in “Pope-tagonism”?) on the other. We witnessed politicians, singers, and actors fawn all over this religious icon. This resulted in no small amount of “Popefuscation,” which, as it turns out, revealed a gem for those who support religious liberty.

Though I love playing sports, I am not the most athletic individual. The joke is often made – usually by people on my team – that I am the M.V.P., except, for the other side!

I feel that same way about the Pope and the recent “Pope-apalooza”: The Pope may not have been on your team but he may still have been your M.V.P. – “Most Valuable Pope” – regarding the issue regarding religious freedom in America.

The Pope’s visit revealed the deep-seated hypocrisies of liberalism, of Washington D.C., and especially of our nation’s media. Keep in mind that these are the people who often tell us that our relics of religion (nativity scenes, crosses, or Ten Commandments) and our religious views about social and political issues are not welcome in the public sphere.

And yet their actions during the “Poperbowl” declared the exact opposite; their religious icons, their heroes, and their views were allowed and welcome on federal property, in Congressional chambers, and in public discourse.

Next time someone mentions separation between church and state, remind them of Pope Francis addressing the U.S. Congress. Refresh their memory regarding the Catholic Vicar standing in the U.S. Capital building, flanked by Joe Biden, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, waving to thousands gathered in Washington D.C. Picture virtually every major news program and network in the country obsessed with the Pope’s message, meetings, and travelogue. Remember how intrigued conservatives and liberals alike were with this religious leader’s views and how those views were discussed and debated for the days prior to, during, and even after his visit to our shores.

If I tweeted, I would pump these images of the Pope and these politicians all over the twitterverse with hashtags like “#selectivereligiousoutrage” or “#somuchforseparationofchurchandstate” or “#ifitsokforyouitshouldbeokforustoo”!

Some are berated when they dare infuse their religious opinions and activities into their jobs, their political views or their campaigns. But now, we discover that it is OK for politicians, liberals and Catholics to douse the secular sphere and federal grounds with their religious views and heroes.

I will here inject my wife’s timeless wisdom which applies in many social and political contexts but is especially germane to the issue of religious liberty: “It’s wrong when the right does it, but its right when the left does it.” This, indeed, seems to summarize the left’s hypocrisy.

Two realities persist regarding American religious liberty. The first is that Americans continue to enjoy unprecedented religious freedom. We continue to have enormous space in this country to publish our religious views, gather for religious meetings, and discuss religious topics. This is a gift given to this country by God through our brilliant Founders and Framers, and we continue to be grateful for it. We also appreciate and treasure individuals in the armed services and in the police force who fight and sacrifice to defend and protect that gift.

The second reality is that the vast realm that this country has for religious freedom is closing, at times imperceptibly, and at times, by sudden fiat. In fact this space for religious liberty never stays static, but it fluxes; it either grows as restrictions on liberty and free speech are opposed or shrinks when such restrictions are imposed. Of course, the latter only occurs when citizens fail to stand up for the religious liberty that they enjoy and when they are bullied into believing that their beliefs have no legitimacy in public discourse or policy.

“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”!

What the Pope’s visit a few weeks ago tells us is that the space of religious freedom in our country is still very vast, and, apparently, larger than the Washington elites and the liberal media would have us believe. We can still have significant representation of our religious views and accoutrements in the public sphere; after all, they did! If the Washington privileged can parade the Pope around in federal buildings, then we, too, can continue to display the Ten Commandments in courtrooms across the country and we can continue to let kids sing religious songs at school concerts. We can bake cakes for whomever we want to and don’t want to and we have the right to cite religious reasons for our choices and convictions. We can continue to have prayer at public schools and football games, and we can continue to present nativity scenes on public grounds around Christmas time. If some elites can so openly and obviously bridge the divide between church and state, then so can the rest of us.

Also, note that there was disproportionate representation of Catholicism during the Pope’s visit to D.C., New York and Philadelphia while Washington and the media gave short shrift to Jewish, Muslim, and Evangelical leaders. There was not a time before, during, or after where prominent M.V.P.s from other faith systems were invited to speak to Congress or were thrust so vividly onto the national stage. The most representation that other faiths received during this time were fleeting opportunities to be on a panel on NBC or CNN with people of different faiths in order to discuss . . . the Pope.

Since the national media and our leaders in D.C. provided this precedent of disproportionate religious representation for our country, then we the people, too, declare that we do not need to have parallel religious representation whenever and wherever we affirm our own faith. Radio stations do not need to provide conservative and religious talk shows as well as liberal and non-religious ones. Newspapers can print the Catholic view on an issue, but do not need to print the Muslim, Jewish, and Protestant opinion, as well. We do not have to present nativity scenes, only as long as there are parallel Hanukkah and Kwanzaa displays within twenty feet.

For your edification and enjoyment, I will reprint the First Amendment to the United States Constitution here in its entirety: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This magisterial statement reminds us boldly and clearly that our nation was not meant to be antagonistic to faith; rather, our country’s discourse and policies can have broad and vibrant interaction with faith. This amendment also assures us that the idea of creating a distinction between church and state is for the purpose of protecting religion from the interference of the state more than it is for the purpose of protecting the state from the interference of religion. It is only more recently that the phrase “separation of church and state” has been used to exclude religious views and symbols from public grounds, discourse and policy.

So, next time someone wants to tell you that your religious views are not appropriate for your work, politics or anything else related to the public sphere, remind them of the “Popemania” of 2015. If Washington D.C. and the liberal media can make bold, visual, religious-based statements, then so can the rest of us. We, also, affirm our freedom to express our faith, our symbols and our beliefs in public debates and policy without fear of government intrusion, media suppression or cultural prohibition.

ROMANS: Not Ashamed (Romans 1:15-16)

That is why I am so eager to preach the Gospel also to you who are at Rome. I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (Romans 1:15-16, NIV).

This is the time for Christians to stand up and declare that we are “not ashamed.” The Apostle Paul reflected his boldness and eagerness to preach the Gospel early in the book of Romans and he also reveals the power behind our proclamation.

In Romans 1:15, Paul continues his thought from the previous verses, namely, that he wanted to come and see the believers in Rome because he is eager to teach and shepherd them (v. 13). He also feels like he has a good compulsion or obligation to minister to the Gentiles (v. 14), and he suggests in v. 15 that this broader debt motivates his desire to preach to the Roman Christians specifically.

Paul progresses into v. 16 with the declaration that he is not “ashamed” of the Gospel. The word epaischunomai is a form of the typical word for “to be ashamed” except that it has a prefix on it, which probably indicates emphasis. This version of this word that does not have the epi prefix (the Greek word aischunomai) seems to emphasize being ashamed of one’s association with a person, rather than the general shame one may receive from a situation (for instance, in Luke 16:3; 2 Cor 10:8; Phil 1:20; 1 Pet 4:16; 1 John 2:28). The emphatic prefixed form used here is also found in Mark 8:38 and its parallel in Luke 9:26: “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Paul uses this word thrice in 2 Tim 1 urging the young minister not to be ashamed that Paul was put in prison (v. 8), for, after all, Paul himself was not ashamed of this (v. 12), nor was Onesiphorus, one of his companions (v. 16).

This sense of not being ashamed of one’s relationship with a person can also be seen in Heb 2:11 and 11:16. In Rom 1:16, it is as though Paul is personifying the Gospel and the relationships that he and other believers can have with God through it. We do not need to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

Of what regarding the Gospel would Paul be ashamed? Perhaps it is the fact that it is about a dying and tormented Messiah who was crucified on a Roman cross. Perhaps it is that Christianity is centered on a once-obscure individual in the outskirts of the Roman empire. Perhaps it is a Gospel that recognizes human need and dependence rather than a system based on one’s personal achievement and advancement. Whichever option one chooses, none of these human conventions or emotions caused Paul to be ashamed or embarrassed about the Gospel. Similarly, the modern believer shouldn’t be ashamed of believing that Christ literally rose from the dead, or ashamed of a literal creation, or of the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, or of believing that the Bible is infallible. We need not have any shame to embrace the truth of God’s Word and to proclaim it to a fallen world which perceives divine truth as ridiculous anyway.

Paul continues by suggesting that the Gospel is a unique power of God. It is not a vehicle for power, nor an avenue of power. Rather, there is inherent power from God in the truth and proclamation of the Gospel itself, a power that is not appreciated or wielded by many Christians. The word for “power” in these verses is dunamis, from whence we get the word “dynamite.” The idea that the proclamation of the Gospel is supernatural power is seen also in 1 Thess 1:5, and Paul declares that it possesses power over death and darkness in 2 Tim 1:10. The Gospel of Christ is a spiritual bomb of unfettered, uninhibited, unlimited power; the only thing that limits the power and impact of the Gospel is its messengers.

Specifically in Romans 1:16, the Gospel is power “for” salvation. The preposition eis indicates the purpose of the power, that is, it is directed for the purpose and goal of bringing salvation to sinners. This idea will, of course, be explained and argued carefully in the next few chapters of Romans.

This salvation is received through faith; it is “for all who believe.” Belief is a necessary element of salvation, also a specific theological point that the book of Romans revolves around. Paul concludes that this salvation is for the Jew first, and also for the Greek (note his words from Acts 13:46). This order is seen in the book of Acts, but also strategic for dealing with the mixed Jew-Gentile congregation that comprises the church in Rome.

I’m not convinced that modern evangelicalism has confidence in the power of the Gospel. Many churches today try to attract people to church with slick programs, baptized entertainment and cheap gimmicks rather than with the clear and succinct communication of the Gospel. We fail to have a powerful influence on our society because we fail to powerfully and unashamedly proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

We also fail to recognize how the Gospel is powerful not merely for salvation but for sanctification as well. That is, the power of the Gospel doesn’t end when we become believers. Rather, that power also helps us to grow in our faith in Christ, to overcome temptation, and to further proclaim the Gospel boldly.

It also seems to me that many Christians are too ashamed or concerned about what may happen when we discuss Christ and the Gospel with friends, relatives, or with people who come into our sphere of influence. We are more afraid of what the Gospel might do than we are confident about what it is.

Believers must proclaim and explain the Gospel, and we should do so without shame, recognizing the unique supernatural power that it has to change hearts and transform lives.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: Slogging Through The Silmarillion

Over the summer I wanted to do some pleasure reading in the high fantasy, or medieval fantasy, genre.

But instead, I read The Silmarillion.

J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion is a must read, but only for the hardiest of Tolkien fans.

The book tells some incredible tales and provides great background to the far more familiar stories in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books and movies.

But be warned: this is not easy reading. In fact, I would say that this is the most difficult and tedious medieval, high fantasy book that I have ever read. If you think that Game of Thrones is confusing in its presentation of names and places, then you will find The Silmarillion completely baffling.

But again, if you are a die-hard Tolkien fan, you really should read this book; it will both prove your Tolkein fan-ness, and it will also provide you a few gems about the middle-earth mythos along the way. The Silmarillion is an epic story of the creation of middle-earth and an overview of the major events of the first few ages. You will recognize occasional references to material that is mentioned in LOTR and The Hobbit, but most the stories in The Silmarillion belong to a different time period entirely. The highlights of the book really revolve around some of the longer stories and cycles, such as the creation of Arda, the adventures of Finwë and Fëanor, the rise of Sauron, and the tale of Beren and Luthien.

Someone once told me that The Silmarillion is like the book of Genesis. It is like Genesis, but much more difficult to follow. In fact, it is probably more like Genesis through Judges, or maybe even Genesis through 2 Samuel, but without Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and with much less cohesion.

Actually, one of my favorite parts of the book is not really part of the book. The edition that I have includes Tolkien’s letter to his publisher Milton Waldman in 1951. Not only is it far easier to read than The Silmarillion itself, but this letter provides a glimpse into the mind of the author. Tolkien summarizes The Silmarillion and also includes some gems that are reminiscent of LOTR, such as his assertion that “‘the wheels of the world’ are often turned not by the Lords and Governors . . . but by the seemingly unknown and weak.” There is something very refreshing about hearing Tolkien explain and defend his saga of middle-earth with his own passion and voice.

If you are still reading this article, then that shows that you have some significant dedication to the world of Tolkien, and therefore, you should read through The Silmarillion at least once in your life. But before you commence, allow me to pass along some suggestions that may make your encounter with this book more profitable and slightly less tedious (and not all of these suggestions are original to me, but they certainly did help!).

First, don’t worry about all of the names that you read. Most of them are not really important to the story. Those that you need to remember will be repeated, and the characters and places that are not as critical will fade into the background. Unfortunately, too, many of the names sound alike; for example, the sons of Finwë are Fëanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin, and one of his daughters is Findis. As confusing as this is, keep in mind, that many version of Silmarillion include a helpful index of names in the back for quick reference.

Second, find some YouTube videos that summarize The Silmarillion. Most such videos that you will find are only four or five minutes long. Some are humorous with their use of stick characters or slapstick. Other videos are more serious, utilizing beautiful artwork and including passages from The Silmarillion often read in an obligatory British voice. Whatever the style, I found most of the these videos to be very helpful. In fact, watching a few gives you the big picture of the book and introduces you initially to some of the characters that are most critical to the book. Don’t worry about how these may ruin the story; if you have watched the first five minutes of Fellowship, then you already know how The Silmarillion will end. The videos will help orient you to the themes of the story and how some of the diverse tales relate to one another.

Commentary on Romans

Come visit our “Eclectic Archive” and especially our ongoing commentary on the book of Romans including our articles “The Influence of Romans” (January 2015), “Concerning Christ, Romans 1:3-5” (March 2015), and “Paul’s Affection for His Audience, Romans 1:8-10” (July 2015).

Calling all book worms . . .

Do you like books, and especially high fantasy? Visit our “Eclectic Archive” and the section on books and literature!

Third, pace yourself. Do not expect to fly through this book the way you would many other kinds of fiction, medieval fantasy or otherwise. Set a tempo for yourself to keep you moving through the book. If you can be disciplined enough to read about ten pages a day, you will be well past page 100 by the end of two weeks, and you should get through the whole book in about six weeks. Believe me, this book is easy to put down and let it set for a month; keep slogging through, don’t give up. And by the way, the last fifty pages, recounting the fall of Númenor and the forging of the rings, is worth the time trudging through the previous three hundred pages.

So, here’s the big question: how “movie-able” is The Silmarillion? (Yes, “movie-able” is a made-up word that flutters around our house occasionally, but I think you understand what it means.)

Peter Jackson, et. al, deftly crammed three very long books into three long movies in the glorious Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Then he not-quite-so-gloriously but still-fairly-admirably extended one book into three Hobbit movies. Perhaps because of the content ratio, the product of this latter effort was not the same of the LOTR; but LOTR is simply gigantic and epic, whereas, The Hobbit is a fairly straight-forward quest-tale that fortunately (for Jackson and for us) concludes with a cool and epic battle.

The Silmarillion is different from both LOTR and Hobbit in that it lacks a single cohesive plot. Also, because it covers such a large span of time, most of the characters come and go quite quickly. The creation and fate of the Silmarils only loosely holds the diverse tales together, and in many sections, they are not even mentioned at all.

But there may still be some movie-ability here. One could (and by “one” I mean, “the one Jackson”) perhaps trace the career of Sauron, throughout this work. Of course, we all know that he goes bad. This would be like the Star Wars prequels, except that the character that we all know is going to become the bad guy becomes the bad guy much more quickly in the story, whereas Anakin’s descent toward the dark side is more gradual and only accelerates in the last part of Episode III.

There are also some great epic battle sequences throughout The Silmarillion, as well as some vistas and cities that would be astonishing on the silver screen. And the more I read it, the more hope I had that a truly epic trilogy could very possibly percolate from The Silmarillion’s pages. I could also see this turned into a cable TV series: ten to twelve episodes per year over two or three years, à la Game of Thrones.

Or, what if a series of movies were released, like The Chronicles of Narnia, and named something like The Tales of The Silmarillion? The best way to do this would be to produce three pairs of films for a total of six movies (I guess this would be a “hexology”?). The first pair of movies in this series could feature the creation of Adra by Illuvitar and the creation of the different races that inhabit middle-earth, as well as the antagonism they face from Melkor, a.k.a., Morgoth. The second pair of movies could revolve around the Beren and Luthien cycle. The third could feature the fall of Numenor. In all six movies, the careers of Morgoth and Sauran provide the principle antagonists to the series.

Of course, I may just be dreaming about the movie-ification of The Silmarillion. Despite the success of the previous six movies, I don’t have any sense that Jackson and crew intend to make any more. But here’s to hoping!

And whether it gets movie-ified or not, it is still worth trudging through the book for anyone who declares herself or himself to be an avid Tolkien fan.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Pictures In My Head

*** Warning: The following article is one of the more personal ones that I [Matt Kasper] have written in The Eclectic Kasper. It is my confused and inarticulate reaction to sending my firstborn off to college. If you haven’t experienced this before, you may not understand this article. If you have gone through this already, you may want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, just in case.***

The Muppets have a remarkable way of excavating deep feelings, and yet, this aspect is almost completely lost on children. The fun, the silliness, and the sight gags are for them. The joy of family, friendship, as well as sentiments of regret and loss, these kinds of emotions that the Muppets occasionally evoke are for adults.

The 2011 move simply called The Muppets with Jason Segel and Amy Adams features characters who are trying to get the Muppets back together after they had gone their separate ways. Some fans even go so far as to visit Kermit in his swanky Hollywood mansion.

This visit plunges our favorite frog into some uncharacteristic introspection during a song called, “Pictures in My Head.” Kermit ambles down a grand corridor in his home looking at portraits of Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the Great, the Swedish Chef and others. As he remembers his interaction with his former associates, he laments, “Is there more I could have said? Now they’re only pictures in my head.”

It is a remarkably clever scene; the pictures eventually spring to life, as thought these memories were still living and poignant to Kermit. However, by the end of the song, the characters fade back into their portraits, confirming his assertion that, indeed, his memories evoked from the pictures on the wall are now only pictures in his head.

We, too, often reminisce – perhaps with some measure of satisfaction as well as with some measure of regret – about the past that we once had with people that we still profoundly love.

“Would anybody watch or even care, or did something break we can’t repair.”

Just as my life changed indelibly when I held my first child, it has also changed now that we have sent the firstborn off to college an entire state away. He is enjoying college greatly and doing fine, but I’m not sure that I can say the same for those of us left behind.

After he left, I tortured myself a few times with this Muppets song, and it took me a while before I could listen through the entire song without getting too choked up. Could I have done better as a dad? Have I equipped him to do well on his own?

“Is there more I could have said? Now they’re only pictures in my head.”

These musings by Kermit really struck me. I, too, have found myself looking wistfully at pictures and thinking about times gone by with my kids, and especially the college-bound eldest. These are feelings that I’ve never known before; I am pioneering what is for me uncharted emotional territory. It’s hard to describe the conflicting feelings: profound pride for a kid that turned out pretty well juxtaposed with gut-wrenching regret. Did I work more than I should have? Was I attentive enough? Did I always respond as well as I could have? Never have I shed so many ambiguous tears for reasons I have yet to understand.

The heartless and relentless passage of time strikes hardest in our relationships with our kids. They don’t stay static; they grow up, and then fly away. This is the way it is supposed to be; after all, I don’t want them living in my basement when they’re in their thirties or forties! But just because they are supposed to go, and just because I have been preparing them to go for a long time, none of that really softened the blow when the moment of departure finally came.

I was deluged by so many other unexplored feelings, too: glad that he is moving on, a feeling of emptiness, joy as he takes the next step, relief that he’s not in prison, an ambiguous emptiness and lack of closure. They don’t tell you about this in pre-marital counseling or in parenting classes; in fact, it seems to be the big unspoken secret of having kids, and I may perhaps be the first fool to break some unwritten code. But the powerful feelings you have when you leave the child in day-care for the first time, or while you watch their first soccer game, or when he or she goes on that first date – these feelings pale in comparison to the weird joy, sorrow, relief and regret of sending them away to college.

As hard as it often is to parent small children, somewhere in the back of my soul, I find myself wishing they were still, and would always ever be, just my little kids.

Someday all of the kids will be grown and gone. I hope they live nearby, or at least within a half-day’s drive. But just as I couldn’t have predicted where life has taken me, I certainly don’t know where life will take them. They will have children, jobs, and responsibilities of their own. I, too, will still have things to do. We’ll see each other whenever we can; we’ll try to get together often.

But even those aspirations mask the heart-breaking reality that pierces us with nostalgia and regret every time we see those pictures on the wall: it will simply never be the same again.

“But I’m standing here instead. Now they’re only pictures in my head.”

Right now, I can hug my kids and play with them, or at least, with the three who are still under my roof. Some still sit in my lap, and let me hold them while we watch football or while they cry. Some still want to be pushed on the swing, to be taken out to McDonalds, to play silly games, and to watch the Muppets.

Witnessing these moments heartlessly pass by is sobering; the time I have had with them has slipped by so fast. Some elements of my time with them are already vague memories: Awana, peek-a-boo, driveway hockey games, excursions to the playground. There is still some time left, but I have plenty of room to make better use of these fleeting and fun few years while I am still their daddy.

Because, someday, they will be grown and gone . . . all of them.

At some point I will be able to pick up the hat of a granddaddy, place it on my head, and fulfill that role for my kids and grandkids. And from what I have seen, that role looks like its a lot of fun.

But by placing upon my head the hat of grandfather, I will have to remove permanently the hat that I now wear of being a father of young children. It is a role that I have had for almost twenty years now, a hat that I have worn on my head that has defined me, and provided me with unspeakable meaning and joy.

But, sending my eldest off to college has been a sobering reminder that I am plodding closer to the day when I will have to slowly and reluctantly take that daddy hat off my head, set it aside and retire it forever.

Like Kermit, I too will be standing in an empty corridor, looking at the photographs on the wall. All of us will be part of a vanished yesterday, recalled with increasing blurriness by portraits on the wall as well as the ones in our minds. I need to make the most of the time that is left. Because my other little children, soon, like the eldest, will just be pictures in my head.

QUOTE FOR CONTEMPLATION: Children of Light, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have no agenda for reprinting the following words here, especially knowing that many have and will use them to suit their own agendas; I reproduce them nonetheless. These wonderful sentiments were spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on January 27, 1965 in Atlanta, Georgia, and were also integrated into the film Driving Miss Daisy:

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but the appalling silence and indifference of the good people. Our generation will have to repent not only for the words and acts of the children of darkness, but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light.

PROVERBS TO PONDER: The Stability of Wealth (Proverbs 10:15)

The wealth of the rich is a strong city, the ruin of the poor is their poverty.

Proverbs 10:15 is an incredibly honest and politically-incorrect admission by a very wealthy individual.

The Bible frequently tells us that we should trust in and rely on God for all things. However, Solomon admits that there is a stability and fullness that comes from wealth.

I am no prosperity gospel preacher; in fact, I just recently did a study at our church about the dangers of “health and wealth” and “name-it-and-claim-it” kinds of churches.

But Proverbs 10:15 makes a refreshing admission that balances two delusional and unnecessary extremes. On one hand, there is a sense that we can only be spiritual if we are in abject poverty. On the other hand, some people in our society believe that if someone has wealth to enjoy then they have obviously done something wrong to obtain it.

The first phrase of verse 15 affirms that one can derive a measure of strength and stability from wealth. Neither the means by which the individual acquired the wealth nor the long-range consequences of their actions are in view in this verse. The author could just as easily be talking about the wicked individual who gained his wealth by usury or the godly and wise individual, whom God has blessed. Of course, Proverbs elsewhere address right and wrong ways of acquiring wealth. But, obtaining wealth is not the issue here, but the value of possessing it is.

A “strong city” in ancient times refers to a walled and well-gated city. While commodities could pass in and out of the city, a fortified city provided extra protection from invaders, robbers, and marauders. The exact same phrase is used in Prov 18:11, but apparently to serve a different point.

Proverbs speaks frequently about material wealth. In the NASB (New American Standard Bible) the word “wealth” is used 19 times in Proverbs, and the word “rich” and “riches” are used 14 times and 10 times respectively.

But again, the point here is not so much how an individual gains this wealth, but the fact that one’s material resources can provide a measure of enjoyment and stability even in a difficult and unstable world. All the more reason why one’s acquisition of wealth should be done with the proper perspective (Matt 6:33) and in the right manner (Proverbs 8:18; 10:4; 14:24; 21:5; 22:4; 24:3-4) rather than in the wrong manner (1:12-13; 13:11; 28:8, 22; 29:3).

While wealth surely provides benefits and enjoyment to our life, a broader theology of wealth provides at least two caveats to this verse. First, wealth should not be the main focus of our pursuits. If God provides wealth, all the better. But Proverbs later attests to the danger of making wealth the center of our attention; Proverbs 23:4-5 exhorts: “Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, Cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it is gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings like an eagle that flies toward the heavens.” Second, we should not place our ultimate trust in our financial stability. Job learned the hard way how fleeting and fickle wealth can be. In addition to Proverbs 23:4-5 mentioned above, we could also add Paul’s exhortation: “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Tim 6:17). In fact, Proverbs proclaims later even more poignantly that “Whoever trusts in his riches will fall” (11:28).

The second phrase in Proverbs 10:15 is honest about the ruination of poverty. It seems fairly axiomatic that poverty contributes to the downfall of people. However, the author is trying to affirm that if poverty ruins people’s lives, we should avoid poverty. Or to put it another way, we cannot control the consequences of our actions and the ruin that may occur. However, we can control our actions and recognize that the poor decisions that we make will hasten and encourage ruin in our lives.

The point, then, is to avoid activities that encourage poverty. The word “poverty” comes from the Hebrew word rish or resh, which is only used in the OT in the book of Proverbs. Proverbs attests that poverty results from laziness (6:10-11 [parallel in 24:33-34]) or through wasting time and energy on activities that are not profitable (28:19). Poverty results from failing to heed wise instruction: “Poverty and shame will come to him who neglects discipline, But he who regards reproof will be honored” (13:18).

The word “poor” is used in the NASB 34 times in Proverbs. These references also associate one’s state of being poor with laziness (10:4; 20:13), failing to receive instruction (13:8), bad interpersonal relationships (19:4, 7), and pleasure-seeking (21:17). However, more frequently, Proverbs says that the righteous individual should help those who are needy and the downtrodden and should not take advantage of them (14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; 22:9, 22; 28:27; 29:7, 14).

The point of Proverbs 10:15, as with other verses in Proverbs, is not that the wise person will always gain great wealth and that he or she will always be immune to ruination. Rather the point is that in an unstable world, we can enjoy the stability that God can provide through wealth when we live wisely and shun the vices that encourage poverty and ruination.

Scripture is clear that God does bless many with great wealth, or even a little bit of wealth. James affirms that “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (1:17). Wealth can indeed provide some stability and enjoyment of life (Psalm 103:5; 147:14; Acts 14:17; 1 Timothy 6:17). We should honor God with the material blessings that He has given us: Proverbs 3:9 instructs believers to “Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops.”

Material blessings grant us some security and protection in a volatile world. Therefore, the material resources that God provides should direct our gratitude toward God for His blessings, and those blessings should be used to spread His renown and His kingdom throughout the world (Ps 67:1, 2, 7).

FEEDBACK: Trump, Trump, Trump!

Well, love him or hate him, Trump’s all over the news, and he’s obviously on the minds of some of you as well. Below is some great feedback and thoughts from some of our great readers especially in reaction to our August 2015 article “Trump’s Most Critical Quality.” One reader provided the following comments:

“When I was reading your thoughts many if not the majority of sentences were just as I was thinking; but not as eloquently. Right on. And ‘competency’ was one that I didn't think of; but fits perfectly about Trump. This what our country needs now! This Political Correctness is an abomination to sanitizing actual video of killings to not showing planes crashing into towers is making the country into ‘wusses.’ Show what actually happens; if a person doesn’t want to see they can turn the channel or mute it. But they allow/ show The Walking Dead as well as upcoming new TV shows showing murdering, etc. That’s OK?

“Only thing I can think of to add and it is very important fact: No one nor group will be able to buy Trump off. And do the polls show what you mentioned: time for a non-politician. Recent polls have Trump 1 and Carson 2. Wow; is this coincidence or a true realization by the public of what is needed.”

And on our Facebook page, we received the following two comments:

“I would like to see him become a bit less bombastic. Some of his off-the-cuff comments do not seem fitting for a presidential candidate. Of all the candidates he seems confident in his abilities to get things done and that's appealing. He will need to surround himself with advisers who will fill in the gaps where he has little expertise. I also agree that's it's unlikely America will vote for a dedicated, evangelical Christian like, for instance, Mike Huckabee. We really need someone with passion and ability to get the job done. Four weeks ago I didn't think it was possible [Trump] could get the nomination based on some of his rhetoric, however, I now think it's possible.”

“I also agree. Finally someone who says what I'm thinking! Whether he wins or loses is entirely up to The Lord, but I'm sure enjoying the ride! Thanks for your comments. Very insightful!”

Thanks for these and other comments, and keep ’em coming! Feel free to sound off on political, theological or other issues on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page, or you can send your thoughts, critiques and ideas to feedback@eclectickasper.com.