OCTOBER 2016

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the October 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper! We’re thrilled you have joined us for this pre-election edition. We have an article about the election below and also some reader feedback about the debates and the election.

But that’s not all; we also have more in our series about the deity of Christ, more commentary on the book of Romans, and we begin a new series about a really interesting genera of media called Utopian Literature.

What do you think about the elections, the debates, the country, or anything? Feel free to send in your reactions or responses to any of our articles or to any current events to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

And, if you haven’t yet, please give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and you can leave your thoughts and comments there, as well!

POLITICS: Why Trump’s Narcissism May Save Us All

Most of us pick-up on the narcissistic vibes that certain people radiate, whether such people are clinically narcissistic or they just think too highly of themselves.

In fact, we are all narcissistic to a certain extent. More than just having a healthy interest in self and those closest to us, most of us allow our pure selfishness to contaminate the things we do. Even insecure people are somewhat narcissistic in that they focus disproportionately on themselves and how others perceive them.

Of course, self-interest compels us to work, to prosper, and to thrive so that we can have nice things for ourselves and our loved ones. Our capitalist society is based, theoretically, on the notion that people want to work so that they can have more because they really like themselves! Capitalism ideally rewards individuals proportional to the effort they put into being productive.

It is exactly this notion, that drives an individual like Donald Trump; he wants good things for himself, he is driven to succeed, and he wants people to think well of him. In many ways, he is the consummate American; someone who leverages what privileges he has into greater success, a cunning business man who wants to maximize profit for himself and those in his employ, a generous person in the ways he wants to be generous, and an opportunist when it comes to business laws and taxes (who among us doesn’t want to pay as little in taxes as possible!). It is precisely these tendencies, some of which flirt with the borders of pure narcissism, that can be supremely beneficial for this country.

We are now just weeks away from the 2016 election, the sixth or seventh election I can remember where people told us that this was “the most important election in our lifetimes.” I thought about writing the typical article about why evangelicals can or can’t vote for Trump; but by now, I’ve read so many of these articles that I am both incredibly bored with them and I am also very discouraged by the fact that nobody seems to know what the heck an evangelical is, including those evangelical authors! I also recognize that evangelicals cannot glibly dismiss Trump’s past and recent track record of statements ranging from odd, to insulting, to downright horrific. Of course, the entire country seems to have dismissed Hillary’s multiple scandals, which become more evident every day.

But when it comes to this election, I am not hiring a pastor or a seminary professor. I am less interested in someone’s evangelical credentials than that they are task-oriented and passionate about doing as great a job as they can, whether for self-gain or for some other motive. Of course, I would like a fairly moral and mature individual, but we are talking about American politics, here. At this point, I would be happy to have a successful and relatively conservative individual in the White House who is not carrying on with an intern or sending questionable pictures of himself to young women.

To come at this from another angle, I have enough sense that I do not require people to do certain tasks for me only if they are a model evangelical. The guy who paints my house must be a great painter; he can be a Muslim, a Hindu or an atheist for all I care; but I expect him to be relatively trustworthy, reasonably fair, and a great painter. My barber, car repair guy, and emissions-inspection person (whom I think is a Muslim!) do not need to agree with Nicene evangelical Christianity in order for me to utilize them.

I do, however, want my pastors, deacons, and seminary professors to be good evangelicals who have orthodox doctrine and a Christ-like life; but that is because their role as a pastor, deacon and seminary professor is directly linked to their proximity to evangelicalism. I don’t want a narcissistic pastor (I’ve sat under several already), because in this context, their narcissism is contrary to their role as an evangelical Christian teacher and leader. When it comes to churchy stuff, I want godly, wise, and gifted individuals; not opportunists and narcissists.

I have said in many election cycles that what this country needs is a good businessman. I think that what America also needs is a good narcissist. I want a president who is so concerned about his own success and how people perceive him that he accomplishes the difficult jobs and makes the tough decisions that typical politicians won’t.

And let’s face it; Trump is a narcissist. This has made him tough, successful, able to leverage failure and promote success. He has a passion to be liked, to be praised, to succeed, and to make those underneath him successful, as well. Many Americans sense from Trump that his success as president will be America’s success.

But, how is Trump’s narcissism different from Obama’s? Both men are obviously madly in love with themselves, and some in Obama’s circle of praise even likened him to God (see our article “A Messy Messiah” from the February 2013 edition). In temperament, these two men are probably very similar, but in effect and result, there is an astronomical difference between their brands of narcissism.

The main difference between Trump’s narcissism and Obama’s is that Obama’s narcissism is based on him rather than on his accomplishments. That is why he thought he was worthy to be president despite his negligible experience; while many of us were looking at his paltry résumé, he was just looking in the mirror. That is also why after almost two terms of economic stagnation, international blunders, and cultural decline, he thinks that his presidency has been a success. We all know people who are stuck on themselves not because of great accomplishments but because they simply love themselves. Nobody loved them enough when they were growing up to tell them that they were not as athletic, or talented, or funny, or smart as they think they were. Self-love must be tempered by experience and willingness to receive advice (see our article “Ears to Hear Counsel and Correction” below). Also, since Obama’s narcissism is based only on himself, his ego is impervious to criticism and facts; as long as he is Obama, he will always be proud of himself, no matter what happens in reality (see our article “Gauging and Faking Achievement” from the November 2015 edition, which applies to Obama and Hillary, too!).

On the other hand, Trump’s is an experienced narcissism rooted in accomplishment not fantasy. Trump proved his business acumen, his ability to negotiate, and his success in multiple fields. His egotism is the almost-justifiable result of an older, experienced billionaire who has learned from multiple successes and failures, and from all his business endeavors and bankruptcies. He is authentic and real; he is not plastic and political; his love for others, for his country, and for himself is real; his tweets are real; his success is real.

We are a society that thrives on self-interest, and we should, therefore, not be surprised that we create many narcissists. We should also not be surprised that some of those narcissists deserve to be self-loving, while others . . . well . . . not so much. I believe that Trump’s narcissism is just what we need and will help save this country from further military and economic decline.

Of course, I use the word “save” in this article in a relative, and perhaps even ironic, sense. The best that even the most powerful people can do is to delay the inevitable decline of civilization. And, in the most ultimate sense, only the God-Man, Jesus Christ can provide true salvation. Only God can create the revival in spirituality and wisdom that could truly save this country, but even that would only be temporary. Fortunately, whatever happens in our country is ultimately in His hands; salvation belongs to the Lord, which brings us theists great amounts of comfort no matter what troubles we face as a nation.

In the meantime, I can’t imagine a narcissist that I would rather have as president than Donald Trump. He’s no saint and he’s no evangelical. I want a holy person as a pastor and deacon; but for our country, I’d be happy with a demonstrably successful and even self-adoring person, someone who is so in love with his own success that the rest of us will benefit from the crumbs that fall off the table of his ego.

PROVERBS TO PONDER: Ears to Hear Counsel and Correction (Proverbs 13:1)

A wise son accepts discipline from his father, but the scoffer does not listen to rebuke (Proverbs 13:1).

Does someone become wise because he or she heeds wise counsel, or do people who are inclined toward wisdom naturally prefer wise counsel?

Or is it both?

Proverbs 13:1 seems to suggest both: a person will be wise both when they avail themselves to listening to advice and correction, and also when they integrate that wisdom into their lives. In fact, Proverbs even teaches that the wise person will position themselves to receive wisdom and counsel, and they will become even wiser still (1:5; 9:9).

And Proverbs has a name – several, actually – for individuals who do not position themselves to receive correction or do not put wise counsel into practice.

The exact phrase at the beginning of Prov 13:1, “a wise son,” is also used in 10:1 and 15:20. Unlike those other contexts, however, which discuss the results of a son’s wisdom, this verse hints at what causes him to be wise.

This first phrase lacks a verb, which is supplied by English translations. It literally reads “son wise, correction father.” The terseness of this statement is perhaps intending to connect the result and the cause as closely as possible without letting even a verb get in the way. This suggests two things: first, that there is a son who is open to the rebuke of his father, and second, that there is a father who is providing godly and wise rebuke to the son, rebuke that is appropriate and measured. That is, a child lacking wisdom is sometimes as much the product of either an absent father or the absence of wise correction and suitable chastisement from any spiritual authority.

In this verse, discipline from the father implies a source of wisdom and correction that has the “child’s” best interests at heart. But this verse does not necessarily limit the flow of advice and discipline between father and son. An individual will be wiser for accepting correction and discipline from all sources. Doing so requires sifting through advice and chastisement discerningly, for not all advice is good advice, or in our best interest. However, most criticism and correction, even from antagonistic sources or sources that you may not respect, have at least an ounce of truth. The person of understanding will sort through all advice from every source and integrate elements that are truly helpful and beneficial. Proverbs 17:10 also refers to the powerful impact that helpful advice can have on someone who is willing to receive it.

Can’t Get Enough Politics?

Neither can we! You can find a whole host of great articles about politics here in our “Eclectic Archive.”

The second phrase of Proverbs 13:1 portrays the antithesis of an individual who accepts advice. It focuses on a “scoffer” or a “mocker.” As a participle of the Hebrew verb lits this word closely links the actions with the person; that is, the author does not merely mention “an individual who mocks,” but “a mocker,” someone whose mocking and scoffing is so prevalent that it characterizes them. This person “does not listen to rebuke.” The verb used indicates that this individual “does not hear.” They intentionally stop up their ears to correction and reproof.

The word “rebuke” is gearah, which is used fifteen times in the Old Testament, mainly in Psalms and Isaiah; it sometimes comes from God (Job 26:11; Ps 18:15; Is 51:20; 66:15), and sometimes from another person (Prov 17:10; Eccl 7:5; Is 30:17). As some of these verses (especially in the first category) demonstrate, this is a powerful word indicating something much stronger than a mere hint or an occasional piece of advice. Perhaps the implication is that discipline and correction must be delivered more forcefully to someone who perpetually refuses it. But, alas, even the severest admonishment is ignored by this scoffing individual.

So which comes first, the wise person or wise advice? Apparently both. A wise person will not shun correction and advice. Rather they will position themselves to receive counsel, and they will actually seek out advice and even correction. They will then thoughtfully, discerningly, and skillfully integrate that advice into their lifestyle,and decisions; they will correct errors, adjust behaviors, and the result will often be greater success and effectiveness (Proverbs 11:25, 31; 13:13, 21; 28:13, 25; see also Psalms 1:2-3).

We live in an age that is so arrogant and so antagonistic to authority that many have stopped their ears to all rebuke and attempts to correct them. They forsake reason, wisdom and common sense, and therefore, they continue in their folly. This can only be bad for those individuals; they disregard rebuke to their own detriment.

DEITY OF CHRIST: “My Lord and My God!” John 20:28

Welcome to this twenty-first century crusade, a crusade to reaffirm and champion the majestic doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ and to recapture ground that has been lost in churches, academia, and online to those who deny His full and unqualified divinity.

Perhaps no doctrine of Christianity is as important and unique as the deity of Christ. This is the affirmation that Christ is the God-man, fully and fundamentally God, and also, after His incarnation, fully human. It is vital for modern Christianity that we do not compromise when it comes to this doctrine. If Christ is not fully God and fully human, then He cannot adequately provide redemption for humanity; He has to be fully human to save humans, but fully God to make salvation available to all humans.

Also, the affirmation of the deity of Christ distinguishes Christianity from other world religions like Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. This truth also sets us apart from the plethora of modern cults like Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology or Baha’i; none of these other faith systems affirm the full and undiminished deity of Christ, and, therefore, they are not truly Christian.

But the belief in the deity of Christ is not something that the church made up centuries after the events of Jesus’ ministry, as liberal theologians and post-modern historians would have us believe. Rather, the NT asserts that the apostles recognized and wrote about the deity of Christ and that Jesus Himself made several claims to be God (see, for instance, our article “Before Abraham Was . . .” from the June 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper).

Devotional Thoughts

We have a whole section of “Devotional Thoughts” over in our “Eclectic Archive”; we hope that these will be both encouraging and edifying for you!

Some of the verses and passages that we will look at in this series are clearer than others. Few are clearer than the declaration by one of the apostles in John 20:28. In fact the statement “My Lord and my God” is such an unambiguous affirmation of the deity of Christ that I named a recent sermon series about this doctrine after this phrase (you can access those sermons on our “Eclectic Kasper Media” Soundcloud page).

By the time of this interaction between Jesus and Thomas in John 20:24-29, the other disciples had already seen the resurrected Jesus (vv. 19-23). Why wasn’t Thomas with them (v.24)? What could he possibly have been doing that was so important?

The text is silent on this question, but we could only imagine how awkward it was for him to disbelieve the witness of the other disciples. When he rejoins them they are twittering with excitement about having seen the resurrected Jesus (v. 25). They don’t stop talking about this.

What could he possibly be thinking as he denies their enthusiasm? He may think that they are so deluded with grief that they imagined some kind of appearance of Jesus. Perhaps they saw a doppelganger walking down the street and unreasonably concluded that Jesus was still alive. Maybe they saw a ghost or a spirit. Maybe Thomas thinks that they are just teasing him; if so, this would be one the most tasteless pranks in history.

Thomas does what many of us do when we are doubting God: he develops specific tests and asserts that he will only believe the other disciples when he sees unassailable proof of Jesus’ resurrection (v. 25). The other disciples surely must have been irritated at Thomas’ obstinacy and refusal to believe them. Sometimes one of the biggest points of divisions between people is the chasm between belief and disbelief.

Eight days go by before Jesus presents Himself to the disciples again (v. 26). While the text doesn’t say, I imagine that these boys bickered about this and many other theological matters all week. Thomas’ sense that they won’t let up about their claims to have seen Jesus must have been infuriating; if he felt that they were joking, the joke must have seemed more tasteless the more they persisted.

Suddenly, Jesus appears; this time, Thomas is there, too (v. 26).

This moment amazes and changes Thomas. He notices that Jesus is obviously in a physical form; He was not ghost-like or insubstantial. While there may have been some kind of mystical glow around Jesus, Thomas perceived that He was, nonetheless, completely physical and real; this was no spirit, doppelganger, or hoax.

Also, Thomas sees Jesus’ very cool ability to suddenly appear in a room when the doors were closed. The room in question was probably not a huge room with tons of doors and entryways; Jesus was not hiding in a closet or behind some furniture. And the word used for “closed” (the Greek verb kleio) sometimes means not just shut but “locked.” Given the turmoil surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples were afraid of a witch-hunt to find Jesus’ followers (v. 19); they were still in “lock-down”; and, yet, Jesus suddenly appears in their midst.

Jesus proclaims a blessing of peace for a third time in this passage (vv. 19, 21, 26). Then He addresses Thomas (v. 27); it is very important that they are going to be talking directly to one another in these next few verses. With immeasurable grace Jesus accommodates Thomas’ doubt and volunteers to satisfy Thomas’ perception tests. “Reach here . . . see . . . touch . . . don’t doubt, but believe!”

It is funny how we so often think that we need proof of something. We want God to prove His love or demonstrate His will for us, only to find out that our doubts were vacuous and our need for proof was meaningless. For Thomas, all his doubts and criteria evaporate into one of the most straight-forward affirmations of the Lordship and deity of Christ in the New Testament: “My Lord and my God!” (v. 28).

Thomas says this “to Him”; he is directly addressing Jesus. That is, Thomas’ statement here is not an exclamation into the air but a proclamation to Jesus and about Jesus and about His lordship and deity.

In John 8, the crowd tried to stone Jesus after He claimed to be on par with the “I Am” of the Old Testament (John 8:58). We noted (in our article “Before Abraham Was. . .” John 8:58 from the June 2016 edition) that if Jesus felt that the crowd had misunderstood Him, this would have been an ideal time to retract or clarify: I didn’t claim to be God! You’ve got me wrong! Put down your stones and let’s hash this out! The problem was not that the crowd misunderstood Him, but rather, that they understood exactly what He was claiming, but refused to believe.

Similarly, if Thomas was wrong about Jesus, this would have been a perfect time to clarify. Thomas, I’ll accept the title “Lord” but not “God”; I’m not the one true God; I’m only a messenger. But Jesus doesn’t clarify, shun or marginalize Thomas’ assertion of His deity. In fact, just a few verses later, in John 20:31, John will use the title “Son of God,” which also affirms the deity of Christ.

In other instances, also, Jesus never turns away assertions or implications of His deity; Matthew records Jesus accepting worship from His disciples before and after the resurrection (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17). In contrast, an angel in Revelation vehemently refused to be worshiped when John fell before him in reverence (19:10; 22:8-9). By accepting these words of Thomas and worship from His disciples, this means that Jesus was either deluded about who He was, or that He was deceiving them, or that He is truly and fully deity.

I have written about Jehovah’s witnesses several times recently (see here and here, for example). We have mentioned the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ agendized translation of the Bible called the New World Translation. I often look to see how that they translate these clear verses about the deity of Christ, and they usually do some weird hermeneutical gymnastics to distort the unambiguous truth of these texts. I was shocked, therefore, that the NWT version of this verse also portrays how Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” The grammar here is simply too straight-forward for even the JW’s to deny Thomas’ assertion of Jesus’ deity.

The deity of Christ is inescapable from texts like this. Two inescapable questions remain. If you don’t believe that Christ is fully divine, then what evidence do you have of that? If you do believe that Jesus is fully divine, what are you doing to acknowledge the full Lordship of Him in your life?

UTOPIAN LITERATURE: What are Utopia and Euchronia?

Since Thomas More wrote Utopia in 1516, many European authors have envisioned ideal societies that were separated from their reality by either place or time. These various contributions to utopian literature tended both to enshrine hopes for the future as well as highlight anxieties that plague the present. Fátima Vieira suggests that “Utopia is . . . a kind of reaction to an undesirable present and an aspiration to overcome all difficulties by the imagination of possible alternatives” (Fátima Vieira, “The Concept of Utopia” in Utopian Literature, ed. Gregory Claeys [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010], 7).

While many utopias have been written throughout the ages, the modern tradition of utopian literature began with More’s Utopia. The name itself is a word-play: the Greek word utopia literally means “no place” while its homophone eutopia means “a good place.” Vieira asserts that “Etymologically, utopia is thus a place which is a non-place, simultaneously constituted by a movement of affirmation and denial” (Vieira, 4).

Like More’s Utopia, many subsequent examples of utopian literature picture a traveler returning from a distant land with stories of diverse and exotic societies; interest in exploration during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries lent plausibility to such tales. The body of these works contains detailed descriptions of various aspects of that distant society; the author would often use these descriptions of a fictional utopia to create a contrast with his or her homeland, and thereby, indirectly critique it.

A really fun subcategory of utopia is “euchronia,” or a work that is set in a “good time.” That is, rather than traveling to a different place at the current time, the author is somehow whisked off to a different time, though often he remains in the same place. A key example of euchronia is Louis-Sébastien Mercier’s 1771 work called The Year 2440 (L’An 2440, rêve s’il en fût jamais). In this work (which we will discuss more fully in a future installment of this series), Mercier’s narrator wakes up in his Paris home, but 672 years in the future, in the year 2440, the year of the narrator’s (and the author’s) seven-hundredth birthday. He is escorted around this future Paris, and shown how eighteenth-century enlightenment principles had been integrated into all aspects of society. So, rather than positioning a utopian society in a different location existing in the present, Mercier places his utopia in his beloved city of Paris, but far into the future.

An additional (and really, really fun) sub-category of utopia is dystopia, sometimes referred to as “cacotopia,” which means a “bad place.” These do not emerge until the second half of the nineteenth-century. Before then satire and parody, such as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) or Voltaire’s Candide (1759) carried the weight of social critique. However, heightened political and scientific threats of the latter half of the nineteenth-century birthed dystopian literature. This was a more intense genre for expressing concerns in regard to technology gone amok or militaristic, totalitarian regimes taking over. While the literary construct of a euchronia is similar—a voyager describing various aspects of an idyllic society—the rhetorical effect is different. Utopia sometimes implies that the place described is not really possible, or at least, fairly unlikely. Euchronia implies the opposite, specifically, that the good future place described in the story is a reality toward which humanity—given enough time—could progress. The European Enlightenment of the late 1700’s especially promoted the notion that through reason and education humanity can progress beyond the impediments of authoritarian rulers or religious conflicts. Other works we will investigate, such as those by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, are treatises about what society could become if Enlightened proposals and ideas were implemented; thus, they are more like euchronia than utopia, they are idyllic visions to which society may aspire.

Some of the most popular dystopic works include Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (published in 1931), George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), and Ray Bradburry’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953). These works are not really the opposite of utopia, picturing a bad place at the current time; rather, dystopia is really the opposite of euchronia, portraying the author’s native location at a dark and tragic potential future time. The authors suggest that the grim realities portrayed in their stories depict a plausible future in their homeland if certain mindsets or behaviors are not altered now. This literary device tugs at the reader’s patriotism as they witness a familiar landscape recast in dystopian shambles. Yet, dystopias do not merely portray dismal potential prospects for societies, but through their narrative power, they project the hope that society can change its trajectory as a result, in part, of the ominous warnings of the dystopian author.

Throughout this series, we will examine several utopian works, including some euchronian books, and eventually we’ll cover some really interesting dystopic works, as well. I think that you will find the aspirations and warnings of these works to be very fascinating and instructive.

ROMANS: Humanity Without God, Romans 1:28-32

What would humanity be like without God?

Many people throughout history have envisioned life without God. Some authors during the Enlightenment of the late 1700’s tried to reduce religion to generic praise offered to a naturalistic deity, who rarely interfered with human affairs and did not hold humanity accountable for its actions. Prosperity gospel preachers today shun the God of the Bible and adopt a God that seems more like a rich uncle, that otherwise isn’t very involved with our lives. Many people don’t necessarily deny that God exists, but they live like He doesn’t and they embrace a functional atheism.

The end of the first chapter of Romans demonstrates what really happens when humanity attempts to rid itself of the weight of God. Ironically, by ridding ourselves of God, we shun our own humanity and the very reasons why we exist.

We’re tackling a larger section of verses than we usually do so that we will get the point of this section and not get lost in the minutia.

Romans 1:28 provides the third mention of God “giving over” humanity who rejected Him (the other two are in vv. 24 and 26). The verb paredoken (“to hand over, to give or deliver over”) is in the aorist tense, which seems to indicate a definitive time period or a definitive act whereby God delivers people to the consequences of their own actions.

This is caused because they did not think it worthwhile to know and understand God. The word dokimazo is a perception word; people did not perceive the need to know or worship the one true God who created them. The text literally says that they did not see the need to have God in understanding or with insight. They may have a general sense that God exists, but they have no interest in Him beyond that. There is some wordplay and spiritual irony in verse 28 that helps explain God’s actions. People perceived (again, the original Greek word is dokimazo) that God was irrelevant to their thinking and understanding; as a result, God made their minds and their thinking adokimos, “failing to meet the test, disqualified, worthless.” The word is used in Titus 1:16 of false teachers who are “worthless for any good deed,” but Paul elsewhere suggests a threat that believers may fall prey to this status as well (1 Cor 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Tim 3:8).

The key here is that God doesn’t force humanity to be worthless in their thoughts; He merely encourages them down a road they had already chosen. This illuminates the passages that discuss God hardening individual’s hearts (Ex 4:21; 7:3; 14:4; Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20; 2 Cor 3:14; Rom 11:25) or God sending a delusion upon people (2 Thess 2:11, see also Exodus 3:15-18, 1 Samuel 16:1-4, 1 Kings 22). He doesn’t harden or delude someone against their will; they chose that road, and God merely accelerates them down it.

The outcome of this is expressed by the infinitive of result in the last phrase of v. 28. They are futile, and they “do” what is not “fitting,” “permissible” or “acceptable” as a result. The word kathekei is used in verb form elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 22:22, when Paul was deemed by a hostile audience as “not fitting” to be allowed to live. The next few verses will specify what exactly they were doing that was not proper. However, this verse affirms that morality is not as subjective as post-modern culture would have us believe; rather, most people know intuitively what is fitting and what is clearly not.

Having alluded to the “improper” or “unacceptable” behavior of a depraved mind in v. 28, Paul provides a lengthy list in vv. 29-31 of the acts that flow from such depravity. Those who rejected proper knowledge of and worship of God are “filled with all kinds of” vices (v. 29). This is not intending to be an exhaustive list, but it does include most kinds of sins that we could imagine.

Most of the words and concepts in this vice list are straight-forward and frankly, require little comment; the specific Greek words and where they are used elsewhere in the NT can be found in basic Bible dictionaries and concordances. I will therefore make more general comments about the list itself.

First, these verses provide a checklist for personal, corporate, and even societal comparison. The individual believer should look through these vices and note if any are prevalent in her or his life. A church should engage in serious self-reflection and consider if any of these vices regularly occur in its gatherings and worship (like greed, envy, strife, gossip, arrogance, or being unmerciful). A society should also compare themselves to this list and note how many of these vices characterize it; the more that do, the greater trouble that society is in. Additionally, while many people today believe that we should excise God out of society, this list demonstrates what would result from casting God aside. A person who knows any history is aware that churches and religion has caused all manner of ugliness over the years. But would humanity be better for extracting God from culture totally? No, in fact, we would be far worse.

And, a quick word about sin: God hates it. However, He apparently still believes enough in human will that He allows individuals and societies to spiral into vices when they seem to want to do so. When we reject God, the proper worship of Him, and the worthy acknowledgement of Him, then we not only lose Him, but we lose ourselves in a muck and mire of mortal vice.

Similarly, to get rid of God doesn’t mean we gain something, but that we lose something. The four items listed v. 31 are all prefixed with the Greek negation a- (as in “atypical” or not typical). To jettison God is to abandon understanding, integrity, love and mercy; we cannot gain any of these by losing God.

As if the vice list in vv. 29-31 was not bad enough, Paul lists in v. 32 two more consequences of humanity abandoning and rejecting God. First, it reminds us that those who go their own way and practice these sins make themselves worthy of death, a truth that resonates with other similar statements in Scripture (Rom 6:16, 21, 23; 8:6; see also Prov 14:12). The fact that some sins are capital offenses was well known from the OT; the declaration that someone “shall surely be put to death” for a specific violation occurs twenty-eight times mainly in the Mosaic Law.

Second, and perhaps the more significant point of this verse, is not just the fate of those who practice the evil acts listed in the previous verses, but also the moral complicity that many share by approving the evil that others do. The word suneudokeo (another contribution to the word play from v. 28), literally means “to think of well together with” but translators use words like “approve of” or “agree with.” Other instances of the verb in the NT indicate that someone agrees with a decision or action of someone else (Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; 22:20; Rom 1:32; 1 Cor 7:12, 13; see also 1 Macc 1:57; 2 Macc 11:24, 35). Not only do some of the vices listed in this passage infiltrate our society, but many heartily approve and think well of those who commit them.

So, what do you think of humanity without God? While religious zealots cause plenty of trouble, there is no measuring the trouble that will occur for a civilization that jettisons God as well as Biblical knowledge and morality entirely. A society that embraces vices and rejects God is simply unsustainable.

FEEDBACK: Power of Attorney and The Election

We start this month’s feedback section with a follow-up to the article “One Reason Why Many Churches Struggle Financially” from the July 2016 edition. That article was by guest author Michael Jogan, and this his own follow-up to that article:

Is the following trend occurring in your church? A diminishing number of parishioner’s bequest, especially from those who left copies of their wills with the church, are not being fulfilled upon their death. With just the stroke of a legal pen, their wishes are not being fulfilled.

Commentary on Romans

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

It is common practice to leave a copy of one’s last will and testament with a church if one plans to donate to said church. This allows the church to be aware of an impending gift and to insure the bequest is conducted in a timely manner. But one critical fact is not being conveyed to all givers—when they sign over their power of attorney to someone their wishes are now at the mercy of said power of attorney. This person can then transfer the benefactor’s bank accounts to whomever they wish. When the will is later read and distribution of monies occurs, there are often no funds left to disperse.

This is a scary, but true situation. These last few days of one’s life should not be when new power of attorneys can be lawfully signed. Even when a doctor and those present believe the benefactor is “of sound mind” he or she could be confused from medication which is a norm during the end-of-life stage. Though I hate more laws, I believe a 7-day grace period should be instituted to prevent underhanded intentions by last minute friendships or companionships. And any new power of attorney signed prior to 7-days of death could then be ruled unenforceable and disallowed by the courts.

We also solicited some input online about the debates and the upcoming election. What would you like to say about the debates, the election, and the candidates? What does the election say about American politics? What do you like/ dislike about the candidates? Who did or didn’t do well in the debates?

The following is the first response we received:

Bottom line, I can never vote for a Democrat if for no other reason than their stance on abortion and same sex marriage. I'm opposed to most of their other policies as well and their nominee, Hillary Clinton, has more baggage than Zsa Zsa Gabor had husbands. Donald Trump is no altar boy or the nominee I would have chosen but when I think about which person I think will have a hand in deciding the next two or three Supreme Court justices, I trust him far more than Hillary to appoint those with conservative values. Besides, she belongs in the jailhouse, not the White House! Having said that, I know without doubt that God is sovereign and he raises leaders for his own purposes and plans. His ways are not our ways and we just have to trust that whatever the outcome (rigged or not!), God's plan will be revealed in due time.

Here’s another response from a faithful reader:

Kudos to Chris Wallace for asking tough questions of both candidates during the last (and thankfully final!) debate. I appreciate his journalistic courage. However, I do have a significant beef with Wallace and for that matter, with the protocol of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Why won’t they let an audience be an audience? People cheer, laugh, and generally respond while listening to political speeches. Whether it is a rally or a primary debate, the audience response is critical for the candidate to gauge whether they are connecting to the voter. Shushing the audience, as Chris Wallace did like a crusty old school teacher, was inane. Either have a live audience (and let them behave like one) or have your debate in a stuffy TV studio with just cameramen as your witnesses. What is the point of a live audience if they can’t respond? In this twitter-obsessed culture, stifling audience reaction is both artificial and, frankly, rude.

Thanks for the great input, follow-up and feedback! If you haven’t yet, give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and leave your thoughts and comments there about any of our articles past or current.

Also, you can always send your thoughts and input to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll reprint it anonymously in a future edition.