OCTOBER 2017

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the October 2017 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

This month, we discuss how the NFL has become the latest arena for the illogic of liberal logic. We review a relevant verse in Proverbs that helps explain the unfortunate discourse that takes place today.

On the eve of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation, we go back to its origins, and I discuss what the Reformation means to me. We have an “Eclectic Flashback” to an article about worship, and we have another installment in our series about utopian literature. Also, we note popular, but wrong, notions about God that are addressed in our ongoing commentary on Romans.

You don’t have to agree with every article or perspective in order to visit our Facebook page and give us a “like.” If you like the free exchange of ideas and civil discussions, then please give us a “like” and feel free to dialog with us on any of our articles. We have a goal to get over 250 likes by the end of 2017, and we would love your help with that.

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

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: The NFL and the Illogic of Liberal Logic

The protests that have consumed news about the NFL lately have become mind-numbing; I can’t even keep track of who is protesting anymore and who is protesting the protests.

For those of us who just want to watch a good football game, or for those of us who just want to watch the Cleveland Browns, all of this standing, abstaining, kneeling and leaving because some are kneeling, seems like political showmanship.

However, the coverage of who’s standing and who’s kneeling betrays some profound contradictions in the liberal movement today.

Liberals complain about how the convictions of conservatives may stir up violence. Yet liberals celebrate Madonna when she talked about revolution at the January 21, 2017 “Women’s March on Washington” and when she admitted that she “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

The unmistakably-left media excoriates some admittedly crass remarks that Donald Trump made about women, but those same media figures revered Bill Clinton for his actual exploits in which he really demeaned multiple women.

But this latest wave of NFL kneelers is ideological icing on the political cake. Players and the media celebrate the stance they take when they kneel during the national anthem. They claim victimhood and they assert that they are being treated like slaves when they are asked to stand (I’ll exchange my freedom for their “slave” paycheck any day!). They are so proud of the stance they take by kneeling and of the political statement that they are making. But there are multiple problems here. First, I suspect that if a poll of the kneeling players were taken, probably no more than one quarter of them would know or remember the specific issue for which Colin Kaepernick originally protested at the beginning of last season. Many athletes are very intelligent; they know their game, and may have some intellectual acuity, and if they want to address politics somewhere else, they have the freedom to do that. Unfortunately, many athletes barely graduated from their universities, and some can barely even pronounce their alma mater. Do they even know why they are kneeling?

Also, players and the liberals who revere them are obviously not interested in free speech, because that same free speech is denied validity to other NFL players. The media celebrates NFL players’ right to institutionalize their hatred toward this country, our anthem and our flag, but they vilify Cam Newton’s candid sense that it was still awkward for him to hear a female reporter having a complicated discussion about routes with him. I guarantee that at least half of the men who heard that female reporter’s question in the original press conference felt the same way as Cam, but didn’t want to say anything.

By the way, having a feeling or sense that is not-very-Politically-Correct isn’t wrong. We may call it outdated, unfortunate, arcane. But isn’t it just as protected as any other free speech in our country? Are we interested in free speech or only in free speech that promotes a certain agenda?

Also, Cam’s statement, though awkward, does not represent hatred toward women. I think that most men would love to be able to have nuanced conversations with their wives or girlfriends about passing routes. But for some of us who are not used to such conversations with women, it is still a bit awkward to hear. For most football-loving men, that’s just a reality, but it’s not hatred; there are surely better ways to express that reality than Cam did, but it’s a reality, nonetheless, and not hatred. One illogical point of liberal logic is that liberals fabricate hatred where there is none.

Another illogical leap in liberal logic is how liberals praise NFL players for expressing their convictions to not stand for the flag while they are on their job. And yet, liberals excoriated Vice President Mike Pence for expressing his convictions and leaving a football game where some players were kneeling. In fact, these same liberals who think it’s fine for NFL players to express hatred for our flag, our country, and our policewomen and policemen, these same liberals have a fit when a baker or florist decides that she or he doesn’t want to provide services on their job to someone else based on their personal preferences and convictions. You may think that all of these examples have nothing to do with each other, but that would be ignorantly missing the common thread that makes all of them exactly the same. NFL players, vice presidents, bakers, florists are all examples of people having personal convictions regarding social and religious issues and expressing those in a public and commercial setting. Yet liberals support some and irrationally vilify others.

And, by the way, I have written about how I don’t like it when bakers or florists refuse their services to others who think and behave differently than they do (see our two articles about religious liberty in the July 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper). If you are in business, on the job, or in the office, then you should do your job. Your place of employment, especially in a “secular” setting, isn’t the place for you to make a political or religious statement; it is a place for you to do the job that you have advertised to the public and commercial community around you.

If you advertise yourself as a florist in your town, then sell flowers to everyone without discrimination. If you say that you bake cakes in your city, the decision to do so or not shouldn’t be based on what your clients do in their bedrooms.

And if you make zillions of dollars as a football player on national TV, then do your dang job on the field and on the sidelines. The NFL “Game Operations Manual,” encourages players to be present and to stand for the singing of the national anthem. They have plenty of other appropriate venues for venting their opinions, but the football field isn’t one of them.

So at least I’m being consistent when I say that if someone has a job, but also has personal convictions, sometimes they need to put their personal convictions aside in order to do their job. Bakers, florists, and NFL players have the right to say anything they want, but your job is often not the best platform for political expression.

You may not agree with my stance, but at least I’m being consistent. I wish I could say the same for liberals, whose foolish ideology blinds them to their own profound illogic.

There’s plenty more examples of the illogic of liberal logic, but we’ll have to save that for another day!

We know that you have some thoughts about this, too. Send your compliments and critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we’ll reprint good feedback in a future edition.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK: DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 3, Worship is For God and For Man

This article is originally from the October 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, presented here with minor modifications.

It is perhaps preferable to understand worship not with a precise Biblical definition, but as a multi-dimensional activity that strives for balance between extremes on a variety of Biblical continuum. Last month we argued that worship must be both theocentric and Christocentric. That is, there must be balanced attention given to praise directed to the Father as well as to the Son. To ignore one or the other in our regular diet of Sunday morning worship is to risk sliding into practical Unitarianism or modalism.

As argued previously, worship is valid only when it is directed to the one true God, either the person of the Father or of the Son. The participants of the worshiping community, however, are also the beneficiaries (though not recipients!) of worship, and the praise of a local parish has a character- forming effect on the parishioners. So perhaps, we could clarify the title of this article by suggesting that worship is always and exclusively directed toward God, but even though it is primarily for God’s honor and glory, the worshipers benefit from worship as well (of course, that would make for an awkwardly long article title!).

In fact, it is difficult to escape the man-ward function of edification that is often assigned to the corporate gathering of believers in the NT (Acts 2:42-47; 1 Cor 14:26; Heb 10:23-25). Similarly, Paul suggests that the use of music in the corporate settings is for the purpose of edification (Eph 5:18-19; Col 3:16; see also Deut 31:30 - 32:47). Paul seems to demonstrate this method of exhortation via song lyrics as he utilizes texts that were probably taken from the early church’s liturgy to instruct one of his protégés (1 Tim 1:15; 3:16; 2 Tim 2:11-13).

Thus, the adoration of God and the education of man are not mutually exclusive concepts. “The glorification of God and the edification of the saints occur concurrently. Worship music functions as an integral part of the teaching ministry. Pulpit preaching has greater power to explain the text logically, but music has greater power to inculcate the text, to take the text more profoundly into other parts of the hearer’s being” (Leonard Payton, “How Shall We Sing to God?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1996], 192).

Discussing the worship of the primitive church, Sharon Clark Pearson similarly suggests, “The songs of the early church performed the vital service of defining what was specifically Christian. They became the center for Christian worship and then they became the foundation for instruction that was incorporated into the New Testament” (Sharon Clark Pearson, “Sacred Songs/ Sacred Service,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 32 [2], Fall 1997, p. 17).

This is why the substance and content of what we sing on Sunday mornings is so important. While the songs of our worship are directed toward God, they have an educational and character-forming function for believers. A few hymns are, unfortunately, little more than sentimental drivel, and many modern “praise choruses” are ecclesiastical placebos. However, on the whole, hymn text authors were more conscientious about portraying the substance of the Christian faith than contemporary worship texts seem to be. The chart below compares the difference between the content of hymns vs. praise choruses like we did last time with Christology. The statistics from the contemporary worship music (“CWM”) books are compiled from popular praise chorus volumes put out by three different publishers. The statistics regarding hymns are from three denominational hymnals which were published before the 1970s, and thus, they do not contain any praise choruses. Like last month, this chart reflects what percent of songs in the CWM books or hymnals mention or refer to the word or concept in the column on the far left.

We can readily see the difference: hymns mention faith and grace three times more often than CWM songs. Hymnals address sin and pardon four times more frequently than their contemporary counterparts. The cross, the Trinity, or the afterlife for believers are mentioned six to seven times more often in hymnody than in the praise chorus corpora. This does not mean that hymns are inherently better than praise choruses, but it does reflect a greater measure of attention to substance on the part of hymn text authors relative to CWM authors. There is grave danger that the substance of our faith is slowly draining from the songs of our worship.

A local congregation of believers is shaped by the quality of the texts and music used in its services. The use of music in worship “can either facilitate healthy character development, or accentuate and promote ungodly ideas and patterns of behavior” (Peter E. Roussaki, “The Significance of Music in Worship,” Journal of the American Academy of Ministry, vol. 2, no. 1 [Summer 1993], p. 40.).

However, not only are the Godward and manward elements mutually inclusive, but they are also mutually dependent. “Worship is both for the glorification of God and the sanctification of persons, but it can only aid the latter if its focus is on the former” (Henry H. Knight III, “Worship and Sanctification,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 3 2[2], Fall 1997, p. 12.). In both cases, the crux of the issue is the quality of content of the song texts being employed and their ability to effectively and fully communicate the truths of the faith: God is glorified by truth (Mal 2:5-6; John 4:23-24) and believers are sanctified and purified by truth (John 17:17-19; 1 Peter 1:22). Both purposes are related to the quality of truth that is being sung and proclaimed.

PROVERBS TO PONDER: Pouring Forth Folly (Proverbs 15:2)

The lips of the wise causes knowledge to be acceptable, but the mouth of fools causes folly to pour out.

A promulgation of words, opinions, and ideas permeates our society. Everywhere you turn, you hear opinions on the radio, pundits on the TV, athletes and movie stars offering their protest.

In the cacophony of voices, it is often difficult to know which ones to follow. It is alternately, helpful to recognize that much of what we hear is the fodder of fools, opinions not worth our time from sources who seem more ignorant with each passing word.

Proverbs 15:2 helps us understand this cacophony of thoughts and opinions, and helps us appreciate that when it comes to the maelstrom of words today, quantity is not necessarily the same as quality.

The first phrase of the verse uses the Hebrew word yatab, meaning “to be good, well, glad, or pleasing.” The verb is in the Hiphil or causative stem: the wise person persuades someone else that knowledge, wisdom, or truth is acceptable, good or pleasing.

“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”!

There is an interesting presupposition here that knowledge will not always be well received or found to be acceptable. It is curious how often people hear the gospel, the greatest offer ever known to man, and yet fail to respond positively to it. This is perhaps because of their spiritual blindness, or because of their own sin and short-sightedness. But it may also be because the presenter failed to make the Gospel as appealing as it really is. Similarly, theological arguments are often lost based on the lapses of the arguer not based on the merits of the argument. The point here is not to make knowledge palatable or to water it down so that it is acceptable in some kind of Politically Correct sense. Nor does this verse refer to manipulating someone with our speech. Rather, there are ways of communicating knowledge which enhances its appeal, and sometimes, we communicate truth in ways that detract from its appeal and worth. Proverbs 16:23 asserts that “The heart of the wise instructs his mouth and adds persuasiveness to his lips” (NASB).

On the other hand, the mouth of fools can only pour out folly. The Hebrew word naba means “to spout,” “to spring,” or “to bubble.” Used only in poetic literature, the word has a liquid implication to it, made explicit in Prov 18:4; the word reflects how the reality or essence of someone or something pours out of him or it, whether something negative (Ps 59:8 [7]; 94:4; Prov 15:28; Eccl 10:1), or positive, like God’s glory (Ps 19:2 [3]), wisdom (Ps 78:2; Prov 1:23), or praise (119:171; 145:7).

Here in Prov 15:2, naba, like the verb in the first phrase, is also in the Hiphil stem: the mouth of fools causes foolishness to gush out through their lips with little thought of logic, dignity, propriety or restraint.

While a fool may say something worthwhile occasionally, most of what they say is foolish, because that is all they know. It is interesting that the person pursuing wisdom seems to have a choice that the fool doesn’t have: while a believer should always be speaking wisdom and truth into situations, sometimes we allow our flesh to pour out the folly of foolishness and fleshly reactions and thoughts.

Also, this verse helps us understand the academic elitist class of our own day. They discuss evolution, social issues, and climate change in ways that seem hopelessly clueless and naïve to the rest of us common-sense Americans. But they are only thinking in foolish ways; their minds are saturated with wrong assumptions about God, such as doubting His love, justice, sovereignty, or even His existence.

They are also riddled with wrong thinking about people, espousing a positivistic anthropology that often bears little resemblance to reality (wait until we cover Paul’s presentation of depravity and fallenness in Romans 3:9-18 in the next edition!). Often such pundits use circular reasoning or emotional arguments to cover their lack of logic, reason or sense. When one steps back and actually listens to what is being said, one can recognize the profusion of folly lurking behind an ivory-tower smirk.

I thought of this recently when reading through the Psalms: Psalm 5:9-10 says, “Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongue they speak deceit. Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you.”

In the swirl of thoughts and opinions today, remember that many politicians, musicians, theologians, athletes, and pundits are just pouring out folly. They are not more substantive for the quantity of their words; the multiplicity of their words or the volume of their voice doesn’t improve the quality of their thoughts.

Look for the voices that are actually making sense, whose words cause knowledge to be more acceptable, digestible, and logical, and whose thoughts are more closely aligned with Scripture, reason and reality.

HISTORY: A Reformation to Remember

We are closing in on the 500-year-anniversary of Martin Luther posting his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg church on 31 October 1517, an event commonly seen as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

He chose that auspicious day because November 1 was the big All Saints Day service. November 1 was also called All Hallows Day, “hallow” meaning “saintly” or “holy,” as in the older renderings of Matthew 6:9: “Hallowed be Thy name.” The night before was referred to as “All Hallows’ Eve” which was later shortened to “Halloween.”

Do You Like Theology?

Bible study and theology are our specialties at The Eclectic Kasper. You can find many great theological articles and topics here in our “Eclectic Archive.” We have articles about the deity of Christ, and a series about the “essentials” of Christianity. We also have articles addressing concerns about charismatic churches, and a series about Martin Luther.

Posting this document on October 31 was therefore strategic; people would see the document on the church door as they shuffled in to the All Saints Day service. This was not an uncommon practice for sparking some local academic debate; after all, Luther taught at the university in Wittenberg, which had been founded just a few years earlier in 1502. But his attempts to prompt some local academic dialogue created an entirely new branch of Christianity, known today as Protestantism. Luther’s ninety-five statements discussed his concerns about the state of the Roman Catholic church, but he was specifically taking aim at indulgences. Indulgences were documents that allegedly allowed people to earn grace for oneself or someone else, and take years off of one’s stay in purgatory. Johann Tetzel was a Catholic friar who traveled up to Germany to sell indulgences; funds raised by the sale of these documents were siphoned toward the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel had a little jingle, an approximate translation into English reads something like, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings/ a soul from purgatory springs!”

Luther fiercely opposed the sale of indulgences. He asserted in his Ninety-five Theses:

“The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission” (#6a).
“It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty” (#24).
“It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone” (#28).
“They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon” (#32).
“The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God” (#62).

This dispute over indulgences raised a plethora of concerns about the church in general. Concerns about the doctrines and practices of the medieval church spawned a Reformation that could not be stopped.

In many ways this period of time has defined my own life over the last several years as I have both researched the German Protestant Reformation, published material about it and pursued some other interesting projects related to it. Several of these I have mentioned previously in the hallowed pages of The Eclectic Kasper. For instance, we presented a series called “Why Marburg Matters” about Martin Luther’s conflicts with Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529. In this series of articles we discussed the content of the meeting, why it failed, and the negative ramifications that this meeting had on the course of the Protestant Reformation.

Another example: I was working on a Vacation Bible School series that would focus on different aspects of church history; these would include fun and creative themes, such as Hudson Taylor’s first excursions into China in the mid 1850s, the ministries of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening in Colonial America, and St. Patrick’s missionary exploits into Ireland beginning in 432. I mentioned in the June 2011 edition that I was working on the first installment of this VBS series, which was called, “A Mighty Fortress: A Journey to the Beginning of the Reformation.” The children would spend time listening to important Bible lessons from Martin Luther, enjoying renaissance-style music, playing medieval games, and exploring a late medieval German marketplace. It was going to be a fun opportunity to weave together studies about the theology of the early Reformation, and creative themes about knights, castles and swords. Through a variety circumstances, that project was sidelined, but we still have the promo video here; the music in the video is my own orchestral rendition of Luther’s most famous hymn.

I have tried to use the Protestant Reformation to bridge the gap between academia and church in other ways, as well. I have taught electives at churches about church history in general and some specifically about the Reformation. I worked on brief, informative bulletin inserts for Reformation Sunday including one called “Three Words That Changed The World” and another entitled “Lesser Known Heroes of the Reformation” (by the way, these are available upon request). I was recently asked by a high school friend to write some questions for a Reformation event that some churches were going to do that included the pastors competing in Reformation Jeopardy; working on those questions (or answers?) was a real joy, and I may use them for some other activities, as well. (By the way, if you would like a copy of these, you can e-mail me at feedback@eclectickasper.com and I’ll get them to you.)

And of course, I am pursuing my PhD. from Georgia State University in history, focusing on the German Protestant Reformation. My dissertation topic will revolve around how apocalyptic ideas, print technology and Reformation theology intertwined during the first critical phase of the Reformation especially between the years 1521 and 1525.

I have presented several papers about the Reformation at historical and theological conferences. So far, I have had two papers published. The first was published as a chapter in the 2014 book Reformation Faith: Theology and Exegesis in the Protestant Reformations (Paternoster Press). The title of that chapter was, “Returning to Marburg to Rethink Martin Luther.” I was also invited to submit a paper for the 2016 edition of the Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies. The article was called “Reformation, Apocalypticism and Revolution: The Complicated Exchange between Martin Luther and the German Peasants, and Implications for Modern Civil Unrest” (starting on page 42). These were great opportunities to share my passion for and research about the early phase of the Reformation. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, this environment of late medieval and early modern Europe (1200’s – 1600’s) has been a treasure for me both theologically and academically, but also provides great experiences with my family. I reviewed one of my favorite renaissance music groups here, and in another article, I described our family’s unusually-medieval 2014. We enjoy medieval shows and movies, Lord of the Rings, medieval and renaissance music and attending Renaissance Festivals.

This timeframe, and the German Protestant Reformation specifically, has been a cornucopia of academic and personal joy for myself and for many others. I am certain that it will continue to provide fruitful study, contemplation and entertainment for many years to come.

So, Happy Reformation Day! And may the Church continue to reform more closely to God’s will and God’s Word until Christ returns to take us home.

ROMANS: Popular (and Wrong!) Notions about God, Romans 3:5-8

We’re just a few verses away from an incredibly important passage in Romans about human depravity and fallenness. Paul will clarify critical truths about human nature using the Old Testament.

Those verses are important to the argument of Romans and also to our understanding of the Gospel. The depravity of humans is important to our ability to appreciate reality, evil, and our need for a Savior. But before that, Paul will mention a few more notions about God. Having wrong perspectives about God and about humanity skews the Gospel entirely. In fact, it is interesting how some of these popular, and wrong, notions about God continue to persist among unbelievers and even believers still today.

Here in Romans especially, but also in his other epistles as well, Paul recognizes that there are always detractors. Paul has just asserted that the unbelief of many Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness (v. 3), and furthermore, that God is true and right in His words and judgments (v. 4). He recognizes how a detractor may suggest that God is not righteous for inflicting His wrath (v. 5). He acknowledges that this train of thought is a human way of thinking as opposed to God’s way of thinking, a distinction made elsewhere in Scripture, as well (Is 40:13-14; Matt 16:23 [par. Mark 8:33]; 1 Corinthians 2:11). That is, he is not embracing this position, but rather, echoing conventional thinking that questions the justice of God. This kind of thinking about God, then and now, is both popular as well as erroneous.

Paul’s rhetorical questions actually point out that God’s wrath demonstrates His profound righteousness in light of our unrighteousness. Paul makes the point that everything God does is completely correct, good, and appropriate; otherwise, He would not have the right to evaluate and judge the world and everything in it (v. 6). Again, this mitigates all the times when we believe something about our faith is “unfair,” like when we endure difficulty, or when we consider God’s sovereign election, or when we grapple with the reality that some are condemned though they have not heard the gospel, or when people encounter some huge tragedy. None of these things, whether natural phenomenon or supernatural judgment, contradict or marginalize the fact that God always does what is right.

I believe that the NIV best captures the spirit of v. 7: “Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’” Paul here points to a frequently asked question about God’s justice, and also about individual culpability and responsibility. If God elects some, then why are others held responsible? If our sin enhances God’s glory, and our falsehood points to God’s truth, then why are we judged and held responsible for our actions? Whether we know all of the implications or not, the Bible affirms the complete sovereignty, foreordination, and election of God, and reconciles this perfectly with the individual responsibility and guilt of humans.

These previous errors lead to the notion that we can do anything we want and God’s goodness will prevail (v. 8). If God’s election and judgment is sure, then what does it matter how we behave or how we live? In fact, the more evil we do, the more good will come out of it. Paul address this kind of falsehood also in Romans 6:1. For now, it is safe to answer that God’s sovereignty does not mitigate human responsibility both for believers and unbelievers.

In fact, these last two verses demonstrate that wrong thinking about God often leads to wrong thinking about people. Interestingly enough, Paul offers no direct response to these false ways of thinking; he implies that they are so wrong-minded that they merit no response, but only just condemnation for those who make these arguments. In fact, in the next section, Paul will deal definitively with the reality of human will, evil and depravity, and will vindicate God in the process.

Many errors today are directed at the goodness or justice of God, and Paul’s detractors are obviously thinking about these issues as well. While Paul will continue to address some of these popular and wrong notions about God, we can mention a few answers that come from Romans 3. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there are no “good” people. Why must God judge people? Because all people are sinful and have inherently rejected Him. Why does God condemn righteous people? There are no righteous people apart from God’s grace and righteousness, and God always and only judges rightly. Why does it seem like God is unjust? Because we are perceiving the world through our own sinful and prideful prism, and not through the truth of God and His Word.

Paul has been clear in Romans already that wrong beliefs about God lead to a whole panoply of error. It is worth trying to locate what wrong truths we have about God when we blame Him, when we lack gratitude toward Him, or when we allow sin and anxiety to consume our lives.

UTOPIAN LITERATURE: A City Based on Christ and Luther

In the October 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we started a series about utopian literature with an introduction to the genre. In this article, we investigate an interesting and obscure utopian work published about 100 years after Thomas Moore presented his book Utopia in 1516.

Given the diversity of works within the literary genre of utopia, it is first worth briefly exploring a plane of analysis by which we can understand and compare different pieces in the genre. We could refer to this plane of analysis as the “orthodox vs. non-orthodox” spectrum. What this plane considers is the stated or implied attempt to either present a harmonious society because of a specific creed and in light of certain sacred texts or to do so independently of them. We should resist the temptation to call this plane of analysis “sacred vs. secular” because some “secular” utopias recognize the abiding presence of religion in some form or another. Two utopian works, Christianopolis and The Year 2440 (which we will investigate in a future installment of this series) represent two ends of this spectrum. Both are friendly toward religion, however, the former is constructed around a uniquely Christian-oriented society, while the latter promotes a natural religion that is bereft of distinctly Christian elements.

Few utopian works were written in the century after More’s Utopia, probably because apocalypticism was still the dominant mode of thinking until early in the seventeenth-century. Johannes Valentinus Andreae’s 1619 work Description of the Republic of Christianopolis, therefore, marked an important transition between utopia as a product of divine intervention and utopia as a human creation, albeit, especially in Andreae’s reckoning, heavily influenced by divine writ.

The protagonist of Christianopolis is a man who suffers a shipwreck while traveling aboard The Phantasy. Most of his comrades die and those who didn’t drifted off to different locations. The narrator alone is swept onto the shores of an island called Caphar Salama, whereupon an inhabitant sees him and escorts him into the hospitality of a community called Christianopolis.

Andreae is not ambiguous about the premise that Christianopolis is based entirely on Christian principles, and not merely general religious sentiments. All inhabitants are zealous Lutherans and are required to attend three prayer sessions every day. It is a place that extols Christian order, utility and virtue. The creed of the city is explicitly orthodox, referring to the Trinity, Christology, and Lutheran sacraments in Augsburg-esque language. A tablet that prescribes ten principles for public life is reminiscent of the Ten Commandments. Upon hearing them, the narrator exclaims, “When I had read these tablets I was not a little more strengthened [i.e., the author was “more than a little strengthened”] in the belief that here lived a people of Christ whose religion agreed with that of the apostles and the state administration [agreed] with the law of God” (p. 178).

He describes the proto-pietistic practices of the citizens including their prayer and Bible study habits, as well as their work ethic, co-operation, and the religious feelings they received from their faith. Few non-Biblical books are available to the citizens: “For beyond the Holy Scriptures and those books which instruct youth and aid the devotion of the citizens, little printing is done. . . . Scattering literature which expresses doubt concerning God, which corrupts the morals or imposes upon man’s mind is not permitted” (p. 194). Bible verses adorn their currency, and citizens are trained to worship God and to practice scriptural morality. Learning and knowledge are emphasized, but primarily in a Christian context. After a conversation with the triumvir who oversees education, the narrator notes, “as to the sum of human learning, he mentioned Christ and Him crucified, saying that all things pointed toward Him” (p. 187). There are lengthy discussions of education and science and the importance of reason, logic and rhetoric, however, there are also references to astrology, alchemy, theosophy, and “mystic numbers.”

In a stroke of extremely bad timing, Christianopolis was released in 1619, the second year of a series of religious conflicts that would extend until 1648, also known as the “Thirty Years War.” These conflicts defied the notion that religion could provide peace between nations or harmony within society. As J. G. A. Pocock describes in Barbarism and Religion, Volume 2: Narratives of Civil Government, many eighteenth-century historians constructed an “Enlightened narrative,” which recognized the cultural value of ancient civilizations up through the Roman Empire. The narrative dictated that this period was followed by ten centuries of cultural regression, also called the “Christian millennium,” which was associated with dogmatism, feudalism, and the overreach of papal and ecclesiastical authority. “The Enlightened narrative related both the history of the descent into ‘barbarism and religion’ and the escape from it” (Pocock, p. 20).

The discord and wars of the seventeenth-century demonstrated the need for Enlightenment to rescue Europe from doctrinal disputes and religious conflicts. Andreae’s description of a utopia fashioned around a specific confession seemed highly implausible in light of that historical context.

Unfortunately, attempts to create a utopia around a religious creed or confession have continued to fail up to the present.

Commentary on Romans

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