SEPTEMBER 2016

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the September 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper a web journal about a variety of issues from an evangelical perspective.

This month we provide brief commentary on some news items from these last few weeks in a segment called “News Bytes.”

Two of our articles discuss some verses in Leviticus that are critical to a current hot-button issue; but these articles really deal with a bigger issue, namely, does it really matter today what an ancient book like Leviticus says about morality and ethics?

We also continue with our commentary on Romans and we share an article that I posted for my neighborhood about an interesting concern (and you may be surprised at the feedback I received!).

Make sure you join this eclectic dialog: You can either give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and comment on any of our posts or articles there. Or, you can send your thoughts, comments, questions or critiques to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We often post good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

NEWS BYTES, SEPTEMBER 2016: Kaepernick, Muslim Judges, and Coughing Spells

by Matt Kasper

Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Sitting

Colin Kaepernick, washed-up quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, took a stand by refusing to stand when the U.S. national anthem was played before a pre-season game on August 26. Afterward he engaged in a series of ignorant rants against white police, which provokes the question about why a society so full of race-mania didn’t jump down his throat for these racist comments. Lest anyone misunderstood his sitting and speaking, he also protested via socks, which featured pigs wearing police hats (pictured right). I have hope for this country in light of the immense backlash that Kaepernick received after this. His situation is a great illustration of what I say often: you have the freedom in this country to say virtually anything you want and air any opinion you have no matter how counter-cultrural or stupid it may be; but by doing so, you not only own the comment and opinion, but you also own its ramifications.

Whether this was a public relations stunt to stay viable in the NFL, or whether Kaepernick’s stance is a legitimate deep-seated conviction, he now owns whatever repercussions ensue from his actions and comments. One of our Atlanta radio personalities said it best when he affirmed that Kaepernick would have to win five Superbowls to offset the extent to which this episode has tarnished his reputation. An exaggeration? Perhaps, especially given the short memory-span of the American public. But the truth is that this stand that Kaepernick took by sitting, didn’t sit well with many other players and with the American people.

Did any prominent individual stand up and defend Kaepernick’s sitting stance against white cops? Yes . . . Obama. And unfortunately, anti-American and anti-cop sentiments will continue to be popular by people who really don’t understand the implications of what they are doing. The biggest irony is that such individuals would not be able to freely spout their ignorance if it weren’t for America, and for people in military and police uniforms who live and sometimes die to forge and preserve those freedoms.

Obama’s Muslim Judge Appointment

After a decade in the public eye, can anyone doubt Obama’s affiliation with and affection for Islam? His adoration of it clearly blinds him to its more villainous aspects. For Obama, there is no sharp divide between Christianity and Islam; this is apparently because he cherry-picks what he likes from each so much that he doesn’t have enough knowledge of either to know how divergent they really are. Furthermore, he doesn’t know enough about Christianity to know how divergent it is from the Liberation Theology/ Prosperity Gospel tirades of Obama’s long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright.

It was a very under-the-radar story that may have bigger ramifications than we realize. On September 6 it was announced that Obama nominated Abid Riaz Qureshi to serve in U.S. District Court; if approved, he would allegedly be the first Muslim-American to serve as a federal judge. All things being equal, I don’t really mind a Muslim judge in a federal court, because I think he or she would be fairly conservative. The only proviso to this (which should be unstated, but nowadays, we have to state it) is that this judge’s top priority is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not to give any credence or leverage to Sharia Law or to the Quran. There should not be any evidence in their previous writing and experience that indicates that they intend to be used by Allah to implement Sharia in America in any way or to any degree.

That said, I would oppose this particular appointment because it is an Obama appointment. I would not oppose this judge because of his background, religion, or skin color, but because of his ideology. After eight years, it is worth reiterating a point that nobody on the other side seems to have the intellectual capacity to grasp: Our dislike of Obama has nothing to do with the fact that he’s black; rather, we dislike his failed policies and his anti-American attitude. He could be white or yellow or purple, and it wouldn’t change our perception of him. Similarly, opposition to this judge has nothing to do with alleged racism or the freedom of religion; it has everything to do with his ideology and the fact that many liberal judges seem more interested in marginalizing the Constitution than upholding it.

The Illness of Hillary

Maybe we should just call her “Illary” given her failing health. Before the weekend of September 11, there were too many coughing fits to begin to detail here, not to mention many allegations of Hillary’s erratic behavior. She campaigns in a van that appears to double as an ambulance and we can’t dismiss her own admissions of persistent effects from a concussion she suffered in December 2012. Media individuals like Dr. Drew Pinsky and Matt Bruenig were fired from their jobs for raising the concern regarding Hillary’s health and Clinton’s campaign still refuses to release her medical records. Despite all of this, she still insists that she is physically capable to hold one of the most important positions in the world.

Now we have proof that these allegations were not merely conspiracy theories proliferated by the far right. Hillary’s fainting spell during a September 11 ceremony, or what I’m calling “faint-gate,” has forced the campaign to verify what we all suspected for a while, namely, there has been a profound lack of transparency regarding Hillary’s health, and an epidemic of lies, exaggerations, and cover-ups.

Aside from these legitimate health concerns, we also have to consider multi-faceted problems regarding her e-mail scandal, her Secretary of State failures in Benghazi and other locations in the middle-east, indiscretions related to Clinton Foundation donations, as well as the plethora of other scandals that have dogged her for years. It is troubling to imagine Hillary Clinton as the President given all of the skeletons in her closet.

I hope and pray that Hillary will recover her health (yes, my family and I literally prayed for her!). Nonetheless, I don’t think that her poor health is the only, or even the most serious, facet about her that is being covered up.

Any big stories in September that we didn’t cover? Feel free to mention a news item and your opinion of it and post that on our Facebook page. Or you can your blurb about it to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll post it in the next edition.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Homosexuality and Leviticus

Homosexuality remains a divisive issue in our society. The decision of the Supreme Court last summer did not at all settle the issue, but rather, just muddied the water.

Both sides recognize that the Bible contains two unambiguous prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Sir Ian McKellen – of Magneto and Gandalf fame – even declared that he rips the page that contains Leviticus 18:22 out of the Bible whenever he stays in a hotel room (one wonders if he is even aware of Lev 20:13 a page or two later).

In this debate, one side appeals to these verses, while the other – either literally or metaphorically – rips these verses out of the discourse as though they have no binding impact on Christians or on society today.

So, the poignant question is, Does Leviticus still matter 3,500 years later?

We have definitively dealt with the issue of homosexuality previously. In a July 2015 article “Homosexuality, Hate, and the ‘Heart’ of the Issue” we discussed problems on both sides of the aisle. We opposed the notion that the Bible doesn’t definitively address the issue of homosexuality in our article “Myths Perpetrated In the Debate About Homosexuality” from the May 2013 edition. Just to get the complete picture, you may also want to check out “More Myths Perpetrated In the Debate About Homosexuality” from the August 2013 edition.

In that May 2013 article we dealt with the unambiguous exegesis of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as well as indictments against homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Setting aside the New Testament passages for a moment, the question remains whether those clear verses in Leviticus can be torn from the discussion so easily?

But the question about Leviticus is even broader than that, and modern Christians have either appeared, or have actually been, two-faced on the issue (or perhaps a little of both).

That is, we often say that the Levitical diet, rituals and sacrifices don’t apply to modern believers but then we try to foist Leviticus on modern unbelievers.

In fact, in discussions with proponents of homosexuality, they often note this contradiction. They wonder why it is now acceptable to eat shellfish or wear clothes with mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19), but it is still not acceptable for some to participate in homosexuality. The attitude of modern Christians toward Leviticus as well as many other Old Testament passages sounds like pure inconsistency, a convenient tool for imposing our morality on an unsuspecting and unappreciative society.

Or, is it possible that this way of understanding Leviticus, which initially seems hypocritical, is actually legitimate? Are there parts of Leviticus that we rightly claim do not apply to us today, but other parts that still apply today?

Are you a political junkie?

. . . Well, good, because so are we! We love talking politics and especially trying to understand candidates and current events from a Biblical worldview. You can find many more political articles in our Eclectic Archive here.

Beyond the issue of modern relevance and applicability, there is another issue, and that is extent. Not only when do some of the parts of Leviticus apply, but also, where do they apply? Were these laws just for the Jews of the Old Testament or does God expect Old Testament morality to apply globally? Combining both the relevancy of Leviticus as well as the extent of this relevancy into one question, we could ask, Do the moral expectations in the Mosaic Law pertain to both Jews and to non-Jews both then and even today?

Notice, too that I said “moral” expectations. The main answer to the conundrum of apparent hypocrisy is that the dietary, sacrificial and ritual commands of the Mosaic Law do not continue into the New Testament, but the moral commands do.

This may seem incredibly convenient, but this is not just something that modern Christians made up! Only dietary and ritual regulations are overturned or superseded by the NT; no moral laws are overturned in the NT. The episode in Acts 10:9-16 teaches that the dietary regulations of the OT are no longer binding on believers, even on the Jews (see also Mark 7:18-19). Other passages demonstrate that in addition to the dietary laws, the NT also set aside the need for the Old Testament calendar, rituals and the religious feasts (Rom 14-15, Gal 4:9-11; Col 2:16-23).

That is why Christians today can eat shellfish, pork, wear clothes with mixed fibers, and why we do not need to go to Jerusalem for annual festivals. This disjunction between the OT and NT, however, also explains why homosexuality, bestiality (Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15; Deut 27:21), and adultery (Ex 20:14; Lev 18:20; 20:10) continue to be wrong today. The sacrificial and ritualistic expectations of the Law were completely fulfilled in Christ (see an extended discussion of this issue in Hebrews chapters 8-10); but the moral expectations continue today because morality is rooted in the character of God Himself. In fact, many of the moral precepts of the OT Law are reiterated and further explained in the NT (Matt 5:21, 27, 33; 19:18; Rom 13:9; 1 Tim 4:1-5). While many of the dietary, legal and ritual aspects of the law are no longer in force, this does not mitigate against the fact that the morality of the OT law continues to reflect the holiness and expectations of God, and therefore, continues to be binding today.

With this in mind, we can proceed to the next phase of this discussion regarding the relevance of the OT Law for today. Of course, the applicability of Leviticus and the extent of that applicability is an issue that has been debated down through church history; I’m not sure that we can fully answer this question in one or two articles, but I believe that we can hint at several solutions.

Curious? Well, then check out our follow-up article below “Three Reasons Why Leviticus Matters” and we’ll get a little more specific on this issue.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Jehovah’s Witnesses are Very Nice, But Not Christian

The following article was literally off the top of my head.

I had yet another visit to my house by Jehovah’s Witness a few weekends ago. Rather than stand there and debate with them until both sides were frustrated by the other’s intransigence, I ended the conversation relatively quickly (I wasn’t in much of a mood to talk anyway). But after they left, I thought about all of the other people in my neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods that they would try to contact.

I wrote the following and posted it on something called “Nextdoor,” which is like a Facebook page for everyone in a two-mile radius of your home. I wanted people to know and really understand that . . . well, I’ll just let you read the post for yourself.

The reason I am writing this and posting it here is because many groups of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been in our neighborhood over the last year. They are very nice, courteous and gracious people; I have had long, enjoyable conversations with them several times.

But please be aware that they are not Christian. That is not a hateful or mean-spirited thing to say, but just a clinical, analytical fact.

There are many (too many!) divisions in Christianity, and yet, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians agree on certain fundamental truths that unite us. Those basic faith assertions include the truth and authority of the Bible and the belief that people can be saved from their sins by God’s grace through faith in Christ. Christians of all stripes also assert belief in the Trinity including the belief that Jesus Christ is not just a great teacher or prophet, but that He is fully divine. The following passages in any mainline version of the Bible affirm that belief: Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1-3, 10:30, 17:21, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-17, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, and Revelation 22:13.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not bad or evil people, but they are not Christians because they do not affirm these basic doctrines that all Christians always have and still do.

Jehovah’s Witnesses appear to quote from Scripture, but they are only using a Bible that is translated with a theological agenda (unlike the mainline translations) and they will quote very selectively from it.

More importantly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the undiminished deity of Christ, or, the assertion that Christ is and always has been fully God, a member of the divine Trinity. They have the freedom to decide to reject the Christian affirmation of the deity of Christ; however in doing so, they place themselves outside of the bounds of the Biblical, historic Christian faith. They have no more right to call themselves “Christians” than I have to call myself a car just because I stand in a garage.

Do not mistake this for hate speech or intolerance, but rather, clarification. For instance, I can’t claim to be a Buddhist, but then reject fundamental Buddhist ideas. Similarly, Christianity has always been based on the affirmations of the truth and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. No modern “prophet” changes that, and to deny these faith affirmations is to set oneself outside the perimeter of Christianity.

If you would like more information on this, I would direct you to a list of articles that I am writing on the deity of Christ here: https://sites.google.com/site/theeclectickasper/archive/theology#TOC-THE-DEITY-OF-CHRIST.

Jesus Christ is full, undiminished deity; He is as much God as God the Father is God; Jesus must be fully human to pay for human sin against God, but He must also be fully God in order to pay for the sin of ALL humanity.

If you would like to have a courteous follow-up discussion about this, feel free to e-mail me . . . . If you want to e-mail me to call me a hate-filled bigot, then don’t; any of you who know me, know that I am not perfect, but I am not a hate-filled bigot.

A few people thanked me for the post, while others seemed to think that it was not suitable for this site. One lady wrote in response, “This is not the place for this type of discussion, so thank you. I have thus far enjoyed the NextDoor neighbor site because it links our communities and is full of helpful advice and information for making our communities better and our homes better. Also for making new friends. And because it has been thus far free from bias of any kind.”

Another individual posted the following: “I like how he tells us he’s not being hateful or mean-spirited twice in the midst of a hateful and mean-spirited attack on JW. As a Catholic, I was taught to worship my God, not my religion.”

My post was removed from the site without my permission two days later.

It seems odd that people can post about break-ins, bushes, and babysitters, but not about false teachers like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some people are just afraid of the truth!

So what do you think? Do you agree with the content of this post? Was this an appropriate post to put up on Nextdoor? Let us know by sending us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

ROMANS: Consequences of Wrong Worship, Romans 1:26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom 1:26-27, NIV).

Nobody minds if the person sitting next to us in church sings a wrong note occasionally (or regularly!). Nobody minds if the pianist or guitar player misses a cord. But what if someone is worshiping wrongly? What if they are worshiping self, or the creation, or a false god rather than the one true God?

Paul continues in Romans 1 to spell out the consequences of wrong worship; and make no mistake, those consequences are grim.

For the second time in this passage, Paul asserts that God “gave them over” (v. 26). That is, God didn’t stop humanity from engaging in false worship and deception. He allowed them to continue into falseness and into the consequences that accompany it.

It is funny how we want free will to make our own choices. But then when we use that free will to abandon God and when we consequently find ourselves in difficulty, we wonder why God doesn’t overturn our free will to draw us back to Him or doesn’t intervene to save us from our will.

“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”!

As with vv. 24-25, false worship led to immorality. God gave them over to their “dishonorable passions” or “shameful lusts” (v. 26). The word atimia means “dishonorable” and is used in the NT only by Paul (Rom 1:26; 9:21; 1 Cor 11:14; 15:43; 2 Cor 6:8; 11:21; 2 Tim 2:20). The verbal form atimazo is used less often but by more NT authors (Mark 12:4; Luke 20:11; John 8:49; Acts 5:41; Rom 1:24; 2:23; Jas 2:6), and, in fact, is was previously used in Rom 1:24. The word “dishonorable” or “shameful” is linked together with pathos, a word which refers to a “lustful passion” (used elsewhere only in Col 3:5 and 1 Thess 4:5). The more morally neutral word pathema, meaning “suffering, passion, desire,” is use more frequently (16 times in the NT). As the woman first succumbed to the temptation in the garden, so on a larger scale, women, known for being the purer gender, get trapped into this unnatural transaction. The word used here and in v. 27 for “women” (thelus) is rare in the NT, but only used in gender specific instances (Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6; Rom 1:26, 27; Gal 3:28). Paul also uses the same word for “exchange” that he used in v. 25; just as people exchanged the truth of God for a lie they concurrently traded the intended uses of certain things for their unintended and unnatural uses. What specifically Paul is referring to is tactfully clarified in verse 27.

“Likewise” or “in the same way” at the beginning of verse 27 ties these two verses together thematically. Having just mentioned in v. 26 how the woman exchanged the natural sexual use for unnatural use with each other, Paul now mentions how the men follow suit. As the first man should have turned back the tide of the first woman’s delusion in the garden of Eden, but did not, so on a global scale, subsequent men did not reject the folly of lust, but rather followed it.

The word for “men” in this verse is the Greek word arsen, used thrice in this verse for emphasis; it is always used in a gender specific way in the NT for males and often in contrast to females (Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 2:23; Rom 1:27; Gal 3:28; Rev 12:5, 13). Referring to the natural “function of” or “use for” the woman is not intended to be degrading; it is admittedly not a very politically correct phrase, but it is a very realistic one. From the beginning the two were encouraged to be “one flesh” and even into NT times, this “one fleshing” is encouraged within matrimonial bounds. In fact, regular resistance to these “natural uses” by either spouse is discouraged in Scripture (1 Cor 7:3-5).

The verb ekkaiomai means “to be inflamed.” Though a hapax, it is used 56 times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT, also called the LXX) of kindling or creating a literal fire (Ex 22:6; Judg 15:5, 14; Neh 10:34; Is 50:11; Dan 3:22; see also Sir 118:12; 43:4). It is also sometimes used of kindling God’s anger (Num 11:1, 3, Deut 29:20; 32:22; 2 Kings 22:13, 17 [par. 2 Chron 34:21, 25]; Ps 2:12; 78:38; 79:5; 89:46; Jer 4:4; 15:14), or sometimes in poetry, a mixture of both (2 Sam 22:9, 13; 24:1; 106:18; Jer 44:6; Ezek 20:48; Nah 2:13; see also Sir 43:21). It is used of someone who “kindles” lies (Prov 6:19; 14:5, 25; 19:9) or of mockers and wicked people who “inflame” strife (Prov 29:8; Job 3:17; see also Sir 8:10; 16:6; 28:8, 10, 11; see also Jer 1:14). It is once used of a general destruction without specifically a mention of fire (1 Kings 21:21), though, fire is often involved with or implied by destruction. The word appears once in the apocryphal book of Sirach in the context of sexuality, but in a negative sense (Sir 23:16). While the obvious meaning of Rom 1:27 is in the sense of sexual lust, one wonders if Paul is importing into this word some of these connotations of divine judgment as a consequence, which, of course, fits what is said at the end of the verse.

Paul continues by stating that males burned for one another. He clarifies that this reference is specifically to homosexuality by using the phrase “male with male.” This is referred to as “shameful” or “indecent” acts (see Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9). To suggests that Paul is referring to a certain deviant kind of homosexuality or some other type of sexuality, rather than to homosexuality itself, is to read something into the text that is simply not there.

The Apostle finishes the verse by noting that in addition to the spiritual ramifications of this departure from natural sexuality, there are also inherent consequences for homosexuality. The word antimisthia means “response, return” or “punishment” (used only here and in 2 Cor 6:13). It is related to the word misthos, meaning “pay, wages, reward, or recompense,” a word that is used frequently in the NT. Both of these words reflect the ramifications and consequences of one’s actions and lifestyle choices. Here, Paul may refer to a variety of physical or psychological conditions related specifically to homosexual activity, though I will let others with more knowledge in those areas clarify.

Common myths today include the notion that there are many paths to God and the Divine, and that there are many acceptable ways to worship. Even Christians may believe that those who reject Biblical, orthodox Christianity are not really harming themselves.

In reality, the consequences of wrong worship can be more serious than we imagined. Wrong worship leads to wrong decisions that are detrimental in a variety of ways. Failure to believe in the one true God and the grace and compassion that He has extended through Christ results in consequences not just limited to eternal condemnation and punishment. Many consequences are temporal, including poor decisions, bad relationships, physical and mental risks, and a variety of ramifications that ensue from not aligning oneself with the wisdom of God’s Word.

PUTTING THE “ME” IN MEDIA: Matt Mentions On “The Signal” Podcast

I became a huge fan of the TV show Firefly (2002-2003) and the follow-up movie Serenity (2005) in the Spring of 2009 (see this article in the our inaugural January 2011 version of The Eclectic Kasper). After racing through and thoroughly enjoying the show and the movie, I found myself wanting more. The Signal podcast helped fill that void.

The Signal podcast began in June 2005 as an effort to promote the movie Serenity which came out a few months later. Though a great film, the movie basically broke even, and was not to be followed by any more sequels. Nonetheless, the podcast continued, because . . . after all . . . “You can’t stop the signal!”

I have heard many podcasts, but The Signal was by far the best produced. It won three Parsec Awards in 2007, 2010 and 2012 and two People’s Choice Podcast Award in 2006 and 2008. It surveys the thirteen episodes and the movie, and any official content such as franchise related books, comics, RPGs, and licensed replicas. However, The Signal also discuss the vast array of Firefly fan-fic, fan-made movies, and -- my favorite -- Firefilk, or Firefly-inspired or related music (see, for instance, our review of the album “Sounds of the Verse” by the The Persephone Pickers). Every episode of The Signal features various goings-on in the Browncoat community, thoughtful articles, and several of their own skillfully-crafted fan-fic series. Les Howard and Kari Haley do a marvelous job as hosts, and bring real personality and accessibility to each episode.

Soon after I found The Signal podcast, I wrote in to their feedback section, and my e-mail was read on the air in Episode 17 of Season 5. I guess that we all have our fifteen minutes (or seconds!) of fame, even if it is only podcast fame. That was just not enough for me, though. So, before Season 6 (2010) of The Signal, I send in a load of ideas for segments and stand-alone articles. This was actually before I began this web journal; I didn’t have any other outlets for my Browncoatiness except The Signal.

I was in an airport in Manila in the Philippines when I heard the first hints of my ideas put to good use. One of my suggestions was that The Signal authors compare Firefly characters to figures from great literature, such as Mal and Robin Hood, or Jayne and Samson from Judges in the Bible. The first episode of Season 6 featured an article called, “Rivers and Ophelia” written and read by Kara Helgren. Kara did a superb job of utilizing another comparison that I suggested, and elaborated on the similarities and contrasts between Ophelia from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and our favorite crazy person, River Tam.

They used another of my ideas on episode 2 of that season, which became the article “Browncoat: The Next Generation,” also written and read by Kara Helgren. Soon after, I also submitted ideas for Season 7 (2011), and was glad to see some of those put to great use, also. I submitted many other ideas, as well, some of which have already reached the pages of The Eclectic Kasper, and some of which will a future edition.

Alas, all good things come to an end. The Signal podcast had a ten-year run, impressive for a TV show, let alone a podcast! They signed off with their last episode on December 31, 2014. I confess that I have still not finished listening all the way to the end, perhaps because I am still discouraged by the fact that the podcast is over. Yet, I was glad to have had a part – if even a very small part – in the podcast’s existence and I appreciate the joy that it has given me over the years.

I myself continue to be a devout Browncoat. I have a lending copy of the series available for making more “converts” to the ‘Verse, and I regularly write Firefly articles for this humble little web journal. I encourage people to vote for Firefly at an online poll called “Which Cancelled TV Series Would You Like To Bring Back?” I will be hosting a Serenity screening at my house this month. And, I just may have a little more Browncoat-y magic up my sleeve, but I’ll save that for another time.

Anyway, my thanks to The Signal podcast for your high-quality episodes, for you great run, and for letting me be a part of your contribution to the ‘Verse.

THEOLOGY: Three Reasons Why Leviticus Matters

See the article “Homosexuality and Leviticus” above regarding how the moral components of the Old Testament still carry over into the present times even though Christ fulfilled the OT rituals and sacrifices.

Here we are going to get right into the discussion and provide three reasons why the moral and sexual ethics of the Old Testament and of Leviticus were intended to continue even after the Messiah came to earth and why these ethics were intended to be applied universally, to non-Jews, as well.

First, these texts in Leviticus that contain moral and sexual ethics are not ambiguous and are not culturally qualified. We have dealt with the careful exegesis of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 previously, but we can add a few more comments. First, these texts are not ambiguous, even though it uses euphemisms, such “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female” (Lev 18:22). The presence of a euphemism doesn’t detract from the clarity of the subject; the Bible is being tactful, without using more vulgar verbiage. Adding to the clarity of the subject is the fact that this particular sin is characterized as being “an abomination” (NASB) or “detestable” (NIV). They express God’s opinion of this particular act in a non-ambiguous, trans-cultural and trans-historical manner; it flies in the face of these ancient texts to assume that God has since changed His mind about these sins.

Second, the NT authors view the OT law as universally “good.” Evangelicals sometimes bad-mouth the OT law which remained binding upon God’s people for about 1,500 years, or, almost as long as the “Law of Christ” has bound Christians. Our dualism between the alleged age of law and the age of grace has perhaps unintentionally communicated to Christianity that the OT law is no longer important, or has no place for Christians today.

However, the NT authors affirm that the law was “good” and beneficial in a variety of ways (Matt 5:17; 7:12; Rom 7:12, 14, 16; Gal 3:24; 1 Tim 1:8). Jesus Himself builds on the morality of the OT law (such as in Matthew 5), if not upon the sacrificial and ritualistic system. The law is right and righteous, but our inability to follow it perfectly means that we are condemned; the law is impotent to save, and people need a Savior who did obey the law perfectly, namely, Jesus Christ. Thus, there is no contradiction in the NT regarding the holiness and righteousness of the law as well as its short-comings.

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 “The Consequences for Rejecting God, Romans 1:21-22” (April 2016).

Also, we should be very clear that law and grace are not opposites: the opposite of grace is brutality; the opposite of law is lawlessness. Those who forget that Biblical theology has a place both for grace and for law should not be surprised when Christianity and society itself descends into the morass of brutality and anarchy. The law is not bad or sinful (Romans 7:7), nor is it a means of death (v. 13). Rather it is a way of sharpening moral ambiguity that occurs without law. In an age where abortion, homosexuality, bribery and promiscuity are rampant, the law continues to clarify God’s holiness and moral expectations for humanity.

Finally, the OT prophets clearly expected that the morality expressed in the law were binding on all of the nations known to these ancient authors. So, I did a little study; I skimmed through the OT prophets and noted how many non-Jewish nations they address. A cursory glance, even just at chapter and section headings, reveals references to at least fifteen foreign countries or areas. A careful reading of prophetic literature would surely expand this list to a dozen or so more. There were even several places that discussed the “earth” or multiple nations at a time. That is, the prophets expected that the wisdom, order and morality of the law should expand to other nations and to all of the earth and that all nations are accountable to God (Is 5:45; 13:11; 34:2; 63:1-6; Dan 2:21; Hab 2:20; 3:6-7; Mal 1:11; see also Ps 2:1-12; Prov 8:15-16).

What is important to note is that God never judges the foreign nations because they eat shellfish, or wear clothes with mixed fibers, or because they don’t participate in the Jewish feasts; He does not judge them for not adhering to OT material, ritual or dietary regulations. Instead, foreign nations are condemned for their idolatry, injustice, violence, falsehood and rejection of divine truth.

The universality of God’s law and rule is not a new, or exclusively Christian concept. Moses Mendelssohn (1729 – 1786) was a Jewish philosopher and an Enlightenment scholar, and also the grandfather of composer Felix Mendelssohn. In 1769 he wrote an “Open Letter to Lavater” where he was trying to highlight the benefits of Judaism to an acquaintance named Johann Kaspar Lavater. In this work, Mendelssohn affirms that while many Mosaic and Rabbinic laws are binding only upon the Jews, “All the other nations of the earth, we believe, are commanded by God to observe the law of nature and the religion of the patriarchs” (that is, the Jewish patriarchs). He recognized the universal relevance and applicability of OT morality.

No non-Jewish nation in the OT was judged for not maintaining the ceremonial, sacrificial or ritualistic components of the Mosaic law, but for rejecting divine morality that is clearly expressed in the law. This morality is universal and continues to be binding today. Just because certain regulations, restrictions and rituals of the OT no longer apply, does not mean that the world is free from Biblical morality. More specifically, I am aware of no moral expectations in Leviticus that have been rescinded for we who live in the church age after the resurrection of Christ.

In conclusion, while many of the dietary, legal and ritual aspects of the law are no longer in force, this does not mitigate against the fact that the morality of the OT law continues to reflect the holiness and expectations of God. That is why Leviticus and the Old Testament matter; the New Testament builds upon the morality and ethics of the OT, rather than setting them aside. Modern society, and especially the modern Church, ignores the moral components of the Old Testament to its own peril.

FEEDBACK: More Thoughts on Religious Liberty

We knew that the articles from our series called “Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation” would raise some eyebrows. The July 2016 edition had two more installments in that series, simply named, Part 2 and Part 3 (Part 1 was in the April edition).

One individual especially had a lot to say about these articles. In response to Part 1, he wrote the following:

“Americans have commercial freedom.” I agree that they should, and that in principle the Constitution is the basis for our commercial freedom. However, the cake-makers you refer to would ask, “Where is my commercial freedom?” and the answer would be that although everyone is equal, some are more equal. And that's just the tip of an iceberg we can call the de-facto non-existence of commercial freedom.

So when you write, “. . . the offended person should simply choose to walk out of the offending cake store or florist shop . . .” you are dealing with wishful thinking, not the current law. Your statement, “a large or small business should not be coerced into making a commercial exchange” is true. But “should” does not constitute what actually is. The fact is, political correctness is in and the Constitution is out. That’s just the way it is.

While I agree with your conclusion that no government can force Christians to do anything against their faith, I find your attitude toward Christians who are outraged at the unequal application of laws and the fact that their reaction is to “fight” (speak out against it, work for legislation against it, etc.) a bit cavalier and judgmental. The fact is that there have been family-owned businesses that have been literally put out of business because their commercial freedom was not recognized or respected. The highly aggressive gay agenda is trying to see to it that society across the board conforms to their demands without any consideration to the commercial freedom of those who adhere to the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is an abomination.

Being a Christian is not just identifying with a religious identity. It’s about how we live our lives daily, as an expression of being in Christ. We do that wherever we are and in whatever we are doing. Supposedly, we live in a country where the freedom to do just that is protected. The Constitution calls it the free exercise of religion. Christians who are outraged at a government that ignores that and abuses their freedom have every right to feel that way and work to have laws equally applied. I don’t appreciate your minimizing that difficulty. You sound just a bit like you are on a high horse.

This reader also provided some non-complimentary feedback to “Part 2” of this series:

“We are mainly dealing with the issues of selectivity and where we draw lines of distinction between acknowledging sin and participating in it. However, we are probably just raising more questions than providing answers as we continue to dialog and think through how we can apply our faith in God in an increasingly morally-ambiguous society.” Nonsense.

Your title refers to “Critical Points About Religious Liberty Legislation.” But I find little critical thinking in your projecting of personal motivations while ignoring the substantive points of argument of those who believe vendors have the right not to sell (cakes, flowers, etc.) to certain individuals and expect to live in a culture that respects that choice. Discussing “the kind of sins we want to hate” in no way deals with this substantive issue. You don’t know if what you are saying is true at all. It’s just your own value judgment.

You thus belittle the motivation of both victims of malicious social activism and their sympathizers by assuming you know what is in their hearts. You are throwing up a straw man argument that skirts the very issue you pretend to address.

You ask, “how does selling or not selling our wares for gay weddings in any way compromise our faith in and relationship with Christ?” You really aren't looking for an answer. It’s a rhetorical question which you presume to have a real handle on, based on your own personal opinion, and so we the readers are apparently supposed to accept your superior wisdom and disregard our own apprehensions as emotional, immature, hateful or whatever.

Apparently, you have no regard for the circumspect position that seeks to avoid the appearance of evil. Public knowledge that a vendor does business with clients who overtly identify with any sin can be seen as tacit approval of that sin. Also, there is what we call the freedom of association. Others judge us by our associations, and that has the potential to give the wrong impression of what we approve. It’s like drinking alcohol. While all things are lawful, it is not profitable to offend others by drinking in their presence. We need to be circumspect and we need to guard against being an offense to others. We certainly shouldn’t think we can go into a bar, order a drink and start preaching about Jesus. No, we need to conduct our everyday lives appropriately.

“But how we recognize holy demarcations is more subjective. The idea that Scripture demands holiness from believers is not arbitrary; where we draw the line of holiness, however, does seem to be more arbitrary.” Again, this is sheer nonsense -- a generality assuming the tone of authority, without examples or specificity.

If you are a pastor, you know what being holy is. It certainly isn’t subjective! You aren’t saying that Jesus should have been accepting, engaging and pleasant to the money changers in the temple!? It was specifically because it was the LORD’s house that he would not allow for unholy business practices to continue there. What does it means when it says, “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing”? It’s not a physical place. We can’t just retreat from society in general. But we need to make sure that we neither participate nor associate with ungodliness. We need to walk in our integrity.

“Arbitrary lines in the sand based on their own personal convictions” and “But also have the exegetical integrity and honesty to admit that not all of our convictions and lines in the sand are based on clear statements in Scripture.”

When you make such unspecified statements (no details about what those convictions are), you are avoiding any real discussion. All you are doing is making blanket generalized accusations and lumping them together with an entire side of an argument without even touching on the merits (or lack of merits) of the argument. Your article(s) on this subject are poorly done. They are opinion pieces, which you have every right to publish, but they don’t really lead readers to a greater understanding.

Mainly what you have done is pigeon-holed those Christians who choose to legislatively resist the gay agenda into a narrow slot of ill-informed, childish, emotional, biased oafs. That is patently unfair on your part. You use highly charged words like “hypocrisy” without showing what you mean, because it’s more important to you to cast your pall on them than it is to actually engage them at the points which they might debate with you. What also irritates me is while your title claims to discuss legislation, parts 1 and 2 are devoid of any reference to any legislation.

I haven’t gotten anything positive from your articles. All I can say is that I am glad you are a Christian and love covers a multitude of sins. . . . Gays (like everyone else) need to hear about the love of Jesus. But they also need to know that loving them doesn’t mean he approves of their sin. There is no hate in any of that.

Three things in response to this feedback. First, I really don’t think that I am as much in disagreement with what this individual is saying. “Part 1” especially is a strong affirmation of the right of individuals to buy, sell, and hire without fear of government intervention or negative social pressure.

Second, I will certainly concede in hindsight that I have some rhetorical filler and redundancies in these three articles about religious liberty legislation. The main point of these articles is to help people understand that the government has no right at all to regulate our selling, purchasing, and hiring decisions (again, the main point of “Part 1”), but also to recognize how those decisions are perceived, and maybe mis-perceived, by those who don’t think like we do (“Part 2”).

The third point is more a matter of journalistic pride and accuracy. I can concede that the title of this series is slightly misleading in that we talk less about the legislation specifically and more about religious liberty in practice. However, the gentleman writing the feedback asserted: “What also irritates me is while your title claims to discuss legislation, parts 1 and 2 are devoid of any reference to any legislation.” This is completely wrong; in actually, “Part 1” mentions two bills central to the debate about religious liberty legislation, specifically, North Carolina’s “House Bill 2” and Georgia’s House Bill 757. I suspect that this individual merely read a sentence or two of these articles and then just started ranting. (I can’t be too critical, however, because I do that occasionally, also).

We really appreciate this feedback, and hope that you will get a chance to jump into this discussion by sending your thoughts, questions, comments and reactions to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

You Like Theology?

Theology is one of our specialties here at The Eclectic Kasper. You can see a whole host of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, some concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.