Wow, it is already time for the April edition of The Eclectic Web Journal, well-known as being one of the greatest web journals on this website!
Well, there’s a lot going on politically, right now. We have tried to veer away from politics over the last few years, with occasional (and insightful!) exceptions; we have moved more toward social critique than discussing pure politics. However, there is a lot to discuss now, so we’re going to dive right into politics and media issues with this edition.
Additionally, we explore some theological issues, such as instances of pagan quotes in the New Testament, whether or not woman can hold church offices, and we also examine why sin is so sinister.
Agree? Disagree? Not sure? Let us know: give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like,” and feel free to leave your feedback on one of our posts there. We would love to hear what you have to say!
Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!
SOCIETY/ CULTURE: We Are The Media Now
This is an “Eclectic Flashback” to an article from the May 2017 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, presented here with minor modifications. This is one of my favorite articles from the old web journal. Remember that this article was written almost a decade ago, and I have not adjusted those dates and details. But I think that the spirit of this article seems more important – and perhaps, even prescient – now than it did then.
This last election in November 2016 demonstrated that we are in the midst of a profound shift away from older, traditional media sources to newer alternative media outlets whether online, in print, or on the radio.
A once stable institution like traditional media is now plagued by network shake-ups and constant accusations of “fake news.” A Gallup Poll released in September 2016 revealed that “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media.”
That 32% in 2016 is down from 72% in 1976 and from 53% in 1997, when Gallup began tracking this metric annually. In fact, one of the most precipitous drops in this number occurred most recently, down to 32% in 2016 from 40% in 2015. These attitudes of distrust toward traditional news networks are only validated by the colossal downfall of seemingly untouchable media titans like Brian Williams and Bill O’Reilly.
Some claim that journalism is dead. What they really mean is that objectivity is dead, though I personally feel that objectivity has been stumbling toward its grave for decades. Journalism is alive and well, but whatever objectivity it may have once had has eroded entirely into petty partisanship and slanted story-telling.
Some members of the media suggest that they are not journalists, but only “commentators,” who present the news through their own political prism. My contention is that few in the old media outlets like NBC, CNN or Fox News can even discriminate between journalism and opinion-commentating, anymore.
Let’s be honest about these networks, even though they are seldom honest about their own agenda with us: Though I align more with many of the pundits on Fox News, I still feel compelled to ask if anyone really believes that Fox News is or has ever been “fair and balanced.” Claiming to provide balance by being as far-right as NBC, CBS and CNN are far-left doesn’t mean that you are “balanced.” And does any rational person believe that CNN isn’t completely in the tank for the DNC? It is not without reason that it is often referred to as the “Clinton News Network,” and this last election cycle [again, referring to the Trump vs. Clinton contest in 2016] only proved the point. Regardless of what you think of these particular media personalities, we are rightly skeptical about media in general when we see bold, up-and-coming voices like Tomi Lahren dismissed from The Blaze, and we are rightly apprehensive when we witness Fox News jettison Greta Van Susteren, Megan Kelly, and Bill O’Reilly in frighteningly quick succession.
I recently heard someone assert that the blogosphere, Facebook posts, and newer media outlets have become just as influential as the big “news” networks, and I think that they have a point. An MSN poll of over a quarter-of-a-million people from January 22, 2017 indicated that almost a third of the respondents don’t even watch any of the major cable news outlets.
Instead, independent authors, rogue newsletters, or fantastic blogs and web journals (like this one!) often provide more accurate information without attempting to conceal their agenda and bias; that kind of honesty elicits credibility. These newer media outlets, by openly admitting that they interpret events through a specific political, moral, or religious lens, have become more trustworthy than the old, traditional media sources, which continue to feign objectivity.
Many pollsters themselves are also slanted and biased. Consider how wrong the polls were about how people in North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin would vote in the 2016 election. Many of the polling organizations are, like the old media networks who employ them, dominated by narrow-minded and agenda-oriented thinking.
Of course, the problem is not that they have an agenda; we all do, and the new media is not afraid to affirm that. The problem is that the old media pretends that they don’t have an agenda. I don’t know who they think they’re fooling, but we’re all a lot smarter than that.
In fact, that is the point. Enough people have decided that we can report the news and comment on events as well as the old media and we can do so more honestly for being upfront about our political perspective. We can do what the old media is doing, but without the artificial pretense of objectivity. We can do research, conduct interviews, ponder political situations, and write insightful pieces as well as any overpaid monkey at Fox News or CNN. We can do so without jettisoning significant facts or without editing down interviews so that the stories fit our preferences.
An important shift is happening: the media is no longer just composed of CNN, NBC, CBS and Fox News. We are the media now. We have the power to trumpet our thoughts and views substantively and accurately without pretending like we are not affected by our personal religious and political convictions. We don’t need millions of watts behind our platforms and we don’t need a show on cable where people just talk past or over one another. Like our older, worn-out predecessors, the new media outlets also accumulate readers and listeners and thousands of “likes” on Facebook and followers on Twitter/X.
There are many things in American culture that we have to put up with as “new norms,” many of which many of us don’t like. Well, this is one new norm that many of us don’t mind; the fourth estate elites have lost their credibility, and now, the rest of us are taking over the business of the distribution of information, facts, and real-world opinions.
We are the media now. We are more reliable. We are more stable.
We report on what we care about. We don’t feel like we have to bow down to liberal agendas, conservative chest-pounding, environmentalism, traditionalism, or whatever gender-confused view is popular this week. We say what we believe from an ideology that we chose, not from an agenda that is expected from us or foisted upon us.
We are the media now. We are beholden to nobody but to each other and we are not funded by Roger Ales or George Soros. In fact, many of us in the new media don’t get much money, or any money, for writing or saying what we believe about the nation and the world. We participate in media because we love the truth, we revere our country, we value our ideology, and we have a renewed ability and passion to oppose the faux-objectivity of the old media.
As Ronald Reagan intoned, we are not afraid to see what we see. When we see problems, inconsistencies, or corruption, we point them out. We are not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat; we are concerned about a declining system that has been broken by special interests, misappropriation, bureaucratic incompetency, and blatant disregard that permeates both sides of the aisle.
The new media seeks truth, not talking points. We genuinely want to know what is real, what is demonstrably factual. We are not afraid of debate, we are not afraid to have our ideas discussed, countered, and put into practice. We don’t need to make up stories or ideas, but we put our ideas out there in the public sphere and allow our listeners and readers to make up their minds for themselves.
We are the media now. We don’t treat Americans like idiots that need be told what they should believe. We do not believe that people in Kansas, Indiana, Georgia, or Wyoming are too stupid to make up their minds and need to be spoon-fed selected facts by snobby elitists in New York or California. We encourage people to utilize their right to pursue truth and happiness on their own and we extend to them the dignity of affirming that they can draw conclusions for themselves.
We are the media now, and we are not ashamed to admit that we see the world through our own spiritual and ideological perspective.
We are the media now, and we are more honest than most people you will see on the nightly news.
Yes, we are the media now.
And we will not be silent.
POLITICAL QUICK-TAKES APRIL 2025, PART 1: Percents, Applause, and a Third Term
by Matt Kasper
The Dem’s 70/30 Problem
Trump is showing that this country has a more conservative bent than the liberal media would have us believe. And between Trump’s executive orders, the actions of Trump’s cabinet, and Trump’s Joint Address to Congress on March 4, the GOP is leaning hard into issues that are not merely popular, but very popular. We call these 80/20 issues, or 70/30 issues, meaning that 70 to 80 percent of Americans are in favor of these issues, with a definitive minority against them.
A February Harvard Caps/ Harris Poll reveals some examples of these that are taking center-stage in Trump’s 2025 agenda. For instance, that poll notes that “70% of voters say government expenditures are filled with waste, fraud, and inefficiency . . . and 69% support the goal of cutting $1 trillion of government expenditures.” Other examples include that “77% of Americans supported Israel over Hamas,” “70% of voters believe the government should make hiring decisions based on merit and objective evaluation rather than to achieve diversity,” and “72% of voters say they want Ukraine to negotiate a settlement with Russia instead of winning the war.” Additionally, that poll notes that 69% of Americans affirm that men should not compete in women’s sports, and 81% believe that we should deport criminal illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.
Of course, there remain many 50/50 issues, but Trump and his team are largely ignoring those. For instance, have you noticed that nobody is talking about abortion or the second amendment right now? It is refreshing to not be rehashing those 50/50 matters and for the GOP to focus on the more popular topics.
The brilliance of Trump-led GOP leaning into these 70/30 issues, is that it leaves the Dems 100% in the dust. Democrats demonstrated that you are what you applaud for, or don’t applaud for; during Trump’s March 4 address to Congress, the vast majority of democrats refused to stand or applaud for 13-year-old cancer survivor DJ Daniel, or for protecting women in sports, or for the courageous efforts of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), or for forging a peaceful solution in Ukraine. Despite their antipathy toward Trump, a CNN poll noted that 69% of those polled viewed the speech favorably, with 44% of Americans saying it was “very positive,” and 25% saying that it was “somewhat positive.” Dems stand (or sit!) on the wrong side of these and many other 70/30 issues.
In fact, by allowing themselves to be on the wrong side of these 70/30 issues, they themselves have become a 70/30 issue; a March USA Today article by Savannah Kuchar asserts that “An NBC News poll found 27% of registered voters say they view the [Democratic] party favorably − the lowest favorability rating for Democrats in NBC polls going back to 1990. Only 7% of survey respondents said they said they have a ‘very positive’ view of the party.” The article goes on to note, “Another poll released by CNN similarly found 29% of voters view Democrats in a positive light, a low in CNN’s polling since 1992.” While the Trump train is fast and strong, the reality is that Dems didn’t become a 70/30 casualty by accident; they chose to be there and are deciding to remain there.
They simply don’t have ideas, causes, and notions to rally around and to encourage others to adopt, as well. They are the party against Israel, against government efficiency, and against border security; they are the party that supports more regulation of American businesses, they are for men in women’s sports and locker rooms, for murdering babies in the womb, and for even more war, death, and destruction in Ukraine.
My sincere hope, is that this 70-80% of the electorate would continue to be represented by the GOP, and that they would vote for more Republicans at the state and federal levels. I hope that the Republican party would be increasingly characterized by these 70-80% issues that involve common sense, gender clarity, economic security, international stability, and government efficiency.
Third Time’s A Charm?
Trump should not and must not run for a third presidential term. This is not a political issue, nor a MAGA issue, nor a GOP issue, nor a loyalty issue; rather, it is a Constitutional issue. I believe that I speak for almost all Republicans and, really, for all Americans who insist that the U. S. Constitution, Amendment XXII, ratified in 1951, is irrefutable and incontrovertible, that a United States president can only serve two terms.
Trump gestures and maybe even jokes about a third term, but I believe he just does that kind of thing to tweak the press. Unfortunately, some of his less-clever sycophants have hinted that a third term for Trump is possible and even inevitable. There is nothing helpful about this unconstitutional effort.
I have supported Trump from the moment he descended down the escalator. In some ways, I supported him before he became a candidate, in that I have asserted far before 2015 that we need a successful and experienced business leader as a president, not a senator or professional politician. I may have not agreed with him on everything he has done or said; but I would say that about anyone that I have ever looked up to. But I have supported him staunchly often in contexts when doing so was difficult and unwelcome. All that said, I would not support him or vote for him a third time, because this would be lawless and unconstitutional.
One of the reasons I think that he was voted in to office in 2024 was because this would be his last chance as president: four effective years and then done! And, after what we have been through the last four years, do we really want to have an 83-year-old individual beginning a four-year presidential term?
Sure, I would love to see a Trump vs. Obama election cycle. That is, if Trump were allowed a third term, then Obama would have to be allowed to run again, and I have no doubt that he would jump at the opportunity. In fact, I would just love to see a Trump vs. Obama debate! But despite my desire to see this, and my loyalty to Trump, a third term is unconstitutional. Our loyalty to the country and the Constitution trumps (pun intended!) our loyalty to any individual candidate or politician; and to confuse these loyalties is to move from patriotism into a cult.
I started a paragraph here about what it would look like to change the constitution to enable Trump to run for a third term. Not that I am for that, but I was just wondering what it would take, what precedents there were for this, and to what extent such constitutional changes and legislation would affect current office-holders. The paragraph quickly grew out of hand, and beyond my own areas of expertise, so I will just assert that I do not in any way support any changes to the US Constitution to grant anyone a third term as president.
And I am not alone in this as this is the wrong side of those 80/20 and 70/30 issues we discussed above. A recent YouGov survey found that only 20% of those polled believed that Trump should be allowed to serve a third term; 68% affirmed that Trump should not be allowed to have a third term and 12% said that they weren’t sure. Furthermore, a recent Overton Insights survey said that Trump would lose to Obama 47% to 53%, and if anything, I believe this result is a bit too conservative.
But the deeper issue is this: If you think that we should change the constitution for a single individual or politician, you are not loyal, you are delusional.
The beauty of Trump’s second term is specifically that he can’t run again; he doesn’t have to be political and care what people think about him and how people will vote for him again. Of course, if his 2025 policies and endeavors fail miserably, that will impact many congress people who will be asking for votes again in 2026. However, the necessary aggressiveness that we are seeing now from Trump with DOGE and tariffs are the result of him having the liberty to accomplish unpopular and difficult efforts; these are efforts that both sides have been calling for consistently for years, but efforts that nobody from either side has had the courage to undertake.
A third Trump term is a worthless topic in additional to being unconstitutional. Talking about it makes otherwise-sensible conservatives look like lawless lunatics. This is not a good topic to consider even as a joke or as a distraction. Let’s please stop talking about this.
Trump’s policies and example will outlast his second term. They can be picked up by future candidates, Ron Desantis or JD Vance, who will continue the legacy of fair trade, government efficiency, secure borders, and a strong military. We don’t need Trump for these; if he does a good enough job this second term, and if those around him learn over the next four years, another individual can take these policies and continue implementing them and benefiting from them. We can be grateful for Trump’s leadership without embracing unconstitutional and stupid ideas of a third term.
PROVERBS TO PONDER: The Best Weapon for the Rest of Us
Proverbs 28:11: The rich man is wise in his own eyes,
But the poor who has understanding sees through him.
It seems today that all of the power is in the hands of the wealthy. They then tell us – the poor people – what is true and false, what facts to believe and what opinions to ignore. Yet it seems that they get increasingly wealthy by mooching off the gullibility of the masses.
I wouldn’t consider myself poor, but I am certainly not in that top social and financial echelon. What recourse to we have if we don’t have their prominence and wealth? One proverb gives us a weapon that deflates the influence of the rich and famous, specifically, the tool of discernment.
Wealth is one of many symptoms of wisdom, but there are those who obtain wealth through other means, and that is what this verse seems to point to. They have inherited wealth, or obtained it questionably, though maybe somewhat honestly. But they get to a point where their riches skew their thinking; wealth makes us think that we are smarter than we are and that others are dumber than they are. The phrase “wise in their own eyes” is usually a code word in Proverbs for someone who has an internal logic that is actually foolish and skewed somehow (Prov 12:15; 16:2; 21:2; 26:5, 12). Proverbs 26:12 emphasizes this: “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” Proverbs 30:12 also demonstrates the self-deception inherent in this phrase: “There is a kind who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness.” Wealth can be helpful, but it can also lead to self-deception and to attempts to deceive others, as well.
While the poor may not have the wealth and resources of the rich and prominent, we do have one thing to push back against their power and influence. The second half of the verse, says that while some may be poor and oppressed, they have the power to see through the wealthy and prominent. The Hebrew verb bin means “to discern” or “to perceive,” and here in the Hiphil stem, which usually provides a causative nuance, it means “to cause to perceive” or “to understand” or “to cause one to discern carefully.” The last verb is chaqar, meaning, “to search,” “to search through,” or “to examine.” The point is that while the poorer masses lack the wealth and prominence of those at the top, we still have the tool of wisdom and discernment to examine and to see through the sometimes-vapid words of the wealthy.
We have to remember that poor doesn’t mean dumb. While discernment can help us get ahead financially, it can also mean that we turn down ways to get ahead financially, as implied by Proverbs 28:6: “Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is crooked though he be rich.” Essentially, it is better to live with integrity, even though it may cost us some lucrative opportunities, than to compromise our integrity for ill-gotten gains. And just because someone has a lot of money, like an actor or an athlete, that doesn’t mean that they are wise or qualified to teach the rest of us about wise living.
In fact, let’s explore the example of an actor who wants to lecture the rest of us about life, spirituality, and politics. Of course, some actors are quite intelligent and have branched out into other markets and endeavors. I have respect for such individuals, and I believe that they have some good wisdom to pass on to us; they have seized the privileges and opportunities that they have had in life and leveraged those to excel in wealth and prominence. Other actors, however, have a very narrow set of skills, are not overly intelligent, and have lived in a Hollywood bubble, unaware of how the rest of America lives and operates. It seems ludicrous, then, when such people share their political views with us or berate us for ours.
Also, this is a great verse for our politicians today, who have managed to rig the system so that they can make millions on a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars salary. They try to tell us that we should tolerate more taxes, government waste and fraud, and that we should send more money to other countries. We may be less-well-off than then, but we ain’t stupid! We can discern that there is something fishy in their promises and behavior. It is frustrating to live under such people; but we have the tool of discernment, to see though the rhetoric, to search out the facts, and to recognize the problems with their views and methods. If we use the tools of wisdom and discernment well, we can defeat the corrupt, no matter how much wealth and prominence they acquire.
With wealth should come some wisdom. But as this verse implies, those gains – whether obtained ethically or not – can also skew people’s perceptions, making them only “wise in their own eyes” (see, for instance, Prov 18:11; 23:5; 1 Tim 6:17). Essentially, they are not as clever as they think, and perhaps, they are no longer even as wise as the rest of us.
And those of us who are not as well off should maintain our wisdom. We may not have the prominence or the resources of others, but we have discernment to see through what is happening, to know that there are corrupt actors, politicians, pastors, and business leaders. While we think that we are lacking, if we utilize discernment and wisdom, then we have everything we need to see through and push against those powerful forces. If we don’t use these valuable tools of discernment and insight, we will find these rich charlatans obtaining even more of our money in the future.
ROMANS: Why Sin Is So Sinister, Romans 7:7-11
Ours is a society of perpetual blame; we always want to assume that the other party, or the other person is wrong; we don’t take responsibility. We presume that the devil made us do it, or that we have been corrupted by the environment or by our upbringing.
As we have traveled through Romans, we have seen how deeply fallenness and folly are embedded in every person (see Romans 3). And this is what makes sin so sinister; evil is not out there somewhere; evil is in the human heart. But recognizing that, drives our sense that we need a Savior.
In this passage in Romans 7:7-11, Paul outlines some truths about sin. First, he is quick in v. 7 to point out that that Law is not sin, speaking here of Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. From what has been said in the last chapter or so, one could plausibly object that Paul is trying to demonize the law and blame it for the sin condition. Paul deals with this objection but reinforces the notion that the law does provoke the sinful nature to transgression.
With a strong “May it never be!” Paul rejects the notion that the Law itself is sin. What the law brings is specificity to the general understanding of morality. The law also saves us from subjectivity, or the idea that I live by my sense of right and wrong and others live according to their own sense of right and wrong. Additionally, the law delivers from cultural relativity, or the idea that morality is based on one’s culture, time period, or geographical area. Rather, without the specifics in the law, we would not know specifically what activities are transgressions against God’s holy character and which are not. He mentions covetousness here in v. 7 as an example, referencing Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. Paul asserts that he would not know that coveting was inappropriate and sinful if the law had not stated it to be so.
When an individual encounters a commandment, rather than recognizing its wisdom and worthiness, our fallen nature bucks against it, and it provokes a desire to break it (v. 8). Fallenness makes us rebels to every kind of authority. The word here for “opportunity” or “occasion” suggests an appropriate, timely, and strategic moment for action (2 Cor 5:12; 11:12; Gal 5:13; 1 Tim 5:14). The sin nature specifically utilizes whatever recoil is created when we encounter a law to spur us on to defiance, no matter how worthy or wise the law or the Law-giver may be. While the commandment is intended to provoke righteousness, lawfulness, order, and wholeness, sin hijacks these intentions and sends us in the opposite direction.
Paul notes that this is not just a dynamic that takes place when a person encounters the entire law, but it is also our sinister response when we interact with just a single commandment; note that the word “commandment” is singular. The result of our interaction with even just a single commandment, however, is a plethora of vices, or “all kinds of desire” or “coveting of every kind.” Sin is so sinister, that just one instruction makes us want to find several ways to defy it.
We do not want to misrepresent Paul here. He is not necessarily suggesting that sin is a power outside of himself as a fallen individual, which he cannot control. He has clearly identified with sin previously; there is no sense of the devil made me do it in Paul. However, in this case, he does seem to distinguish between the fleshly impulses related to sin and the godly impulses related to regeneration and to the Holy Spirit. He will discuss this flesh vs. spirit quandary in the remainder of this chapter.
It is tempting to imagine that the last phrase of v. 8 is an overstatement: Surely there was sin in the world before there was law. However, one should recall that the primeval couple received many instructions and only one command. “From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17). This command was speedily transgressed both on account of the external pressure from the serpent, as well as by some internal dynamic on the part of Eve (3:6). It is as though Rom 7:8 concisely summarizes the mechanics of the fall in Genesis 3 and notes that this process which led to the first sin continues to contribute to our own episodes of giving into temptation today.
In verse 9 then, Paul mentions a time that he had life without the law. That is, the capacity for sin was not alive and working in him. This changed when the commandment came, which enlivened the law, caused him to sin, and as he says at the end of the verse, “I died.”
There is some debate about what verse 9 is discussing. First, much of this is hypothetical, or at least theoretical, for there was never a time in Paul’s life when he was not under the law. Nor was there a time – if we take Rom 3 seriously – when sin was not at work in his fallen flesh. Perhaps he is speaking more generally of humanity, though even from the beginning, as we saw above, there was some law for people.
Probably, Paul is speaking more hypothetically than either of those scenarios. He wakes up in the morning, enjoys a shave, a coffee, and a quick breakfast. He picks up his Bible, or scroll, and reads “Thou shall not covet.” The spiritual liveliness that he had is immediately stolen by an invigorated desire to covet. Both on a macro level (humanity wide) as well as at a micro level (Paul doing his morning devotions) the dynamic that the law enlivens sin is at play. Ironically, the law is supposed to have a positive influence in showing people God’s holiness and expectations. Yet, it often has the opposite effect of enlivening the dormant desires of sinful flesh when confronted with specific commandments.
Paul continues in v. 10, noting that the enlivening of sin because of the commandment resulted in his death. He recognizes the irony in this situation: the law ought to promote life, joy, meaning, and purpose in life. Laws in general, or the Mosaic law, or the wisdom of God in general are to result in life (Deut 6:2; 30:19; Prov 3:16; 11:19). Obedience should contribute to longevity of life and a higher quality of life. But because of the sinister nature of sin, our interaction with law can have the opposite effect of energizing sin and, therefore, hastening death.
Echoing language from v. 8, Paul says in v. 11 that sin “deceived” him in its manipulation of the commandment. Sin used the exposure to the law and deceived him. The word for “deceived” is the Greek word exapatao; it is exclusively Pauline (Rom 7:11; 16:18; 1 Cor 3:18; 2 Cor 11:3; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 2:14). It is interesting that sin could use something good, like God’s commandments, and deceive us into giving our attention and affection to sin. Interestingly, most of the six times that this verb is used in the NT seem to indicate that the one being deceived is a believer; this itself should warn us regarding sin’s power of deception. The further result is that, again, sin killed him, smothering any inclination to spiritual vitality and enthusiasm.
So why is sin so sinister? It is because sin takes good instruction and tempts us to do the wrong thing rather than the right one. Rather than bringing out the best of us, our own sin often brings out the worst in us. This points to the need that we all have to trust in Christ as our Savior, who died in our place and rose from the dead so that by faith in Him, we can receive grace and eternal life from God.
But even as believers, we have to remember how sinister sin can be, often even taking what is good and doing something evil with it. All the more reason for believers to be diligent in prayer and purity (Matt 26:41; 1 Thess 5:232 Peter 1:10; 3:14), so as to defeat the sinister nature of sin in our lives.
POLITICAL QUICK-TAKES APRIL 2025, PART 2: Tariffs, Protests, and the Danger of Complacency
by Matt Kasper
The Trouble With Tariffs
I think that we are all struggling to get our heads around this tariff issue, and the skittishness of markets when Trump breathes threats of tariffs makes us all nervous.
A tariff is a government-imposed additional cost placed on imported products. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been squawking for years about unfair tariffs that other countries place on our exports. Many countries place high tariffs on American products that they import, while we place lower tariffs on many of their products. Many products India imports from America have tariffs of between 5% to 30% (see here). Canada imposes a 25% tariff on many products from the United States; I confess that I did not know this until this whole tariff business blew up, and I admit, that I am not very happy about this myself! The lunge that Trump is now making for reciprocal tariffs on goods is really just doing to other countries what they have been doing to us for years; I am grateful for someone who is not just talking about the US being ripped-off economically, but actually doing something about it!
I have to credit Atlanta radio host Eric von Haessler with this insight, but I think he understands Trump’s mentality regarding tariffs: Trump recognizes that he represents 330 million of the best consumers on the planet. He can leverage this consumer power, and even threaten other countries with the dangers of withdrawing those customers from foreign markets. Arguably, one American consumer equals five or ten consumers from many other parts of the world. America is the top consumer of the products of many other countries who export to us; so to leverage tariffs on their products may have a large impact on those country’s economies. And that leverage is already working as many countries are buckling to the pressure from their wealthiest clients.
I know that it makes us all a bit nervous, but if wielded well, tariffs, the threats of tariffs, and reciprocal tariffs can help our country and our economy. Tariffs can help reshore American companies and jobs, they make foreign companies want to build and invest in America so as to avoid tariffs, and they raise money that would otherwise have to come from raising taxes on our citizens.
The Ineffectiveness of Protesting
Some people think that by protesting, shouting, and letting your voice be heard, that you are actually doing something helpful and meaningful. While there is tremendous energy and affirmation at protests and rallies, they are probably not actually accomplishing much. Protests against DOGE, or the elimination of many federal jobs, or against Tesla, are all bluster but no bite. Perhaps Shakespeare’s Macbeth would conclude that these protests are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth, V.v.).
Of course, there are other ways to protest, such as with one’s pocketbook. But as many have pointed out, when conservatives protested against transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney representing Bud Light, they just stopped buying Bud Light. They didn’t shoot at breweries or paint swastikas on taverns. But the backlash against the federal government in striving for efficiency or against Tesla is hateful, illogical, and destructive.
There is a lot of noise and talking from the left. Beginning on Monday evening, March 31, Democratic senator Cory Booker spoke for over 25 straight hours on the House floor, breaking a record set in 1957. As someone who speaks for the better part of two hours most Sunday mornings, I concede that this is an impressive feat, and people are hailing this as the most important political event of the year. That said, the clips that I saw of Booker’s bluster sounded a lot more like Macbeth’s “sound and fury,” and less like anything substantive and durative. And his efforts ultimately meant nothing: it changed no minds, affected no policies, and didn’t move the needle. It will soon be forgotten, other than in a pamphlet containing congressional trivia.
On Real Time with Bill Maher recently, Gavin Newsom conceded that the Democratic party has serious problems: “The democratic brand is toxic right now,” he admitted. Later he noted: “Its one thing to make noise, but you also have to make sense.” It seems like lately there’s more angry talking from the left and less good ideas.
And sometimes, talk and hate and stupid go hand-in-hand. I saw a story about a man who bought a Tesla and destroyed it just out of protest; I’m not really sure how that hurts Tesla, but that shows the mentality here. What is really stupid, however, is those who have vandalized Tesla dealerships and Tesla vehicles, and are now going to spend years in prison for these stupid and futile acts of protest.
But these protests paint a bigger picture of the differences between the parties: we have a party of protest, and a party of productivity; one party values efficiency, while the other leverages anger; a party of talk and a party of actions. The Democratic party seems to be characterized by irrational hate and feckless resistance, while the GOP is characterized by exuberance, efficiency, and accomplishments. I think that over the next few election cycles, we will see which mentality is a winning strategy for bringing happiness and success to our country and which is not.
The Menace of Complacency
Though things look good for the GOP now, complacency should not be an option. The fecklessness of the Democratic party holds a warning, specifically, reminding us that many of history’s most powerful, influential, and nefarious leaders rose from the ashes of a vanquished movement.
Between the DOGE efforts, the tariff gamble, and international instability, there are many challenges to face, especially before the looming 2026 midterms. I believe that the GOP has months, and at best, until February and March of 2026 to make dramatic economic improvements in our country. If they do, then this could indeed be the golden age of the United States, and it could also presage near-guaranteed Republican dominance for decades to come. If these issues are not settled and if we have not made clear economic and international improvements by early next year, then the 2026 midterms will be certain defeat for the GOP, and for the country, as well.
BIBLE STUDY: Is There Pagan Literature In the Bible? Part 3: The New Testament
For the first two installments in this series, see “Part 1, Genesis” from the March 2024 edition, and “Part 2: Deuteronomy and Proverbs” from the September 2024 edition.
The Bible is from God, inspired, inerrant, authoritative, a gift of wisdom and a sign of God’s love for humanity.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t complications to the leather-bound sixty-six-book canon that we casually carry around today.
In this series, we are acknowledging elements from pagan cultures that the inspired authors were aware of, that they utilized, or in some cases, that they refuted as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the Word and words of God (2 Pet 1:20-21).
As we have discussed before, the notion of pagan literature in the Bible doesn’t mean that Christianity had to borrow its ideas from other religions. Many of them may have been ideas that other faiths thought up at about the same time. Many may have been borrowed from a message or insight from a non-writing prophet that somehow made its way over into another region. There are many ways that we can understand the literary interaction that Biblical authors had with pagan sources, and none of those ways undermine the infallibility, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible.
After all, there were laws and regulations used by humanity before Moses set quill to parchment. Hammurabi codified laws about murder, theft, and adultery before the Pentateuch. And the victory of good over evil is a notion that clearly predates anything specifically written in the Bible. We should not be surprised that apocalyptic battles, virgin births, and moral regulations are found elsewhere in ancient literature. The fact that some of these literary elements predate Biblical writings does not undermine the validity of Scripture as divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17).
In this article, we are discussing some pagan ideas and quotes that were incorporated into the New Testament. These are used to conveniently explain a concept or to illustrate a point the way we may quote a song lyric in a Bible lesson to provide an example of a Biblical concept.
John famously refers to Jesus as the “word,” and the Greek word is the “logos” (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). We translate this as “word,” but logos has a career in Greek philosophy far broader than just the word “word.” It included the philosophical foundation of something, or a subject or matter, or the reason or motive for an act or idea. The term logos is a concept wielded as early as Heraclitus (sixth century BCE), and re-popularized by the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo. The Stoic school of Greek philosophy posited the logos as a principle that designed, created, and permeated the world, and was somewhat of a connection between God (or gods) and the material order. John integrates this concept into his discussion of Christ in John 1:1-3; the “Word” is indeed the connection between God and creation, and a Co-creator along with the Father (John 1:3, 10; see also 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). But in addition to that, and really a clarification of that, the Word is also fully divine, and fully human, the God-man, who also taught, healed, died for our sins and rose from the dead.
An example of a quote from pagan literature in the NT is seen in Acts 17:28. Paul is delivering an evangelistic address to a crowd at the Areopagus. This is the famous “tomb to an unknown God” speech. Of course, he doesn’t come barreling in with quotes from Deuteronomy, or Psalms, or Isaiah; rather he wants to use Greek poets rather than Hebrew authors to demonstrate the universal sense of God’s existence. The first phrase “For in him we live and move and have our being” comes from the Cretan poet Epimenides, from his poem Cretica, written around 600 BCE. In this poem, Minos, King of Crete, addresses Zeus:
They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But you are not dead; you live and abide forever,
for in you we live and move and have our being.
Paul leverages the tomb to the unknown god to verify that, as this poem says, someone who is truly divine wouldn’t need a tomb, and, in fact, we derive our lives and existence from that God. Paul also uses another quote, specifically, the end of v. 28, which says, “We are his offspring.” This short phrase is reflected in a few sources, one of which was from the Cilician poet Aratus (ca. 315-240 BCE) from his work Phaenomena, in a section that praises Zeus as the one who sustains mankind. It has also been found in a fragment of Cleanthes’s (331-233 BCE) Hymn to Zeus.
Paul uses these quotes to establish a common theological frame of reference for belief and worship. He connects Christianity with his audience’s religiosity (v. 22). Paul corrects the notion that God is distant and unknown (vv. 23-27). He calls the Athenians to repent in light of the coming judgment of this one supreme God who created and sustains human beings (vv. 29-31).
But you probably picked up on the fact that the passage we just cited from Epimenides pops up again in the NT. In Titus 1:12, Paul quotes from the same passage in Epimenides’ Cretica, who notes that “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” That would probably sound worse if Paul just asserted this rather than quoting from Epimenides, a native Cretan. Paul’s point is that Titus is going to be dealing with a difficult group of people on Crete, people so infamous that even a native, who Paul refers to, probably somewhat sarcastically, as a “prophet,” acknowledges the fact. All the more reason for Titus to persist in ministry, to reprove them when necessary (v. 13), and to appoint believing leadership over them (v. 5).
There are other examples of pagan quotes or influences in the NT. Paul quotes from the third-century BCE Greek dramatist Menander from one of his plays, entitled Thaïs, in 1 Corinthians 15:33, when he says, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’” Peter is probably quoting from Heraclitus of Ephesus, a fifth-century BCE Greek philosopher, in 2 Peter 2:22: “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” Paul and Peter are using common cultural concepts to illustrate truth to their audience.
We mentioned Stoicism earlier; it was a popular Greek philosophy during the first century CE and even mentioned in the NT (Acts 17:18). It was founded by Zeno of Citium (335-263 BCE) and became one of the two main philosophical schools of the Greek world (the other main school, Epicureanism, is also mentioned in Acts 17:18). Evangelical scholars are growing in their appreciation of some of these philosophical influences on the NT writers, and other ways that the apostles borrow and also refute some of the ideas in Greek philosophy. A possible instance of Stoic influence concerns the belief of early Stoics that the world would eventually be destroyed by fire. This led some to suppose that Peter’s teaching in 2 Peter 3 that God will end the world by destroying it by fire echoes the Stoic view that the cycle of the world will be consummated with a universal conflagration (2 Pet 3:7, 10). But again, it is important to recognize that everything in Scripture, whether borrowed, or quoted, or influenced in any way from pagan literature or philosophy, ultimately came from God Himself (2 Sam 23:2; Luke 1:70; Acts 3:18; 2 Tim 3:16).
What are the implications of what we have been discussing in this series, specifically, the influence and presence of pagan philosophies and even quotes in the Old and New Testaments?
First, I think that this reminds us that we should not be afraid to dialog with pagan literature or material from other religions. This will only enhance our faith in Christ and our appreciation of Him, as we see the redemption that He provides soaring high above all worldly religions and ideas.
Similarly we should encourage dialog with unbelievers and use their methods in our interaction with them. We have seen that the editors of Proverbs integrated in some Egyptian wisdom and Paul quotes from some pagan poets. Because of wisdom and general revelation, sometimes the pagans get some things right! We should leverage those insights to build an evangelistic bridge and if possible, allow those insights to provide some validity of our faith to an unbeliever.
It is not bad for us to have some rock lyrics or a phrase or two from Shakespeare in our evangelistic and apologetics holster. Sometimes these insights from pagans can be the fodder the Holy Spirit uses to bring someone to faith in Jesus Christ.
ECLECTIC BIBLE QUESTIONS: Can Women Hold Offices in the Church?
Any issues related to gender today are controversial, including alleged pay gaps, notions of women leadership, or even the issue of how many genders there are.
This confusion has not only affected the culture, but it has contaminated the church, as well.
The specific issue we are tackling here is whether women can fill the offices of the church that are listed in the New Testament (which is the more modern, “egalitarian” view), or not (the more traditional, “complementarian” view).
And this is not just an academic issue. I am part of a pastors fellowship group of area ministers representing a variety of races and denominations, and I am one of the few who are complementarian, affirming that the Bible restricts the offices of pastor, elder, and deacon to men.
The more modern, egalitarian view highlights a loosening of gender restrictions in the NT relative to the OT, heralding verses like Galatians 3:28. And no matter how you come down on this issue, we cannot dispute that there are woman leaders like Moses’ sister Miriam (Exod 15; Numbers 12), or Deborah in Judges 4, and you can find prophetesses, i.e., female prophets, in both the OT and NT (Exod 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron 34:22; Is 8:3; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9).
I would like to simply explain the complementarian view, and offer a Biblical defense for it. Additionally, I would like to counter-argue that this doesn’t mean that women can’t have meaningful opportunities to serve in the church, nor that those who are complementarian or are more traditional are somehow misogynistic.
For this discussion, I will address the Biblical offices of apostle, pastor/ elder, and deacon here; while these are different offices, the relationship of these roles to gender is exactly the same. The gender restriction arguments seem to apply to all of these offices. Also, I am confining my remarks to “Biblical” offices; we have created other functional offices, like a women’s ministry coordinator or a children’s director, and there is no prohibition for women to hold those offices.
There are several arguments for offering the positions of pastor, elder, and deacon to men and not women. In several passages, the text specifically states that being a “man” is a requirement for the office; these verses use the gender specific word aner, meaning “male,” rather than the gender general word anthropos, meaning “person” or “human” (Acts 1:21; 6:3; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6; see also Acts 15:22; 1 Tim 2:12). Sometimes it is implied that the holder of the office is male in that the words like “elder” or “deacon” utilize masculine plural suffixes (word endings) (Acts 14:23; 15:2, 22; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 24:1; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 10, 13; 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1, 3, 5). To be completely fair, however, in Greek, as in English, sometimes mixed groups of males and female use masculine plural suffixes, such as a group of actors (males) and actresses (females) should simply be called actors, indicating either a group of all males or a mixed group. Between the two arguments provided in this paragraph, the first is far stronger, and, in fact, a definitive victory for the complementary position.
That said, there are women leaders mentioned in the NT, such as Mary (Acts 1:14), Priscilla (Acts 18:2, 18, 26), Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2-3), and many others. Yet, none of these are ever described as holding a formal office in the church (apostle, pastor, elder, or deacon). In fact, there are no indisputable examples of women filling these offices. Of the disputable passages that people point to, the one that comes up most often is Rom 16:1, where Pheobe (a female name) is referred to as a “servant” (diakonos). This is the word that is used for “deacon,” but the word is not used for the office of deacon anywhere else in Romans (13:4; 15:8). Also, the similar word diakonia, meaning “ministry” or “service,” does not indicate the formal office of deacon anywhere else in Romans (11:13; 12:7; 15:31; see also the one use of the verbal form diakoneo, “to serve,” in Rom 15:25). It is dangerous to push this verse too far to indicate that she held the office of deacon in light of clearer and more numerous verses, especially those listed in the first half of the above paragraph. Pheobe was a great woman, a helpful servant, and a wonderful example for men and women alike, but not someone who held the formal office of deacon.
It is important to point out that this in no way means that women are not important to the church. In fact, I sometimes note that women aren’t important for the church, but essential! Women can and should serve in many meaningful ways in the church. Remember that in the OT, priests could only be men, descendants of Abraham, and also only from the tribe of Levi, and also exclusively descendants of Moses’ brother Aaron. That means that only a fraction of a percent of the human race could be a priest. Now, those OT restrictions have been opened widely; all believers are priests of the New Covenant of Christ (1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And mature believing men of any nation, tribe, class, or status can aspire to be a pastor, elder, or deacon.
I have also discussed this issue with people who insist that they know women who are great teachers. Again, restricting these offices of pastor, elder, and deacon to men is not a commentary on the teaching capacity of women. Scripture is clear that women can teach other women, and certainly kids and teens, but that women are not to teach regularly in contexts where there is a mix of men and women in the audience (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11-12). We can throw all of our modern and politically-correct angst at the interpretation of these verses, but they are pretty clear, and there is not much ambiguity in them. Additionally, between these and the other verses listed in this article, the picture of male-led churches is a clear and unambiguous imperative in the NT.
The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Dallas Theological Seminary, and he recently completed a PhD. in Reformation history from Georgia State University. Matt is the pastor of a small church northeast of Atlanta called Grace Atlanta Bible Church, and is involved in several other groups and activities in the Atlanta area, as well.
We had written a decade’s worth of articles in our previous web journal, called, The Eclectic Kasper, which we published from 2011 to 2021. Those articles are also arranged topically in our “Eclectic Archive,” which you can access here.
Also, if you haven’t yet, please give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like” and you can leave comments about any of our articles on our posts there.