Welcome to the January 2022 edition of our new online effort The Eclectic Web Journal, from the same people who brought you the famous, and infamous, The Eclectic Kasper.
In the fall of 2021, we began this new effort called The Eclectic Web Journal. You can find the inaugural October 2021 edition here and the November 2021 edition here. We remain committed to carrying on the tradition of interesting articles, a great variety of topics, and a desire to entertain, inform, and educate.
If you want a bit more about those of us behind these great web journals, you can see our “About me” page from the old web journal here.
This month in The Eclectic Web Journal, we discuss a great Firefly moment, and we consider whether angelic languages are legitimate. We continue our verse-by-verse study through Romans, and we look at an interesting confrontation in Canossa almost a thousand years ago.
Please swing on over to our Facebook page and give it a “like.” We love your feedback; feel free to leave comments or questions there.
Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!
AMERICA IN MEMES: The Revenge of the Memes
“Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.”
It’s time for the revenge of the memes! We’ve highlighted great memes in the past, in the March 2021 and the July 2021 editions of The Eclectic Kasper.
Here in The Eclectic Web Journal, we’ll continue that grand tradition of noting how American culture, or life in general, can be concisely summarized in a clever meme.
And again, for those of you who are over the age of 32, a “meme” is a picture that you may find on Facebook or Twitter that has a pertinent statistic, a funny quip, or a poignant quote. As we have said before, these quotes often have no attribution, or they are often mis-attributed. Nonetheless, the content is still interesting and fun.
It’s been a tough year, so much so that one meme portrays a person misunderstanding an otherwise simple question: “Someone asked me if I had plans for the fall. It took me a moment to realize that they meant ‘autumn,’ not the collapse of civilization.” Speaking of the fall of civilization, at least someone is having fun with all the spam calls that we get now; that person asserted in a meme: “Gotta love the irony of a generation raised on making prank phone calls only to be terrorized by daily robo-calls now.”
I’m a bit on the conservative side, so, I like the meme that shows an iteration of the famous Peanuts scene with Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown to kick. The sly look on her face betrays that she is probably about to remove the ball allowing Charlie to once again flail forward fruitlessly. Under Charlie Brown are the words “The Young” and under Lucy are the words “The Left,” and she is saying to Charlie Brown, “I promise; this time socialism will work!”
Another meme is a bit less funny because it is so true; the top shows White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki saying, “It’s ‘unfair and absurd’ that companies would raise costs for consumers due to higher taxes.” The lower half shows a picture of and a quote allegedly from Austrian economic theorist Friedrich August von Hayek, saying “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialist.”
There is also an iteration of the classic meme of Jim from The Office using a white board. In the top frame, Jim he is pointing to the white board which says, “Stop calling it cancel culture.” Below he looks contentedly at the camera and the white board says, “It is fascism.” Along those lines, for those who are a bit weary of all of the self-identifying, one meme, satirically purporting to be a headline, declares, “Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record.”
Whatever side of the aisle you’re on, you could perhaps identify with the meme that shows a tweet stating, “If the United States saw what the United States is doing in the United States, the United States would invade the United States to liberate the United States from the tyranny of the United States.”
Of course, there is a lot of humor and satire circulating in regard to this pandemic that we’re having. No matter what your views are about the vaccines, one meme caught the irony of the situation: “Funny how we were raised not to be peer pressured into taking experimental drugs and now we’re being peer pressured into taking experimental drugs.” I also like the picture of Bill Murray from Groundhog Day, posing as a reporter, but with a confused look on his face, and the text says, “Welcome to year two of 14 days to flatten the curve.” It is great that so many Covid tests, boosters, and vaccines are being provided for no charge. But one person queried, “If giving free shots are for the health of our nation, why aren’t they giving away free insulin and chemo?”
And here’s the potpourri section of this article, just some memes that make you think, such as this one: “If serving is below you, leadership is beyond you.” I like the one that admits, “When a man says he’ll do anything for a woman, he means fight bad guys and kill dragons, not vacuum or wash dishes.” Ouch!
Some memes are convicting, like the one that says, “So you don’t want to go to His house on earth, yet you expect to live in His mansion in heaven?? Think about that statement!” Some memes are comforting and even encouraging, though perhaps in a back-handed way. One meme showed a shirt that said, “The reason I’m old and wise, is because God protected me when I was young and stupid.”
I had to think about this meme for a while, but doing so will be rewarding to you, too. It is especially relevant in a society where there seems to be so many lies and “fake news.” The meme simply asserted, “If the truth makes you uncomfortable, don’t blame the truth. . . blame the lie, that made you comfortable.”
That’s a meme worth thinking about!
ROMANS: The Obedience of Christ and the Reign of Grace, Romans 5:19-21
If you are a Christian, you probably think more in terms of obedience to Christ and to God the Father, than the obedience of Christ. However, Christ submitted with extraordinary obedience that allowed humanity to be freed from the tyranny of sin and liberated to God’s grace. Christ’s obedience to the Father outweighed all of humanity’s disobedience and allowed sinners to receive the grace that God offers.
Romans 5:19 provides another contrast between Adam and Christ. That contrast is that through Adam’s disobedience, many people are plunged into a status of being sinners, but through Christ, many will be able to have the status of being righteous. The word for disobedience is the unusual word, parakoe, “disobedience” or “disloyalty.” Used also in 2 Corinthians 10:6 and Hebrews 2:2, the word seems to have a grand, epic quality to it. On the other hand, Christ exhibited “obedience”; the word hupakoe is used elsewhere of Christ (Heb 5:8), and therefore presages the obedience to God of all who trust and follow Christ (Rom 1:5; 15:18; 1 Pet 1:22). To follow Christ in faith is to follow Him in obedience.
There are some implications about the obedience of Christ. First, Christ was a sacrifice, who willingly went to be sacrificed. He neither resisted, nor revolted against His destiny, but rather, fully accepted even the most gruesome aspects of what the Father had planned for Him. Second, believers are also called upon to follow and obey. We should both enjoy the free and unmerited gift of salvation, but also recognize the responsibility and privilege to obey which accompanies that free gift.
Paul then says in v. 20 that the Law “entered” into the situation of Adam’s sin and transgression. The word pareiserchomai, meaning, “to come in beside,” is used only one other time in the NT by Paul of unbelievers who tried to “sneak in” or “infiltrate” (NIV) church ranks to see Christian liberty (Gal 2:4). One gets the sense that the word here reflects something done with great intention and purpose.
That purpose is clarified with the conjunction hina, “in order that.” Specifically, the Law as a reflection of God’s holiness and expectations for humanity, caused sin to “increase.” This does not mean that the instances of offenses against God increased. Rather, the ability to identify sin increased; the law showed us what was wrong and right so that we could recognize sin.
It may be surprising that Paul does not say that the law was given to decrease sin and serve as a deterrent to it. Morris notes that the Law “was not concerned with preventing sin (it was too late for that). Nor was it concerned with salvation from sin (it was too weak for that)” (Morris, Romans, 241). From Paul’s perspective, which he will articulate more in subsequent chapters, the law draws one toward sin by making the fallen and sinful person aware of more opportunities to rebel against God and His moral standards (7:5-11).
The good news here is that grace always outpaces sin. There was an increase in awareness of sin because of the law, but there was an increase in grace from God because of sin. Paul prefixes the usual word for abound, perisseuō, with the prefix huper, “above” or “beyond,” forming the word huperperisseuo, “to abound all the more” or “to abound exceedingly.” This word seems to be uniquely Pauline, used elsewhere only in 2 Cor 7:4, but nowhere else in ancient Greek literature. It is as though Paul had to make up a term to portray the indescribable magnitude of grace. Where transgression and sin created death, the grace of God “superabounded” to provide life and hope.
Romans 5 ends with one more contrast between Adam and Jesus in v. 21. This contrast capitalizes on the word “reign,” the verb basileuo, often used of the reign or rule of a human king or ruler. This verse begins by explaining that the superabounding influx of grace (v. 20) is needed so that the reign of grace can be greater than the reign of sin. In fact, this contrast between sin and grace is key to this verse.
Another contrast is that sin reigned through death as opposed to how grace reigned through righteousness for life. The word “righteousness” here is a reminder of the perfect life of Christ and His flawless act of righteous obedience on the cross (vv. 17, 19). Another contrast is the difference between death that now ravages all people, and the opportunity that we have to receive eternal life. In fact, Paul says that this contrast is for life; restoring life to humanity, life that was killed by sin and death, is part of the drama of redemption history.
Finally, this verse and chapter ends by pointing to Christ. Christ is the reason why all this is possible and the preposition dia, usually translated “through,” could also be rendered “by means of.” The imputation of righteousness from God to sinful humanity could not be accomplished without the ministry and obedience of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
In church, we often sing, “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow.” Because of Christ’s obedience, we can have a relationship with God and we can allow grace to reign in our lives. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we can fully benefit from the grace, forgiveness, salvation and eternal that God offers through faith exclusively in Christ.
BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – “You are Psychotic!”
*** Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the episodes described. ***
The captain encounters the doctor, whom he had just caught in Inara’s shuttle. Simon was trying to find any medicine that Inara had, so that he could help Kaylee, who had been shot in the stomach. Mal mentions the federal agent that shot Kaylee, and asks if Simon knows what they should do to the agent if Kaylee dies. Simon simply admits, “I don’t.”
Mal suggests, “Comes time, someone’s gonna have to deal with him. That should be you, but I don’t think you got the guts.” And then after an uncomfortable beat, Mal finishes: “And I know you don’t have the time.”
Now, Simon is suddenly and legitimately confused. The doctor innocently queries, “What do you mean?”
Mal looks at Simon blankly, and dispassionately utters, “Kaylee’s dead.”
When I first watched this scene from the episode “Serenity,” I wasn’t sure if my eyes were going blurry from the shock of this, or if I was getting teary, or if it was the camera work, or all of the above. They had already introduced several villains and dangerous situations in the pilot episode of Firefly. And they had already positioned Kaylee as a core member of the crew, and it was unimaginable that they would kill off this sweet, young mechanic in the first episode rather than killing one of the bad guys instead. I wasn’t sure if I was believing what I was seeing!
But the scene was so somber, so moody, so believable. Simon hurries through the ship, leaping down toward the infirmary in dramatic, slow motion. Is it really too late? Is Kaylee really dead? He comes to the infirmary door, and sees Kaylee sitting up in the bed, talking cheerily to Shepherd Book. She then waves sweetly at Simon looking in on her. Simon turns to look back up the stairs, realizing that he had just been the victim of a tasteless joke: “The man’s psychotic.”
The scene cuts to the other end of the ship: in the compact bridge, Mal has just regaled Zoe, Wash and Jayne with the story of the prank he pulled on Simon. They are all laughing hysterically, a jarring contrast to the sober and slow-motion scene of Simon hurrying futilely through the ship. Wash turns to Mal and, not realizing that he is echoing Simon’s declaration, says with some admiration, “You are psychotic!”
You can watch this disturbing and hysterical scene here.
Zoe turns to Mal and asks, “And Kaylee’s really okay?” Mal pulls himself together. “Yeah,” he says. And then: “Tell the truth, I didn’t expect her to heal this quick. Doctor knows his trade, I’ll give him that,” which is a strange praise in light of the ruthless prank he had just pulled on the doctor.
By the way, I recently saw the pilot episode of The Office which also contained a prank. This one was uncomfortable, and even painful, appropriate to the awkwardness of the show, but it didn’t really tell us anything about Michael Scott’s character that we didn’t already know. This darker and more dire prank in the pilot episode of Firefly is far more hilarious, but it is also far more insightful in that it betrays a side of Mal that we may not have been able to guess at.
Second only to a guy getting kicked through Serenity’s engines in the second episode “The Train Job” (or, the first episode that was originally aired), this brilliant and psychotic scene really shows us how Firefly is not going to be your typical run-of-the-mill science-fiction show. More so than any iteration of Star Trek, or BSG, or Stargate, Firefly demonstrated the raw and savage side of space, and showed us character chemistry, depth of plots, and ferocious wit that took us where no sci-fi show had gone before.
This moment also portrayed the protagonist crafting a childish deception and brutal prank that we’re not used to seeing in a sci-fi hero. We don’t expect this kind of behavior from Luke Skywalker, Captain Picard, or Dr. McCoy. Here in the pilot, you see that you’re not getting your run-of-the-mill captain, but a very complicated, and darkly funny individual, instead. In fact, he admits what few others would; right after he finished laughing in this scene, Firefly’s main protagonist confesses, “I’m a bad man.” He is someone who is both pleasant and diplomatic, but also a bit twisted and contorted.
This savage humor is echoed in the episode “Bushwhacked.” Seeing the hilarity that ensued, Jayne also pulls a prank on Simon, fooling him into putting on a space suit before boarding a derelict ship, only to find out that he didn’t need it. In fact, Simon finds out that he had put the suit on wrong, which would have been a fatal flaw if he really did need it. Jayne’s prank doesn’t quite get the same response from the crew that Mal’s gag did, but it showed that this pattern of acerbic tension between crew members was going to be a vital part of this show. In fact, that kind of friction would make this show far more realistic and appealing than most shows.
At some point, too, a Firefly fan realizes that the prank that Mal pulls on Simon is broader than the two of them. In fact, it was really a prank that Joss pulled on us, the viewers! For just a few seconds he brought us into Simon’s thinking, hopeless and helpless, shocked at the premature nature of Kaylee’s death, only to have us realize, along with Simon, that this “death” was just a psychotic gag. There would be other deaths that take place later in this franchise that are also sudden and unexpected, but which, unfortunately, would lack a funny punchline.
Yet, for all of this, we don’t think of Joss as malicious. Rather than being angered at the gag, it endeared us to the show, to the characters, and even to Joss, all the more.
In the end, this psychotic scene is a moment that endears us to a new kind of sci-fi and a new kind of TV writing, which, to date, has never been surpassed.
DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 5, Worship is Intellect and Emotion
This article originally appeared in the January 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper and is presented here with minor corrections.
This series of articles on worship has attempted to demonstrate that a Biblical definition of worship is not an exact point but rather, the balance between several continuum. Biblical worship is a balance between worship directed toward the Father and toward the Son; it is exclusively for God but it benefits man; it is both a liturgy and a lifestyle. In this installment, we will investigate how worship is portrayed in Scripture as involving both the intellect and the emotions; maintaining equilibrium between them is critical.
A key verse for balancing the cognitive elements of worship with the emotive aspects of worship is in John 4. While worship includes the genuineness of the act, it also includes the presence of truth. This is consistent with Christ’s assertion to the woman at the well, whose deficient understanding of worship He is eager to correct (v. 22). Specifically, the woman associates worship with a place. This is not necessarily an unfounded presupposition, as, generally, corporate worship in the Old Testament was confined to a particular location (Ex 3:12; 1 Sam 1:3; 15:31; 2 Sam 12:20; 15:8, 32; Ezra 7:19; Ps. 99:9; Is 27:13). This understanding is carried out to a certain extent in the New Testament (Luke 2:37; Acts 24:11; Rom 9:4; Rev 11:1).
Christ reorients her thinking to the fact that God seeks those who will worship Him “in spirit and in truth” (vv. 23-24). In this instance, “spirit” does not refer to the third member of the Trinity, but rather to the human spirit (see Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p 675, 3b). This sincerity, which includes the emotive and volitional components of a human being is what is required for the “true” worshiper. “The combination ‘spirit and truth’ points to the need for complete sincerity and complete reality in our approach to God” (Leon Morris, John, p. 239). The two words are joined by hendiadys, as are “grace” and “truth” in John 1:17, which shows that these are not two separate categories but two mutually dependent elements of worship; truth without sincerity is rigid ritualism, and sincerity without truth is sappiness. The Greek word dei (meaning, “it is necessary”) in verse 24 shows that these elements are not desired, but demanded. Sincerity (“in spirit”) and reality (“in truth”) are compulsory requirements for true worship.
The Psalms also demonstrate that worship is holistic, integrating body, mind and emotion. They express external objective truths about God and emotional elements from individuals to produce volitional and ethical responses by God’s people. Words like “joy” and “gladness” (Ps 5:11; 32:11; 92:4) are both emotionally laden, but those emotions are based on objective realities regarding God’s character, redemption and blessings. These emotions related to joy, penitence, relief and frustration lead to decisions of trust and attitudes and actions of faith. This balance of intellect and emotions stands in sharp contrast to the intellectual dearth of many modern worship songs. This balance also contrasts both the emotional excess or, conversely, absence in many modern worship services.
The struggle to find balance between intellect and emotion in the music of the church is not an easy one and it is not a new one. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) similarly struggled with the tensions between text, music, emotion and passion in the corporate worship of his day. He declared that he enjoyed the use of music in services, which he calls, “sound to which [God’s] message gives life” and especially “when they are sung with a good and well-trained voice” (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. E. M. Blaiklock, 271). However, Augustine was constantly concerned about the danger of being too emotionally gripped by the melodies of the songs. He continues:
For at times I seem to give them more honor than is proper, sensing that our minds are more devoutly and fervently inflamed in devotion by the holy words themselves when they are sung this way than when they are not. I notice that the different emotions of my spirit, by their sweet variety, have their appropriate expressions in the voice and singing, but some hidden relationship which stirs them up. But gratification of my flesh, which must not be allowed to take control over my mind, often beguiles me. My feelings do not serve reason, so as to follow it patiently, but after having gained admission for the sake of reason, strive to grab the reins and take the lead. Thus in these things I sin without knowing, but realize it afterwards. . . . When I happen to be more moved by the singing than by what is being sung, I confess that I have sinned gravely (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. Hal M. Helms, 217-18, emphasis mine).
He admits, on the other hand that sometimes he reacts too strictly, “wishing to have every melody of sweet music to which David’s Psalter is often sung banished both from my ears and from the Church itself” (p. 217). But in response to this he realizes the “great usefulness” of setting truth to music, “so that the weaker minds may rise to the feeling of devotion by the delight of the ears” (p. 218). By way of balance he conveyed to his readers the wisdom of Athanasius, the prominent Bishop of Alexandria: “He made the reader of the psalm utter it with such a slight inflection of the voice that it was more like speaking than singing” (p. 217). For Augustine, this solution was better than being unnecessarily distracted in one way or another by the use of music in worship on one hand, and ridding the church of music altogether on the other.
Closer to our own time, the insights of worship guru Don Hustad regarding excessive emotionalism in worship are pertinent:
I get the sense that emotion is used not as a means of expression but of manipulation. For example, praise-and-worship singing that seems to be spontaneous actually follows a predictable progression. Often it begins moderately and increases in tempo, rhythm, and volume over a period of perhaps thirty minutes; at that point, usually the music is hushed, when, with quiet singing or in silence, the Holy Spirit “takes over” and worshipers experience the climax of intimacy with God. In a charismatic service, that is the time when supernatural phenomena, especially speaking in tongues, occur. In this progressive experience, the worship leader (the central figure in the praise band) is very important. Apparently, the leader is authorized and expected to lead the entire congregation “into the presence of God” (Hustad, True Worship [1998], pp. 98-99).
Hustad comments later in his book:
Though individual praise choruses may function excellently in specific “response” situations, I am convinced that the typical, prolonged, charismatic praise-and-worship “experience” (like the old-fashioned revival song service) is an emotional musical “binge” that is inappropriate for mature, cognitive worship. The traditional approach that allows a congregation to sing multiple stanzas of well-written texts that express, praise thanksgiving, penitence, dedication, and petition at appropriate places throughout the service is much better. If that practice succumbs to contemporary musical emotionalism today, the church will beg for its return tomorrow! (202).
In summary, author Christopher Shelt warns against, “Imbalances in singing such as dead orthodoxy or mindless emotionalism” (“Toward a Biblical Theology of Music in Worship,” Reformed Theological Review 55, no. 2 [1996]: p. 70). Churches must seek balance, and avoid the emotional excess as well as the emotional absence that contaminates many Sunday morning services.
A church worship service should be authentic without feeling sappy; it should be of high performance quality without seeming “canned”; it should be joyful and personable without being hype-driven. Most importantly, the songs, the sermons, the readings and the recitations should all burst with Biblical content and substance. Worship that is in spirit and in truth is concerned for authentic spirituality as well as doctrinal veracity.
MOMENTOUS MOMENTS: The Showdown at Canossa, 1077
How do you humble a man who has everything in this life? Well, you threaten to take away his afterlife!
I’ve always found the showdown at Canossa to be a funny episode despite the bad theology and the momentous implications that it contained. But sometimes, it is that precise mixture of serious and silly that makes some historical events so fun!
The issue of the authority of the papacy was not new to Martin Luther or his other reforming associates in the early 1500s. Understanding the rise of papal authority throughout the medieval period and up to the early modern period is helpful to place the Reformation’s discussions about clerical corruption and indulgences in a broader context.
Several events that occurred during the medieval period demonstrated the virtually uncontested power of the popes. One of the most significant moments in this process is when the pope crowned Charles Magnus (Charlemagne) as the first Holy Roman Emperor in the year 800. This was a powerful statement that reverberated throughout Europe for centuries regarding the power of church authorities over secular authorities, even an authority as significant as the Holy Roman Emperor.
Other events during the medieval period demonstrate the frightening and imbalanced power of the papal office. The East-West Schism of 1054 was the formal split between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches in eastern Europe. While there were a variety of reasons for this split, including political and theological reasons, one of the main concerns that Eastern churches had was the growing power of the pope.
Another incident is significant around this time. In 1095, the pope proclaimed the first European Crusade against the Muslims for the purpose of freeing Jerusalem of Muslim rule. This was, perhaps in part, motivated by an effort to re-legitimize papal authority after 1054. The ability of the pope to utilize secular kings and emperors, and to leverage spiritual motivations in order to commission and send an army, was significant.
That a pope would leverage spiritual reasons to wield authority over secular leaders can be demonstrated from the showdown at Canossa in 1077. Pope Gregory VII leveled a series of criticisms at Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV focusing on the latter’s use of simony, or allowing people to buy offices and positions. In turn, Henry IV held a meeting at Worms, and began to make plans to depose Gregory VII from his papal position.
This power-match could have lasted for a while, except that Gregory VII decided to play his most powerful papal card: excommunication. While secular leaders can make a variety of threats, and historically, they often carried out those threats quite efficiently, no secular threat rose to the level of eternal condemnation. As Roman Catholic theology progressed throughout the medieval period, excommunication was increasingly seen not merely as excluding someone from the church, but also excluding them from the ability to enter heaven, as well.
The pope was seen as someone who was in a direct spiritual lineage down from Apostle Peter himself. Roman Catholic theology also alleges that Christ had given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” to Peter (Matthew 16:19), a claim Protestantism denies. Nonetheless, Roman Catholicism asserted that all who subsequently held the papal office, also held those keys, and, thus, the power of excommunicating someone and denying them eternal life in heaven. And that is exactly the tool Gregory used against Henry.
Pope Gregory VII’s declaration was: “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by the power and authority of Saint Peter, and for the defense and honor of the church, I place King Henry under interdict, forbidding him to rule in any of the kingdoms of Germany or Italy. I also free from their oaths any who have sworn or would swear loyalty to him. And I forbid that he should be obeyed as king” (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, 287). Gregory denied Henry both access to heaven and his authority on earth.
Henry quickly realized that he had run out of secular options. He traveled over the Alps to Gregory’s winter residence in Canossa, Italy. Gregory allegedly made Henry wait outside in the snow barefoot for three days before allowing him to enter. Gregory finally absolved Henry, but the statement had been made loud and clear: the church and the pope have weapons that go far beyond the terrestrial power of any emperor or monarch.
Again, these concerns about increased authority of the pope were at part of the Reformers’ concerns in the early 1500s. However, there were many others that expressed these concerns in the centuries spanning the medieval period. The heightening of papal power and concerns about clerical corruption caused some to believe that there would be an Angelic Pope that would rise and rid the church of its internal corruption. Of course, by the eleventh century, some were beginning to think that the popes were more like the Antichrist figure of Revelation.
Even today, people have concerns about religious or political leaders who seem to amass too much authority and influence. The kind of muscle-flexing that took place at the showdown at Canossa demonstrates how legitimate those concerns can be.
WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: The Myth of the Angelic Language
I have been on this bandwagon for a while, not because I am trying to vilify charismatics, but because I have a passion for the clear exposition of Scripture. I don’t like it when I see poor exegesis or theology on either side of an argument, mine or anyone else’s.
But, the charismatic vs. cessationist debate is one of the fuzzier discussions, lacking a clear silver-bullet verse on one side or the other. I have laid out many arguments for the cessationist side, or the idea that sign gifts (tongues, miracles, healings) are no longer given to the church today, and you can see more of those articles from The Eclectic Kasper here.
One of the arguments made in favor of the continuation of tongues and miraculous gifts is the presence of angelic languages. Allegedly, the use of angelic or other unknown languages verify that people can use the gift of tongues today.
But did Paul or any other Biblical writer promote the existence or the use of angelic languages? We will start by looking at a few verses that insinuate that there is a separate celestial language and then note how passages describe tongues as being known, human languages.
The most direct reference to an angelic language is the phrase “tongues of men and of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1. In this verse, Paul mentions the languages or “tongues” of men, and Acts 2 demonstrates that there were a variety of human languages used at Pentecost. The addition of “angels” is probably poetic and hyperbolic; that is, Paul is not here necessarily formulating nor asserting a doctrine that there is a special angelic language. If acting as messengers is one of the primary functions of angels, what good would it be for the messengers to speak a different language than the people to whom they deliver messages?
A few things to keep in mind regarding these opening verses of 1 Corinthians 13: First, some things that Paul says in these first few verses are hyperbolic; he is overstating to make the point that if someone knows all languages and all mysteries and gives all his possessions to the poor, but does not have love, then his efforts are futile. Or imagine a person who was gifted by the Holy Spirit by being conversant in every kind of language known; even this gift, ability, and ministry advantage would not make up for a lack of love. Many people are great evangelists, preachers, teachers, authors; but those gifts and the status that comes with them does not justify them ministering and interacting without Christian love and basic decency.
Another thing to remember is that 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 are not trying to assert doctrines about angels, or mysteries, or feeding the poor. Paul is bending over backward to point to the importance of love in the church. Therefore, we should beware of placing too much weight on some of the hyperbolic things that Paul says here and we should be careful of formulating doctrines from these kinds of rhetorical statements.
Other passages are offered as evidence for the validity of separate angelic languages. Paul describes how he had a vision of the heavenlies in 2 Corinthians 12, and how he “was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (v. 4). The word “inexpressible” here is arretos; this is a form of the word r(h)ema, meaning “word,” “saying,” or “matter,” prefixed with an “a-” of negation. That is, the word points to the issue of not being able or permitted to express a statement, not to the problem of not being able to understand it because it is in a different or in a celestial language. There are other places where someone hears a heavenly message, and understands it, but is not permitted to relay it (Dan 8:26; 12:4; Rev 10:4).
There is a further problem here for an individual who insists that we can use angelic languages. Even if it could be proven that there is a separate language used by angels, it does not necessarily follow that people can speak in these tongues today; proving the first part doesn’t prove the second part. In fact, I am inclined to suppose that perhaps there are different languages used by angels, even though, as argued above, I believe that Paul is being more rhetorical in 1 Corinthians 13:1. But what good would it be if those languages were available to people? What would it prove if nobody else understood or could interpret them (1 Cor 14:28; see also v. 5).
Also, we have to investigate the phrase “kinds of tongues” used in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and again in v. 28. The phrase “kinds of languages” is used in 14:10, and that verse explicitly states that none of those languages “is without meaning.” To the extent that “kinds of languages” and “kinds of tongues” is synonymous, we must assume that the “kinds of tongues” that Paul is referring to here in 1 Cor 12:10 and 28 are known and identifiable languages. This, again, comports with the use of tongues elsewhere in Scripture (Acts 2:4-11; see also Acts 10:46).
In summary of the Biblical data, an unknown, magical, or made-up language cannot be a language that comes from the Holy Spirit; neither can one that purports to come from angels. If someone claims that they are using an angelic language, chances are that it comes from either self-delusion, or else it comes from demons instead.