Welcome to the January 2026 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. This edition represents fifteen years of online articles, as we released our first edition of our other online effort, The Eclectic Kasper, in January 2011. By the way, we are working to make those editions available again after they got messed up by Google, and we’ll keep you updated on our progress.
This month, we continue to discuss the book of Romans, and C. S. Lewis’ Trilemma. We explore a Mozart Rondo, and we consider some new and old movie tropes that we’re tired of. All this and more here in the January 2026 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal.
We’re going to try to do a better job in 2026 to release more content, and to post more on our Facebook page. We would love to have you give the FB page a “like,” and you can get updates and comment on posts there.
ROMANS: Is the Law Bad? Romans 7:12-13
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful (Romans 7:12-13, NASB).
Do you want a society with more rules or less? Do laws help limit behavior and do punishments serve as a legitimate deterrent?
We could aim these queries at the Mosaic Law in the Bible, and really even the entire Old Testament: Is the Law good or bad? Can we learn from it or are we completely free from any aspect of it? Does law make us more righteous and better people?
There are manifold issues here, and Paul addresses many of them in Galatians and Romans; Romans 7:12-13 give us some insight into these questions, as well.
In Romans 6-7, Paul discussed some of the challenges of being believers who have “newness of life” (6:4), and who are “no longer slaves to sin” (6:6). However, sin keeps pulling us in, and we continue to sin in our flesh and we suffer the effects of doing so (6:21-23). Part of the problem is that the Law arouses our sinful passions (7:5), and yet, the Law is not sinful (7:7). Rather than having a general sense of what is morally right or wrong, the Law specifies God’s expectations, which is good; yet, seeing these specifics sometimes arouses a defiance within us and excites in us a desire to do evil (7:5, 8, 10).
So we are left with this complicated relationship with laws in general or with the Old Testament Law specifically. Are our bad decisions the result of having laws imposed on us and can we blame both human and divine law-givers for provoking evil within us? If so, it would seem that the law and those law-givers are themselves evil. Should we try to legislate morality? From whence comes this evil that laws or the Law tries to control, but only ends up provoking that evil within us?
Paul’s point starting back from Romans 7:7 is to absolve the Law of blame for human sin, and this should be our starting point, as well. Of course, Paul is referring here to Mosaic Law, or what we may call the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), or the Torah; however some of these principles may translate to our relationship to laws in our own contexts. But in any situation, the fault is not with Moses, or God, or the commandments in the Bible, or laws today; the problem is with sin that comes from within each human being. Laws and commandments themselves are not sin, but they elicit and enliven sin in fallen human beings (and again, Paul discusses this in Romans 7:7-9; also, see our article “Why Sin is So Sinister” from the April 2025 edition).
Having demonstrated in the previous passage that the Law should not be blamed for sin, Paul here in v. 12 finishes this section by describing the law. This passage uses two different words to refer to divine regulations. The word “law” is nomos, which is usually the way the NT refers to Mosaic Law, or in general to divine law or instructions; but again, much of what is said here applies to the whole Old Testament. The word “commandment” is entole, and refers more to individual requirements or instructions from the Law. This verse asserts that both the Law in its entirety as well as the individual precepts of the Law are right, and inspired, and from God.
The word hagios, “holy,” is used twice in v. 12. The Law is holy because it is from a holy God and prescribes how we can be holy and different. The commandment – including the Law, and the whole Old Testament – is also dikaia or “righteous” and agathe or “good,” being the moral and holy expectations of God. While many of the dietary, legal, and ritual aspects of the law are no longer in force, the morality embedded in the Law and the Old Testament continues to reflect the holiness and expectations of God.
A few months ago, I was preaching through Romans 8, and Paul mentions in 8:3 that the law is “weak.” This seems to be at odds with what Paul says in 7:12 about the law being holy and good. In studying this, I determined that these seemingly-mixed messages that we get about the Law from NT writers are actually harmonious assertions depending on the context.
Sometimes the Law is seen as a good thing, whereas sometimes it is portrayed as weak, and as a hindrance. Some today have even gone so far as to demand a greater separation from the Law and from the Old Testament in general, such as Andy Stanley’s infamous “unhitched” comment in 2018. In a sermon called “Not Difficult” from April 29, 2018, Stanley asserted quite intentionally and read or paraphrased some disturbing sentences on the monitor next to him, which said that “The Old Testament was not the go-to source regarding any behavior in the church.” Also, first century church leaders “unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish Scriptures.” Later Stanley echoed what was said on the monitor when it asserted that “Peter, James, and Paul, elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures,” and Stanley went on to add, “And my friends, we must as well.”
Stanley is way off in his assessment here, however, it does seem like we get some mixed messages in the NT about the OT, and especially about the OT Law. In trying to explain this while journeying through Romans 8, I divided the overall assessment from NT writers about the law into the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The “good” way to frame OT Law is to recognize that the law provides a reflection of God’s character and a provision of God’s expectations; we see that here in 7:12, for instance, but that assessment is evident in other passages, as well (1 Tim 1:8). Even though believers are not bound to the Law under Christ the way OT believers were before Christ, we can still learn a tremendous amount about God and His moral expectations from the Old Testament, and especially from the Pentateuch, or the Law.
The “bad,” however, is that in terms of turning away God’s wrath and preventing human condemnation, the Law is weak and ineffective; it can condemn, but it cannot save. The flesh, too, cannot save, but is riddled with sin that leads to death; the greatest most noble works of humanity could not merit salvation. Similarly, the Law cannot save, and humanity is completely incapable of saving itself or of contributing anything helpful or valuable to its own salvation.
The “ugly,” then, is that when fallen human beings encounter law, we find out two things about ourselves, and they’re both hideous. First, we find out how much we need law. We drift toward anarchy and antinomianism, thinking that we can control ourselves, when in reality, we can’t. Also, Law doesn’t always suppress sin in us, but often excites sin; again, Paul specifically describes that the Law points out sin and even prompts disobedience in the flesh (7:7-11). We are so morally rotten that the laws of God only excite in us a desire to break those laws, like a hand wanting to reach out and touch a bench that has a “Wet Paint: Do Not Touch” sign on it. Sanctification and life in the Spirit make us more inclined to obey when we encounter God’s laws and less interested in defying them.
Paul wants to head off another objection in 7:13, namely, the sense that the Law became a means of death, rather than a tool for obedience. He had just in the previous passage described how sin was enlivened by the commandments of the law; to the extent that sin then killed the individual, it seems that the law is complicit with sin leading to death. However, Paul asserts the folly of this reasoning with a strong reaction: “May it never be!”
Paul says that sin in us produced death when “the good,” that is, the law, enlivened sin in us. In fact, through the law, or by means of the law, sin became exceedingly sinful. The word huperbole, means “surpassing” or of “outstanding quality,” and we get the word “hyperbole” from it. The law didn’t defeat sin, but clarified what was sinful; before we may have vaguely recognized right from wrong, but the law shows us just how wrong sin really is, and even how holy God is. In this process, sin becomes “exceedingly sinful.” And again, it is not that the sin actually becomes morally worse, but that we perceive sin to be worse with the Law than we would have known it to be without the Law. Paul says that when seen in light of the Law, sin can rightly be perceived as exceedingly sinful, harmful, and fatal.
The law, as it turns out, is not a bad thing, nor is it sin (v. 7), nor is it a means of death (v. 13). Rather it is a way of sharpening moral ambiguity that sometimes occurs without law. In an age where abortion, corruption, and promiscuity are rampant, the Law and the Old Testament, though not at all points binding today, continues to illustrate God’s holiness and to clarify moral expectations for humanity. The Old Testament continues to inform us of how to live optimally and how to please God as we strive to be more like Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Why Are We So Anxious Today? A Christian Perspective
In the October 2025 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal, we discussed the pandemic of anxiety that has swept across our society in the last few decades. You can see our two articles about this from that edition here and here.
I purposely broke this article addressing the question of cultural anxieties down into different parts; those first two articles approached the idea of anxiety from a secular or cultural perspective, and this article will approach it from a Christian perspective. Of course, both sides have some good ideas for understanding why there is so much anxiety and how we can deal with stress. But ultimately, my worldview dictates that Christianity has the highest, best, and most satisfying answers to these questions.
First, why is there so much stress? We have been taught an evolutionary model our whole lives, but that model goes beyond biology, and intended to paint a vision of a world that was moving toward human improvement and maybe even perfection. However, that is not our lived reality. Not only do we not see bodies and species getting better as far back as we can track them, but we don’t really see noticeable improvement in societies and between people groups, either. We are grateful for improvements in science, technology, and medicine, but that doesn’t mean that people are getting better. That Enlightenment and evolutionary notion of human improvement doesn’t resonate with reality.
The Christian worldview, however, does indeed note that many things will get worse, not better, as we move toward the consummation of this age. There will be more wars, more catastrophic events, more lies, and deceit (Matt 24:6-7 //Mark 13:7-8; 2 Thess 2:3, 11; 1 Tim 1:1-3; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Peter 3:3). Again, technological improvement is great, but many will use technology to make more destructive weapons, to create anxieties regarding identity theft and cyber security, and to propagate lies and mistruths. The capacities of technology may be improving, but that doesn’t mean that humanity is using it better. This alone creates more anxiety caused by increased falsehood, manipulation, and lawlessness, just as Scripture predicts (Matt 24:10-12; 2 Thess 2:10-12; Rev 13:14, 17; 18:10, 15).
And there is no way most of us are going to change this situation, but we do have to live in it. So how can we live in this fallen and sinful world in a way that minimizes anxiety and its effect on us? Here are a few thoughts on that from a Christian and Biblical perspective:
Worry About Today, Today
Many of us worry about retirement, and something dumb we did last month, and a presentation we have next week, and something embarrassing that happened when we were a teenager. We waste our bandwidth of concern on things we can’t change, and things that are too far away to merit concern and worry. Jesus’ best teaching on anxiety is in Matthew 6:25-34, but a great summary of this passage is v. 34: “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” In fact, we have an article called “Overcoming Anxiety,” discussing Matthew 6:25-34 from the October 2021 edition; you may want to give that a quick read, as well.
However, we still need to plan and prepare. You may have a paper due in two weeks or a presentation for work due next week. We plan and work on something today, but we don’t have to worry about it, and the more effectively we work on it today, the less we will have to worry about it later.
Also, it is helpful to figure out what tasks you need do today, and which ones can wait until tomorrow; maybe write out a list of things that you need to do this week, but then check mark the tasks you want to do today. Then, just focus on those, and don’t worry about the other tasks. I am not advocating for procrastination when it comes to tasks, but I am encouraging you to procrastinate when it comes to anxiety. Don’t worry about tomorrow’s tasks and tomorrow’s burdens today. Be concerned about planning and preparing today, and that will minimize the stress that you will have to finish and complete your tasks tomorrow.
Give Your Anxieties to Christ
Its one of the sweetest verses in Scripture, but it is also helpful to push past the sentimentality and embrace the reality of it: 1 Peter 5:7 says “Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you” (NIV). This means that we pray about the things that we are worried about and ask Christ to carry those burdens for us. But then, having done so, we should make the mental decision to not continue to worry about things we don’t need to worry about.
Continuing to worry unnecessarily about things after we have given them to Christ means that we either don’t trust Christ, or that we never really gave those concerns to Him in the first place!
Our relationship with Christ does not completely remove that impulse to worry and it does not relieve all our anxieties in an anxious world. But it does give us answers, such as knowing that the difficulties we face are working toward a greater good and a greater joy. It gives us comfort, when nothing on earth will; Christ gives us a peace that “surpasses all understanding” (Phil 4:7; see also Isaiah 26:3; John 14:27; Col 3:15). The Christian faith also reminds us that the difficulties that we go through and the problems that we worry about are far more fleeting than we realize: “For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17; see also Romans 8:18; 1 Peter 4:13).
Focus on Glorifying God
Most people are anxious about a presentation, a performance, or even interactions that they have with people on a daily basis. Anxiety requires us to be too focused on what people think about us, when we should be concerned about what we and what people think about God. First Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” We glorify God when we are less worried about ourselves and what others think about us, and we are more focused on pleasing God (2 Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; 1 Thess 2:4; 1 John 3:22).
So, strive for excellence and do your best; you can’t really do better than that. If you give a presentation, or play a game, and if you do your best, then you really don’t have anything to worry about.
Prayer and Bible Study
I know that sounds a bit arcane, but there is nothing better for our spiritual lives, and perhaps, our mental stability than prayer and Bible study. Prayer quiets our hearts and lives, and focuses us on our loving heavenly Father. Bible study reminds us that many people have gone through difficulties, and that our problems are not unique nor unprecedented. Scripture helps us see God’s will, which is helpful. It exposes us to majestic truths and doctrines, which are anchoring. It fills us with wisdom and gratitude, which is necessary for spiritual growth and mental health.
And remember, anxiety is not a condition, but it is a choice; you decide whether to allow your thoughts to drift toward things that you are anxious about. Make the mature decision to think about other things, like choosing thanksgiving to God, and productivity for Him, and service to others, and having a joyful attitude. Doing just a few of these simple things will help you be less anxious and more happy!
APOLOGETICS: Testing the Trilemma, Part 3: A Special Kind of Crazy
See our first two articles about Lewis’ Trilemma from the October 2025 edition, including “Part 1: Background and Biblical Claims” and “Part 2: Was Jesus a Liar?”
We are continuing to explore C. S. Lewis’ Trilemma, that is, his three options based on Jesus Christ’s own claims to be God; Lewis asserted that the only options are that Jesus could be a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Lewis believed that these are the only three choices, and that these choices are mutually exclusive, that is, we can’t select two options, or part of one and a bit of another.
The Trilemma has come under some scrutiny lately; some have questioned the validity of these options, and others have questioned whether these three are the only options.
Just to refresh your memory, we will reproduce Lewis original quote from Mere Christianity where he discusses those who evaluate Jesus’ claims to be divine:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse” (p. 54).
And again, I will issue my thanks to Dr. Donald T. Williams, who is a C. S. Lewis scholar at Toccoa Falls Bible College. Dr. Williams has a chapter in his 2023 work Answers from Aslan: The Enduring Apologetics of C.S. Lewis where he revisits and discusses Lewis’ Trilemma.
We wrote an article introducing the Trilemma here, and we discussed that option of Jesus being a liar here. So we will go ahead and discuss the option that Jesus was crazy.
Lunatic
The question isn’t blasphemous nor irreverent. In fact, I think that good theology has an obligation to ask the difficult questions, to challenge exegetical systems with Scripture and logic, to explore all the options, and to imagine possibilities that may seem uncomfortable. And again, we are not asserting that Jesus was crazy or delusional, but just assessing whether there was some measure of delusion in Jesus’ self-evaluation.
Lewis recognized, as any honest Bible reader would, that Jesus clearly claimed to be fully divine, and fundamentally God, such as in John 5:17, 8:58; 10:30, and Rev 22:13. Other NT authors clearly agreed with this assessment (John 1:1-3; Col 1:15-17; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 6; 1 John 5:20). Lewis’ point, however, is that for someone to assert that He is God, he would either have to be knowingly lying, or delusional, or else He is truly God as He claims to be.
I like to use this analogy: You are out on a walk in the park, and you sit down on a park bench. You strike up a conversation with an individual on the other end of the bench, an otherwise normal looking individual. The conversation becomes quite intriguing, and you are amazed at the other individual’s insights into politics, philosophy, and life in general. A half-hour goes by quickly, and you realize you have to go even though you are thoroughly enjoying the conversation. But before you go, you ask for the gentleman’s name. The gentleman stands up, puts his fingers into his button-down shirt, and declares, “I’m Napoleon.”
Of course, this individual may have made some astute points, but his credibility as a “great teacher” is profoundly undermined by the fact that he is completely deceived about his own identity, such that he thinks that he is Napoleon.
And that is just one individual confusing himself with another person, even if a great or well-known person. Imagine how self-delusional you would have to be to confuse yourself with God! Dr. Williams cleverly points out, “One who wrongly believes that he is Napoleon has only confused himself with another finite human being” (Answers from Aslan, 99). Williams quotes Peter Kreeft regarding the degree of this delusion: “A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are” (quoted in Answers from Aslan, 100). Kreft continues by saying, “To believe that one is Yahweh [that is, the God of the Bible] differs from all other such mistaken claims by an order of magnitude that is . . . well, infinite” (quoted in Answers from Aslan, 100). This delusion is so great that it would undermine one’s standing as a teacher or a moral leader, even if he did have some insightful things to say.
In summary, confusing oneself with another human being like Napoleon or George Washington is bad enough to erode our credibility and certainly undermines any status we could have as a religious leader. But to confuse oneself with God, the Almighty Creator, is a level of insanity that is completely incompatible with being a great moral teacher.
Erroneous Self-Perception
We will go ahead and slip in here what could be considered a post-modern criticism of Lewis’ Trilemma, and that is whether it is possible to be mistaken about one’s identity, but to still be a great teacher. To put it another way, we should consider whether Jesus could have thought that He was God, but not have been, which doesn’t necessarily make Him deceitful (lying to others) nor delusional (lying to Himself). Is mistaken self-identity incompatible with being a great teacher or moral leader?
I am sympathetic to this argument, but I still can’t escape the dilemma that if someone is mistaken about their self-identity, then this still means that they are either lying to others, or lying to themselves, or both. If someone can’t even be honest about their own identity, character, and status, then how can they be seen as a great moral leader? Dr. Williams quotes David A. Horner regarding the illogic of Jesus making wrong claims about Himself, but still being a great moral leader: “The factual claims in question are of cosmic, as well as supremely personal and existential, consequence” (quoted in Answers from Aslan on 98). To word it differently, How could Jesus make such broad sweeping claims about morality while simultaneously mistaking Himself to be God? Doesn’t the depth and profundity about the mistake regarding self-identity undermine the credibility of the moral teaching?
Jesus’ credibility is on the line; He could not be both a good moral teacher, but also a liar or a lunatic. He could not have claimed to be deity as He did several times in the NT, and have been mistaken about this claim, but still reasonably be considered a grand religious leader and moral sage.
In the previous article in this series we asked the question: “Could He [Jesus] have been delusional about His own identity, perhaps the victim of a Messiah-complex, but still have said some helpful things about religion and ethics?” You may be surprised to hear me say that I think that the answer to this question is “yes”; of course He could have said some helpful and interesting things even allegedly while He mistakenly appropriated a Messiah-complex.
But again, that is not the criticism that Lewis was addressing, nor the one that we hear today. People are not questioning whether Jesus said some meaningful things or not, but they are suggesting that Jesus was only a great moral teacher. The issue is not whether Jesus could have been delusional about His identity and still said some good things; the issue is whether being so profoundly confused about His identity is compatible with being a great moral teacher. No matter how much you want Jesus to be a wise sage, being a respectable moral leader is incompatible with the delusion of also thinking that you are fully and essentially God.
Unless, of course, Jesus’ claims about being God weren’t wrong nor the product of delusion. Perhaps Jesus claimed to be God because He really is God! But we’ll address that option more in the next article in this series.
MAGNIFICENT MOZART: Help Me, Rondo, Help, Help Me, Rondo
This is an “Eclectic Flashback” to an article from the July 2023 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal, presented here with minor modifications.
Good music is usually about a good melody, and Mozart is the master of the simple melody. At a time when composers were trying to impress with their Baroque complexity and ostentatious coloratura, Mozart provided simple and enduring melodies that continue to delight audiences today.
Like the Beach Boys song alluded to in the title (“Help Me, Rhonda” for anyone who didn’t get the pun!), the basic melody of Mozart’s Rondo in D. Major (KV 485) is catchy and playful. In fact, his Rondo in D Major is a workshop on all the different things you can do with a simple melody.
A rondo is a kind of song that tends to be lively and it focuses on a theme or melody. Mozart’s Rondo in D. Major is written just for piano, the speed is allegro, meaning moderately fast, and it lasts about seven minutes. You can listen to a good version of it here or here. The piece begins with the basic melody in D Major, starting from the fifth note of the scale and descending down to D. The first note is a half note, and the next two quarters each have a grace note attached to them, or a note played quickly before the main note; this injects a playfulness and lightness into the melody.
Mozart loves scales, and he ends the first half of the first section with a rapid descending and ascending scale in sixteenth notes that catapult the listener right back toward the melody. After a brief transition, the melody is resumed, but followed by a slightly different echo in the second measure; it is the same rhythm as before but the middle note drops down to a half step below the final note of the phrase, as though it is playfully scooping the melody back up to where it is supposed to land. But the melody in some form or another keeps being played in the first third of the song, sometimes, even being played by the left hand, and there is an option to repeat those first fifty-nine measures before proceeding.
The section after the repeat begins with the melody, but this time, it is being played on the A Major scale. Not only that, but it the second measure of the melody is echoed in slightly different forms two more times. A clever and playful riff sends us back to the melody, but playing it in G Major this time.
It is honestly difficult to explain all of the charming twists and turns that take place in the next page or two: the delightful tumult of measures 86 through 94, the haunting version of the melody played in a minor key starting in measure 103, and a section where the left hand once again champions different forms of the melody. But none of these variations ever make you feel like Mozart or you as the listener are lost. You feel like he is intentionally taking you on an exuberant ride and that there is a specific destination that he has in mind.
In the last page or two of this work we indeed careen toward that destination. The melody is resumed in B-flat Major, an odd choice, but it somehow sounds regal and ennobling. A few more scales and trills demonstrate that the song is nearing conclusion. And finally we are back to the melody. And after all that Mozart has done with this melody, the last few measures highlight the simplicity and delight of that original tune. And the song ends; it ends quietly, contentedly, and purposefully as though everything that Mozart wanted to do with the melody he has done, and there is simply nothing left to say. The entire piece is a charming ride that both begins and ends properly and intentionally.
My personal connection with this song is that it was the first one that I performed at a solo-and-ensemble competition in eighth grade. I was more nervous than I ever though I could be when I went up on the big imposing stage to be graded by three people sitting in a darkened audience. I played my heart out, even feeling at the end that I didn’t do too badly. However, I was given the lowest score available, and I think that the one judge who marched up to the stage and stood menacingly next to me would have made up new categories of failure for me if that were possible. His main, and apparently sole, criticism was that the grace notes in the melody should be played evenly like eighth notes. “That’s how Mozart intended them to be played,” the judge intoned sagaciously. He made me play the beginning of the song again, the “right” way, which I dutifully did, even though it sounded like it was very much lacking in Mozart’s playfulness. And for all that, they still gave me a low score.
Not to be a snob or a sore loser, but every rendition that I have ever heard of this song treats those grace notes in the melody like grace notes, and not eighth notes! Mozart’s playful melody beats a judge’s pomposity every time.
Despite that traumatic experience to my adolescent musicians’ psyche, it didn’t dull my enjoyment of this song, and I still take it out and play through it once in a while.
I invite you to listen to this song a few times and enjoy all of the amazing and brilliant things that Mozart does with a simple melody. Maybe this rondo will help bring you a bit of joy, and you, too, will experience the same delight that it has offered to me over the last few decades.
ECLECTIC BIBLE QUESTIONS: Was Saul a Believer?
We have investigated an interesting array of unusual Bible questions. For instance, we have considered the identity of the Nephilim in Genesis 6, whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and we discussed the fate of tribal people who have never heard the Gospel.
This question about the salvation of Saul is one that comes up with surprising frequency. I have wondered what motivates it. Of course, we are anxious to know who makes it into heaven and who does not. But another factor is that while we say we believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, we have a hard time believing that Christians can engage in the kinds of sins that we sometimes see in the Bible.
In our own experience, it is difficult to have any certainty about the salvation of a spiritually-ambiguous person, such as a moderate believer who is covered in tattoos, or who smokes, or who uses profanity an uncomfortable amount, or who roots for the Pittsburg Steelers (I grew up in Cleveland, so I just threw that last one in for fun!). What do we do with someone like King Saul who seemed at times to trust in God and to have meaningful spiritual experiences on one hand, but then had an anger problem and consulted a spiritist, on the other.
Saul’s gradual moral and political descent is recorded in 1 Samuel 8 to 19. I do not believe that his salvation status can or should be determined definitively. Many pagans end their life peacefully and well; alternatively, many believers ruin their own their lives, and yet are preserved for eternity. For instance, 1 Corinthians 3:15 acknowledges that someone can be saved even if they didn’t bear much fruit as a Christian: “If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (see also 1 Pet 1:4-5; Jude 1:23). More severely, 1 Timothy 1:19 warns that we should be “keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.”
First Sam 10:6-13 indicates that Saul had a conversion experience. He receives the Holy Spirit (if only temporarily), and he prophesied, though to be fair, Balaam, the villain of Numbers 22-24, also prophesied, but was certainly not a believer. Also, the text says that Saul was “changed into another man” (v. 6) and that “God changed his heart” (v. 9). These are evocative of terms that the NT uses for conversion such as being “made alive” (1 Cor 15:22; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13), or being a “new creature” or a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). On the other hand, perhaps these phrases about Saul merely signal a change in his demeanor or focus, and not an actual spiritual conversion. But it seems to me from these signals in the text that Saul did indeed trust in God and accept the revelation and provision that he had at that time.
But then things start going in the wrong direction for Saul, and much of this is the result of his own impatience and anger. The kingdom is ripped away from Saul because he didn’t wait for Samuel (1 Sam 13:7-14). But this, from my perspective, is more a judgment upon him as a king than as a believer. The author notes in 1 Samuel 14:37 that “Saul inquired of God, ‘Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will You give them into the hand of Israel?’ But He did not answer him on that day.”
Later on in 1 Sam 15:28-29, the author records God’s unalterable decision to take the kingdom away from Saul based on a series of foolish actions on Saul’s part. In ch. 16, God commands Samuel to anoint Saul’s successor, David. But again, these divine pronouncements seem to be more referendums on Saul’s leadership, but not statements about his salvation or lack of same.
The drama of the book of 1 Samuel is how legitimate authority shifts from Saul’s kingship to David’s rulership. Saul fails to recognize that David is God’s man, when even Saul’s successor, Jonathan, who would be the next king by conventional human custom, both recognizes David’s legitimate authority, but also befriends him. Also, Jonathan’s desire to befriend David under such awkward circumstances is in contrast to Saul’s desire to kill David, a situation which only reflects that much more poorly on Saul. First Samuel 19:10 comments, “Saul tried to pin David to the wall with the spear, but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, so that he stuck the spear into the wall. And David fled and escaped that night.”
In contrast to Saul’s homicidal rage, David has opportunities to kill Saul, but does not take advantage of them. In 1 Samuel 24, Saul entered into a cave “to relieve himself,” and this happened to be a cave where David and his troops were hiding (v. 3). Despite his men’s prompting, David elected not to kill Saul, but instead, cut off part of Saul’s robe acknowledging that Saul was still God’s chosen leader. The second time that David has a chance to kill Saul, the king and all his guards were asleep: “So David and Abishai came to the people by night, and behold, Saul lay sleeping inside the circle of the camp with his spear stuck in the ground at his head; and Abner and the people were lying around him” (1 Samuel 26:7). David’s decision to let Saul live demonstrates the contrast between the two; ironically, by respecting Saul as king, David verifies his own legitimacy and quality to be king one day.
These opportunities that Saul had to kill David sobered Saul, but only temporarily. Even those who are believers can do some really dumb things, and Saul continues in a downward trajectory of folly. Saul visits a spiritist or a medium, rather than appealing to God and His prophets for help and direction (1 Sam 28:8). After being wounded in battle, Saul takes his own life rather than trusting in God for protection and for the resolution of this conflict (1 Sam 31:4). Between these errors, and the anger and jealously that he exhibited toward David, we can clearly recognize that these are wrong and sinful, but I do not see how these negate salvation if Saul was indeed a believer.
My conclusion is that Saul was probably a believer, but one who allowed power and position to go to his head and consequently made poor decisions toward the end of his life. In fact, those bad decisions cost him his life, and epitomizes adages in Proverbs, such as, “The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death” (11:19), and, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (16:18).
This reminds us of the reality that we don’t like to admit, specifically, that even Christians can believe and do some really bad things. Paul excoriates the Galatians, though he still seems to believe that they are genuinely saved (Gal 1:6; 3:1). He notes that the Corinthian believers are worldly, fleshly, and immature, and yet he calls them “brethren”; he refers to them as infants, but concedes that they are “infants in Christ” (1 Cor 3:1-3). I am always fascinated by how the Biblical authors warn believers of being deceived; even believers who have received grace and truth can be misled and deceived, and even self-deceived (Matt 24:24; 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7; Eph 5:6; Jas 1:16; 1 John 1:8; 3:7). All of this is a reminder that, like Saul, Christians are not immune from believing lies, succumbing to anger or jealously, or from behaving in other ways that are contrary to our faith.
But the good news about this is that even if we do dumb things as Christians, there is forgiveness with God (1 John 1:9). Making bad decisions and exhibiting worldliness is, of course, not optimal for believers, but that does not compromise the fact that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ; no earthly deeds on our part or on the part of any one else can compromise our heavenly, eternal standing (John 10:27-29; 1 Pet 1:3-5).
I have ministered with many people over the years, some of whom made bad decisions or believed in wrong things. I have been on church staff with people who were serially jealous and who habitually made bad decisions. But, as bad as some of these individuals acted or reacted, I never questioned their salvation even at their worst; rather, we can see such believers as just immature, and we can glorify a God who justifies sinners like Saul, and like us.
MOVIES/ TV: More Movie Tropes We’re Tired of, Part 2
*** Spoiler Alert: This article contains some spoilers for the movies and TV shows discussed. ***
Back in the old web journal we wrote an article on movie tropes that we’re tired of. (Again, we’re trying to fix that old website and have those The Eclectic Kasper articles available again; we’ll keep you appraised of our progress!)
A “trope” is a plot device that is used commonly in a film or TV show. The problem is that some of these tropes are so good that they are overused, and appear in multiple movies in a short span of time. For instance, in that previous article, we mentioned “Deus Ex Machina” at the end of Independence Day or when the Eagles save the day at the end of two, and arguably, three of the Hobbit/ Lord of the Rings films. Another example is the “The Chitauri Effect” used in the end of the first Avengers film, but also at the end of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.
Sometimes these plot points work so well that other people decide to use them; consequently, we see them in several movies and then get tired of them. Sometimes you get the sense that these overused tropes are used again because the film makers don’t know how to move the plot forward or because they are not sure how to wrap the movie up. Sometimes, too, you wonder if film makers just use these recycled plot points because they’re being lazy. Either way, we’re tired of some of these tropes, and we feel like film makers should retire them, at least for a while.
Below is our latest installment of film tropes we’re tired of, and I’m confident that you’re probably tired of some of them, too.
“Let’s Split Up”
My son Luke and I have been watching several shows on Amazon; these are great shows, often better than anything they are putting out on the networks. But whether it is a spy thriller, a post-apocalyptic scenario, or a pure revenge situation, someone always says something like, “Let’s split up; you guys go that way, and we’ll go this way.”
Have these characters never watched TV before!? This tactic never goes well: the protagonist gets cornered, or someone on one of the other teams gets shot, or someone wearing a red shirt gets killed.
I know that our brave heroes want to want to cover more ground while they search for the bad guy or while they save the heroine. Or maybe they want to split up so they don’t all get caught together. But for all the times I’ve seen this used, I think that maybe it’s better if they all stick together; there really is power and safety in numbers. Splitting up always seems to go poorly. Which is kind of like the next trope . . .
“You can’t come with me; it’s too dangerous!”
The last time I noticed this trope was recently when we were watching Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker again. Toward the end of the movie, while gathered with the rebels, Ray says that she needs to go to Denagol, or Senegal, or Smeagol, or wherever; honestly, I had kind of lost interest by that point. But it was important to her that she had to go alone. Of course, going alone into a dangerous situation is an inherently stupid idea. The logic that I must do this alone or face the danger by myself is the kind of stupid that usually gets you killed.
This is not just a trope of bad movies, but we see it in good movies, too. In LOTR: The Return of the King, Aragorn meets with Elrond who urges him to take another route to Minas Tirith. Understanding what this means, Aragorn later tries to slip out unnoticed, but gets noticed by Gimli and Legolas. Aragorn insists that he must take the Dimholt road alone, but the dwarf and the elf counter that they will stick with him, even if he goes into the realm of the dead. Fortunately, Aragorn sees the sense of this; maybe he had watched several movies and recognized that he was about to fall prey to this tired film trope, too.
There are several reasons why this is a dumb trope that we’re tired of. First, we know that usually the entire group is going to go with the protagonist. While we like lone ranger characters, we also like when the protagonist brings her or his posse and when they all kick bad-guy buns together. But second, if it is dangerous, then don’t you want more people with you? Whether you are of the line of the Dúnedain, or a young lady just learning the force, it seems far better to make sure you invite your battle-tested friends and thus increase the potential for the success of your mission.
Retiring the Hero Persona
I’ll end by mentioning a trope that we addressed in that last article, but that we still see occasionally. We are tired of seeing when someone decides to abandon or retire their superhero persona. They are conflicted about their vigilante ego or because they are worried about jeopardizing the lives of those that they love. Unfortunately, many superhero franchises use this trope, often in the second or third installment of a series, such as in Superman 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Forever, and even in Ironman 3.
The problem is that the superhero never really abandons that superhero persona; we all know that they are going to come back to it later in the movie or in another movie. Also, we just don’t believe it; it is implausible that they would get rid of that superhero role. It’s like the meme that says: “Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman; then, always be Batman.” After everything that Peter Parker or Bruce Wayne invests in their alter ego, it is hard to believe that they would abandon it for any reason.
Stop using these tropes; we’re tired of them!
So what do you think of these tropes? Are you tired of them, too? Any other film plot devices that you think are overused? Let us know on our Facebook page and we’ll mention them in a follow-up article.
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. We will work on repairing access to these articles, and let you know about our progress on that front.
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.