Welcome to the November 2021 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal!

This month, we comment on the situation with Alec Baldwin and we continue our verse-by-verse survey through Romans. Also, we highlight a fun Renaissance-era band and we discuss whether the category of a “carnal Christian” is legitimate or not.

You don’t have to agree with every article or perspective in order to visit our Facebook page and give us a “like.” If you like the free exchange of ideas and civil discussions, then please give us a “like” and feel free leave a comment on any of our articles.

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

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Praying for Alec Baldwin

by Matt Kasper

It probably started as a day just like any other day. But we never know when we arise in the morning what kind of day we will have.

We certainly don’t expect that we would inadvertently kill somebody.

We often start off editions of the web journal with “NewsBytes,” some selected blurbs from events that have taken place in the previous month. I thought this time we could start by addressing this unfortunate episode with Alec Baldwin, who was involved in the accidental loss of life of another human being while on a movie set.

Mr. Baldwin and I couldn’t be more different in our politics and our worldview; he has said some horrible things about our side, and I have probably volleyed similar sentiments back onto his side.

But I feel horrible for him and heartbroken for him. We are praying for Alec and for what he is going through. If you think that this is a good time to poke at him or use this to forward your political or social agenda with a snarky comment or a cute meme, then you are what most people on both sides of the aisle recognize is wrong with this country.

On October 21, 2021, Baldwin was in New Mexico on the set of an upcoming movie named Rust. A prop gun Baldwin was using went off killing the director of photography and injuring the main director.

This is one of those instances where more information becomes somewhat irrelevant to how we respond. Was Alec horsing around with the gun? Why was the gun loaded with a live round? Did someone do this on purpose or was it an accident?

All these details are important in a legal sense, and I trust those more skilled than I to do their jobs and attend to these mysteries. However, none of those details change how miserable Alec must feel; none of them affect how others can respond with some compassion or at least civility to the misery of another human.

Whatever side of the aisle you are on, I think that any sane person can recognize Alec Baldwin didn’t wake up that morning hoping or plotting to fatally shoot someone.

And, here’s another truth that I am almost certain of because I have a brain: Alec Baldwin must feel miserable because of this. I personally am heart-broken for him, I have felt choked-up for the misery that he is going through. No matter what legal action is or isn’t taken, Baldwin will have to carry this burden for the rest of his life.

Other than the fact that we are both male and white, Alec Baldwin and I have nothing in common. We probably wouldn’t agree about political, social or spiritual matters. We would probably argue about which of his movies were good and which were not. I have liked him in some roles, but disliked other ones. I really like many of his appearances on SNL, but I think his Trump impressions were awful. All that to say, we have very little in common.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that I can sympathize with, if not fully appreciate, Alec’s new misery. I can and have prayed for him, and I have resolved to continue to do so.

It was reported that this incident has been upgraded to a “criminal investigation.” Some suspect nefarious intent on the behalf of some involved. However, I cannot believe that Alec had any intent to shoot or harm anyone, and I will – as the law does and as we all should – consider him innocent until clearly proven guilty.

This situation and investigation are far from over. That doesn’t stop me from doing what I need to do in this situation, and that is, to pray for a man in agony, and in pain, and whose life will never be the same again.

I’m not unfamiliar with believing in things that are a bit unusual. I affirm that a man was brought back from the dead so that a sinner like me can be forgiven and can receive eternal life in heaven after this life is over.

So, I also believe that this event has a purpose in Alec Baldwin’s life. I hope he finds that greater purpose and yields to it. While his life may never be the same, I hope and pray (literally, pray), that whatever lessons he learns from this episode will in the long-term far outweigh the misery that he is going through now.

I would urge you, too, to pray with me for that and for Alec.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: A Work about Worship

The worship wars that ravished many churches throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s have abated somewhat. A few churches that lagged behind are now feeling the scourge of one of American Christianity’s most vicious and destructive civil wars. Many churches split, many believers became disillusioned and many congregations compromised by settling for worship that was a blended hybrid of the most mediocre songs of several genres.

Thus, it was both interesting and refreshing to pick up Six Views on Exploring the Worship Spectrum. This is a volume in the Zondervan’s Counterpoints Series, where several views are presented, and each author comments on the views of each other author. The interaction is, for the most part, civil, and this is quite lacking in either cultural, political, and sometimes even in theological discussions.

This volume came out in 2004, so, in terms of being on top of current worship trends, it is already a little dated. However, it is still interesting and most of it remains relevant to worship issues that some churches are still struggling with.

The six styles in this volume are formal-liturgical, traditional hymn-based, contemporary music-driven, charismatic, blended, and emerging. In light of that diversity, the editor of this volume, Paul Basden, asks some penetrating questions toward the beginning: “Does the freedom of worshipers compromise the integrity of the One we worship? . . . Does worship preference reflect our legitimate freedom in Christ or [does it reflect] our selfish sinful nature?” (11). Regarding the basic definition of worship, Badsen laments, “There is no ideal definition of worship. No one has defined worship so completely as to plumb the depths of this divine-human encounter” (13).

The book starts with the formal-liturgical version of worship. The author of this chapter notes that liturgy “accepts the constraint of a consistent and predictable pattern” (23). Having a liturgy that has been handed down by people who studied through it and crafted it for a local congregation can be helpful. This can be preferable to having to come up with a completely new service every week, which can get quite difficult after a while. Another author commenting on this view noted that liturgy helps with “one of contemporary evangelical worship’s greatest weaknesses: it’s appalling lack of transcendence” (50). Yet, it is difficult to get around the stuffy, restrictive, and sometimes lifeless atmosphere that liturgy can create when not carefully managed.

The author of the second chapter makes an exceptionally strong case for the value of churches using a hymnal. He additionally makes a quite weak case for the value of the organ. His explanation notes a problem with contemporary worship and praise bands: “They can easily overwhelm to the point where congregations no longer hear themselves sing and end up accompanying the worship band, when the reverse should be true” (74). The author of the contemporary music-driven worship acknowledges some weaknesses with contemporary worship, as well: “We can quickly trade songs of great depth and theological truth for choruses of sappy sentimentality” (113). It seems to me that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion between old and new if the newer songs had a lyrical quality close to the classic hymns.

Most of us who have been in church for any period of time have experienced good versions of some of these styles, but also some of the worst versions of some of them. Many of us have suffered a few liturgical services that were dead, tedious and rote or some hymn-oriented services that were boring or cheesy. Many of us have endured a contemporary service that was so artificial and superficial that it barely seemed to be Christian at all. Perhaps a thorough attempt to justify one’s style of worship misses the point.

My main concern with charismatic worship is less the style and more the theology. The writer representing this view, for instances, sees “tongues” and the glossolalia in charismatic services as being “unknown tongues, unintelligible language, ecstatic speech” (140), even though there is very little evidence for this from Acts 2 or 1 Corinthians 12-14. Furthermore, Paul speaks quite clearly to the misuse of tongues and the problem of disorder in services in 1 Corinthians 14, and these discussions are often absent in charismatic and Pentecostal services.

Robert Webber writes about blended worship: “The traditional church was missing the sense of a real and vital experience with God. The contemporary movement was missing substance. Blended worship brought the content of the liturgical movement and the experience of the contemporary movement together” (178).” My own experience, however, has been that blended worship draws together mediocre songs from several styles, leaving nobody feeling worshipful, edified, or like they have encountered anything meaningful or transcendent.

Sally Morgan Fowler represents the now largely-defunct emerging movement, which we have written about previously. She tried to be creative, engaging, and resourceful, but for me, her chapter came off as tedious, condescending, and quite unrealistic. The unrealistic part is that she wants to turn Sunday services into broad multi-media musical and dramatic extravaganzas. She wants poetry readings, skits, congregants moving to different stations to experience different things in the worship space. Her prescription that we turn Sunday morning worship into a multi-sensory, multi-media variety show didn’t seem to sit well with the other authors, either, and I was grateful to see that.

There’s a reason why many theater troupes provide just four or five or six plays, musicals, or operas per year. That level of production is enormously difficult, and can’t be sustained every week. This is why Saturday Night Live only presents about 20 episodes per year; even with all their resources it would stretch their limits to produce more than this. Fowler’s expectations for Sunday mornings are untenable for any church, except perhaps the largest churches in the country; they alone could perhaps have skits, movie clips, plays, and dramas every single week.

One wonders if there is a danger too, that the kind of multi-sensory, artistic, ancient / future, experience that Fowler wants churches to have may be so complicated for the ordinary parishioner, that they don’t get the substance of the Word. At what point does presenting a painter, a dancer, a sculptor, every week just turn the Sunday morning service into an eighth grade talent show?

Of the six perspectives featured in this edition, only two really focused on Biblical content in worship, specifically the liturgical and the hymn perspectives. I wonder if trying to create an experience has distracted worship leaders from remembering the need to feed the flock on a weekly basis with truths from God’s Word expressed in our best songs, readings and preaching. Interestingly, all of the authors at some point recognized the value of Protestant hymnody.

One author suggested, however: “Though we love and affirm the hymns and cultural richness of our past and embrace them whenever we can, we come to worship today not just to sing about God, but to interact with him and to be changed by His Spirit” (160-161). But from this quote, one could wonder regarding who decides “whenever we can” embrace the use of hymns, because there is never a time when you can’t! If hymns are theologically rich as so many of these authors claim, why aren’t they integrated into worship services more often and utilized more frequently in place of the easily-disposable modern songs?

Believers have to work hard at being distinct from the world and from our culture. It seems, however, that many believers work hard to become less distinct from our world and from our culture. Evangelicalism often doesn’t appreciate those divisions, and of everything we do, our worship tends to look and sound more like the world than anything else.

And there is a danger that even the newer styles which claim to encourage interaction with God actually hamper worshipers from participating. Webber commented: “While I fear that this may be a description of what happens in real life, the idea of non-participation in contemporary worship goes against everything that the contemporary worship leader should be striving for” (203). But that is exactly the point: there is discernible difference between what many contemporary worship leaders hope for and what really happens in their services. Of course, this is true with more traditional worship services, as well: song leaders hope the people are engaging with the great truths and assertions of hymnody, but in reality, people often sing these magisterial songs listlessly and lifelessly.

It is stated frequently that post-moderns and younger generations don’t like propositional truths, but they think in stories. First, this is nonsense: If you tell them that there is a high chance of rain, many of them will dress appropriately or bring an umbrella. Second, perhaps the church should do its job, spend less time entertaining, and more time presenting propositional truths in ways that are comprehensible and relevant. Maybe we shouldn’t pretend that younger generations are dumb; they need solid food to grow in their Christian faith just like the rest of us do. And, maybe they are not coming to church to be entertained; they go to movies and concerts for that. Perhaps the younger generations understand church better than we do, and that is why they are abandoning entertainment-based churches in droves.

These Counterpoints books are wonderful journeys. And for this topic of worship in particular, each author had their own story and voyage through the joys and heartaches of the worship wars. It was great to witness their stories and ideas all coming together in this one book, and I’m grateful to have taken this adventure with them.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Some Deceit Tactics of Our Age

Recently at our church, we were doing a study on truth, including discussing a theology of truth, a history of truth, and dealing with some contemporary challenges to truth like gender dysphoria and critical race theory.

At one point, we covered some deceit tactics that we frequently see in media, politics, and advertisements, and there are some interesting Biblical verses that coordinate with these. Perhaps you could add a few more deceit tactics that you have noticed to this list, as well.

Louder is Righter

While marching and protesting is a legitimate way to express your view, being louder than the other side doesn’t make your view right and theirs wrong. Even a verse in Acts demonstrates this: “But among the crowd some were shouting one thing and some another, and when he [the commander from vv. 31-33] could not find out the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him [Paul] to be brought into the barracks” (Acts 21:34). Here, volume obscures truth rather than validates it.

It is important to see that volume doesn’t make truth, and it doesn’t bring added validity to an opinion. The same could be said not just about volume, but also about repetition. Chanting a mantra over and over and marching about it doesn’t make it more legit. When several different news outlets repeat the same thing, that doesn’t make it more true or valid either.

“Experts Say . . .”

A morning radio show in Atlanta has a segment called “Experts Say . . .”; every story that they cover has to have the phrase “experts say” in the title, and then the morning crew points out how dumb the article is. One thing the host points out, too, is how such stories rarely identify who these experts are, what universities they attended, or even where they graduated in their class. You can apparently find any group of experts to say anything you want.

Jesus talked about experts, also. In Mark 7:9, He addressed the Pharisees and scribes and noted: “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” The verse literally says “you are good” (kalos) at doing this; they were experts in replacing the statutes of God with their own preferences. Jesus notes that we sometime mislabel experts and then venerate them undeservedly.

Along these lines, it is good to remember that experts are not infallible. Scripture is; experts are not. There are legitimate experts in certain fields; however, a good and legitimate expert knows what they know, and appreciates that they don’t know everything. Also, we have the right to question the definition of “expert,” the qualifications of certain experts, and we have the right to wonder about the motive that drives what they “say.”

The Power of Polls

One of the few polls that I really trust is found in Rom 3:10-12, which includes the phrase, “There is none righteous, not even one . . .”

Here is the crucial thing to remember about polls: polls are aggregated ignorance. While there is a science to them and they can capture the opinions of some people, the contrast is that Scripture frequently notes the ignorance of the masses. In Acts 17:23, Paul says to a group of Greeks: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.” He writes in Ephesians 4:18 that unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” People can be knowledgeable about some things, but many people are fairly uninformed about most things, which calls into question the validity of polls.

It is important to remember that polls are not facts; they may be accurate representations of a certain group who were asked certain questions. In fact, it may accurately reflect that group’s wrong thinking! A society driven by polls has no legitimate anchor and is in serious moral danger.

“Science Schmience”

I’m taking this phrase from a sketch on Studio 60. The “host” reads scientific “facts,” which are discussed by a panel of people including an orthodox rabbi, someone pretending to be Tom Cruise during his Scientology phase, a Christian fundamentalist, and a witch, and then the audience dismissively shouts “science schmience.” The sketch is supposed to demonstrate how people from a variety of faiths tend to distrust science.

But do people of faith distrust science because of faith or because of science? Do religious people distrust scientific facts or do they distrust those who believe that science has all the facts and the final say on reality?

It bothers me that there has become such a divide between evangelical Christianity and what people perceive to be scientific fact. A Christian perspective on science, or a theology of science, dictates that even a fallen world has some predictability and reliability that can be discovered, because creation derives from an orderly, intelligent, and purposeful Creator (Genesis 1; Psa 50:6; 97:6; Rom 1:20). Christians support and appreciate beneficial advances of science, and the functionality and practical blessings that God grants through scientific investigation.

However, at the heart of science is a radical skepticism; the willingness to question some norms and conventions has produced many great scientific, philosophical and theological discoveries. The phrase “trust the science” or “follow the science” is unscientific. Science has always opposed “blind faith” whether that is religious presuppositions or pseudo-scientific assumptions.

People of faith can appreciate science, but we also have the right to be skeptical (1 Thess 5:19-21; 1 John 4:1). We are not skeptical of God’s truth, but we are cautious of those who claim to have absolute scientific fact on debated issues. We may eventually accept certain facts as scientifically verifiable, but we start with skepticism and discernment.

Remember that good theology, good philosophy and good science have to win you over and convince you with good evidence and good arguments. Those who make assertions about the vaccine, the big bang, evolution, or the veracity of masks, have the responsibility to offer proof; otherwise, their assertions are just opinions. The rest of us are under no obligation to heed these opinions.

What are some other deceit tactics that you hear on Facebook, in media, or from politicians? Feel free to provide your feedback in one of our posts on our Facebook page.

FUN MUSIC GROUPS: Piffaro, The Renaissance Band

If you like authentic late-medieval and Renaissance-era music, then you will love Piffaro!

Now, I realize that the group described by the music preferences in the previous sentence is a fairly narrow collection of individuals. However, there is a rise of medieval-fantasy films, shows and an increasing popularity of Renaissance fairs across the country. With the growing interest in medieval and Renaissance-era entertainment, more people may be interested in good, authentic, late medieval and Renaissance-era music.

Or, if you aren’t familiar with this style of music or if you don’t care for it, then certainly groups like Cantiga, (which we wrote about in the April 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper) or the Stanley Buetens Lute Ensemble, or Piffaro may change your mind.

Piffaro, The Renaissance Band, started in 1980 in Philadelphia. Their intention was to perform Renaissance music using the instruments that would have been used back then. Some of these instruments are ones that most people are not even familiar with now, such as a “sackbut,” which is an earlier version of a trombone, or a “dulcian,” which is a reed instrument similar to a bassoon. Using these instruments makes the music sound that much more authentic. Piffaro is especially fun to listen to in the background while we’re playing Dominion or Medieval European Risk.

The first Piffaro album that I purchased a few years back was Stadtpfeiffer, Music of Renaissance Germany (2001), a great album with very authentic-sounding Renaissance and late medieval music. This CD reflects a variety of styles; some of the songs are more airy and lighter, some are a little more reed and percussion driven. In fact, some of the songs are so reed-instrument heavy that they come off a little screechy. This album is not as soft as smooth jazz or a Mozart concerto, but it does give you a feeling of authenticity.

My absolute favorite song on this album is “Ein Maidlein zue dem Brunnen ging” (#9), but don’t let a song about how “A Little Maiden Went to the Well” fool you. The song starts slowly and ponderously with the reed instruments, but then it keeps building to something that sounds like a dramatic war march. It makes me want to grab my chain mail and my sword and go fight! And perhaps I mean more LARPing than fighting, but it stirs the soul, anyway!

This CD also has two versions of Martin Luther’s hymn “Ein feste berg is unser Gott” (#13 and #14), or “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”; these versions are considerably less dramatic than the one we usually sing, but they are interesting nonetheless. They sound very different on one hand, and yet, some elements of the melody are still recognizable from time to time. Other favorites from this CD include “Im Mayen hört man die Hanen kraien” (#5), “Der Grabentanz” (#15), and the airy “Zart liep, wie süss dein anfang ist” (#26).

More recently, I picked up Piffaro’s album Los Ministriles - Spanish Renaissance Wind Music (2006). Again, this is a great diversity of songs, including some that are softer, like “Calata Ala Spagnola” (#2) or “Sencilla Pastora” (#4), some are a bit more reedy, such as “LaGuerra” (#1), “Gayta” (#6), or “Adorámoste, Señor” (#7), and some songs are more festive, like “Baile a Finale” (#25).

I wasn’t sure what the difference would be between German Renaissance-era music versus the Spanish album. Honestly, the styles sounded quite similar, though there was a bit more of a Spanish flare in some of these songs, such as “Si Habrá En Este Baldrés” (#8). But keep mind that what most people imagine when they think about Spanish music, with guitars and castanets, is more from the nineteenth and twentieth century than from the fourteenth and fifteenth. There is an interesting variety of music on this album, anyway.

Musical groups for me are like my favorite TV shows that only last a season or less (à la Firefly and Studio 60). With musical groups, I similarly discover one that I really like, but then find out that they have only released one or two albums. Fortunately, there is tons of Mozart, Tchaikovsky, John Williams, and Rush. Fortunately, Piffaro, also, has released several albums, including music from England, from France, music that is more religious, and even a holiday album.

I have the two CDs from Piffaro that I mentioned above, but I am looking forward to exploring several of the others, as well!

THEOLOGY: In Defense of the Carnal Christian

I am not, of course, defending a person who claims to be a Christian, but is living a worldly and carnal life. I am defending exegetically the category of a carnal Christian. We can recognize both through Biblical exegesis and through personal experience that this is a legitimate category that unfortunately, clearly describes some believers.

Is it possible that there are Christians who are Christian in name only? Are there Christians who have just never grown in their faith and to whom the carnality of this world still clings?

There are segments of Christianity that deny the carnal Christian phenomenon. This is one of the more naïve aspects of Reformed theology, which, ironically, emphasizes human depravity. Some assert that ongoing sin or perpetual spiritual immaturity is a surefire sign that the individual is not a Christian. The rest of us have actually attended church, met some terrible Christians, and are comfortable with this category. Most of us have encountered clear examples of how even a redeemed person can fail to grow in their faith and mature the way they should, such as what Jesus seems to be discussing in the parable of the sower and the soils (Matt 13:3-9).

The goal is to be as far away from the category of carnal Christian, and to be a clearly growing and maturing Christian. First Corinthians 3:1-3 is the key passage for the validity of the category of a carnal Christian, and we will mention some other verses, as well.

The first two verses of 1 Corinthians 3 demonstrate that being a Christian doesn’t guarantee that you are mature. Reading these verses, one can sense Paul’s frustration with the Corinthian believers and their tolerance of immaturity. Paul had stayed there for a long time and had to write two lengthy follow-up epistles. He still calls the Corinthian audience “brethren” and acknowledges that they are legitimately “in Christ”; that is, they are obviously people who have trusted in Christ as their Savior. However, Paul is not able to speak to them as if they were spiritual (v. 1). They are “fleshly” in their thinking, and “infants” in their maturity. Paul doesn’t doubt their spiritual birth, but he has grave doubts about their spiritual growth. I would echo Paul’s concerns about many people that I have ministered to, as well as my own spiritual growth; my experience is that most people are usually not nearly as spiritual as they think they are.

The biological analogy provides some spiritual insight. Infancy, toddlerhood, adolescence, are discernible steps of growth. Maturity and adulthood is the step in which one has an ability to reproduce, or, to witness to unbelievers and edify other believers. For us, if we have not seen growth for two or five or ten years, then there is a problem.

Paul started with “milk” (v. 2), or more digestible truths and practices of Christianity. These basic spiritual truths are helpful early in our spiritual lives (1 Pet 2:2). However, these truths should be stepping stones to deeper realities, to more thorough application, to overcoming temptation, and then for articulating those truths and skills to other people; this is what Paul refers to as “solid food” (see also Heb 5:12). Paul implies that it made sense that they needed milk when they were first believers, but it doesn’t make sense that they still require milk several years later.

Some of us have been going to church for decades. We should be more mature; we should be less carnal. We will be evaluated for all the sermons that we’ve sat under, all the Bible studies that we’ve attended or led. We should be responding better; we should have less anxiety; we should be less drawn to sensual pleasures and less materialistic. Many Christians simply need to grow up!

The mention of “infants” indicates clear demarcations between these categories: someone not yet born is a non-Christian, an infant is a new Christian and an adult is a mature Christian. An infant can be an infant for a while, but she or he can’t stay an infant; it is a problem if an otherwise physically and intellectually normal individual is still drinking from a bottle and still in diapers in their mid-twenties. Similarly, every new believer is in the category of an immature Christian; you can be in that category, however, you can’t stay in that category. Identifying ourselves or someone else as a carnal Christian is just an affirmation that they have been in the “immature Christian” category for far too long.

First Corinthians 3:3 affirms that being a Christian doesn’t guarantee that you are godly. Paul flat out states that the Corinthian believers were still “fleshly” or “worldly.” They had progressed so little in their faith that they still exhibited worldly ways of thinking, behaving and reacting. The presence of jealousy and strife are sure signs of failing to handle differences of opinion in a mature and godly way. He asks, “are you not fleshly?” Sometimes our lack of godliness is far more evident to others than it is to ourselves, which is why introspection and self-evaluation are needed (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 6:4).

We are carnal if we are living like ordinary people. He literally says at the end of v. 3 that most of the Corinthian believers “walk according to men.” We were saved to live above the worldly concerns, money and entertainment chasing, and libidinous pursuits of most people. Many Christians seem to have missed that message, and live like carnal and unregenerate people.

I get concerned when we talk about outreach or worship in terms of accommodating the culture or connecting with the world. If we accommodate it too much, we abandon everything that makes us distinct and we risk entire churches wallowing in this category of being a carnal congregation.

It is important to remember that being a Christian doesn’t guarantee that we are wise. The category of carnal Christian seems to accord with the possibility presented in Proverbs that someone could be an unwise believer; Proverbs focuses less on being saved vs. unsaved, and more on being wise vs. being foolish. Consider that the fool in Proverbs 10:8, 12:15, or 29:11 could also be a Christian who is committing these errors. Verses like these have less to do with whether someone is “saved” or not, and more to do with whether a person is integrating wise and, in some cases, counter-intuitive Biblical principles into her or his life. You can be a believer and still be a fool and a wicked person.

The encouragement in recognizing the legitimacy of this category of a carnal Christian is that we should be patient with the spiritual growth of other believers. Many are not nearly as mature as they could be or should be. They carry pain and regret that prevents their growth. They may not be in a good church that helps them grow, but they are in one that mainly cares about how many rears are in the seats and how much money comes in. Be patient, and forge a discipleship relationship with them to help them grow!

There is an exhortation here, also: Don’t automatically doubt the salvation of someone just because they aren’t as spiritually attuned as they should be (Rom 14-15). Don’t underestimate the power of sin and fallenness in the lives of redeemed people. Nominal Christian, backsliding believer, carnal Christian, these are overlapping categories. Some may not be actual believers; share the gospel with them, and if they say they believe it, take their word for it, and then help them grow in that faith.

The reality of the category of the carnal Christian provides a warning, as well: Don’t be deluded yourself and end up sliding into this status of a carnal Christian. Test your faith, be passionate about growth and maturity. Second Peter 1:10 says, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall” (see also Phil 2:12).

Or to put it in other words, if there is both exegetical and experiential evidence for the legitimacy of a status of a carnal Christian, I want to be as far away from that category as possible.

ROMANS: A Salvation Available For All, Romans 5:18

Romans 5:18: So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Culture is filled with discussions of inclusion and exclusion, those who have and those who don’t. Many of the critical theories that drift around in our culture pit oppressors against oppressed, and presume that some have disproportionate access to wealth, resources or opportunities.

Is this true about salvation and forgiveness from God, as well? Is access to deliverance from sin and death a matter of gender, or economic status, or skin color?

One of the most important promises of the Gospel is how it cuts across all of those demographic differences which many people today seem obsessed with. All people are sinners (3:23) and all bear the guilt and sin nature resulting from Adam’s fatal mistake (5:12-18). Here in Romans 5:18, Paul demonstrates that Christ provides a salvation available for all, as well.

Paul’s argument continues by focusing on the word “one” (used 12 times in Rom 5:12-21). He had described the “one man” (either Adam or Christ, depending on the context), and here he mentions the one sin versus the one act of justification. The one act resulted in a condemnation that spread to all humanity. The noun katakrima, meaning “condemnation,” is used only in 5:16, here in 18 and again in 8:1. However, the verb is used 18 times in the NT, mainly in the gospels, but a few times by Paul, including in Rom 2:1, 8:3 and 34. The fact that all are descendants of Adam means that all have participated in this condemnation; none are excluded.

Paul then notes the other “one.” Through Jesus came one dikaioma, which means “an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed.” The word that the NASB translates “act of righteousness” is used once in Luke, twice in both Hebrews and Revelation, and the other five instances, or half of the NT occurrences are in Romans (Luke 1:6; Rom 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4; Heb 9:1, 10; Rev 15:4; 19:8).

This word derives from the same root as dikaioo, “to be justified” and dikaiosune, “righteousness” or “justice.” It points to a specific act or regulation for being righteous or for meeting some kind of religious requirement (Heb 9:1). It sometimes indicates not merely the law or a specific ordinance, but the act of carrying out that law or ordinance. Therefore, Christ accomplished all that was required to attain God’s standards of perfect righteousness, and made that status available to people.

The result was dikaiosis, another word in this semantic family that means “acquittal” or “an act of pronouncing someone righteous,” used elsewhere only in Rom 4:25. In fact, it is used in the Septuagint (which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament created in the 200s BCE) only in Leviticus 24:22 and in the apocryphal book Psalms of Solomon (3:3). The Leviticus reference is interesting: In a passage about general morality and justice, it notes that both foreigners and Jews would be held to the same standards. Of course, Romans 1-3 is about the universality of depravity and the reality that all people fall short of God’s perfect standards for morality and righteousness. Christ provides an acquittal “of life.” The genitive is naturally ambiguous, and can mean an acquittal that leads to life, that can produce life, or for the purpose of granting life; several of these meanings overlap and none are mutually exclusive.

The structure of this verse helps us understand, then, the “as” in the beginning of the verse, and the “even so” or “so also” in the middle of the verse that cements the parallelism. Just as through “one” man, Adam, sin and condemnation entered the human race and affected all, so also through “one” other Man, Jesus Christ, justification was injected into the human race, and is therefore available to all who would believe. This salvation from Christ is available to all no matter one’s gender, race, or social status. As condemnation is universal through one person, so also is justification universally available through one Person. The parallel, as well as the humanity shared between the two men, is critical theologically.

This salvation is inclusive: it is available to all who believe in the death and resurrection of Christ (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25; Acts 13:39; Romans 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 10:4; 1 John 5:5).

However, there is an exclusivity to Christianity, as well: the only way to receive salvation, forgiveness, peace, lasting joy and eternal life is through faith in the sacrificial death and literal resurrection of Christ Jesus (John 10:9; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5). Here in Rom 5:18, the implication is that just as condemnation entered only through the sin of one man, so also, only through faith in the one other Man is salvation available to all. There was no other way through which justification entered the human race or was provided to it. While perhaps not stated as plainly as in John 14:6 or Acts 4:12, the idea of the exclusivity of Christianity is just as present here.

So, which will it be; will you allow the culture to call you oppressor or oppressed, or to judge you by your gender, or socio-economic status or by your skin color? The alternative is that through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, you could believe in Him and be granted forgiveness of sins and salvation from death. We can also push aside the false statuses the world invents today and claim the status of a child of God through faith in Christ (John 1:12; Rom 8:16-17; Gal 3:26; 1 John 5:1).