Welcome to the October 2023 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal.

This month we’re covering several Bible topics: more about the prophet Zechariah’s visions and we continue our verse-by-verse study of Romans. 

We are starting a new series in this edition about the variety of questions that people have about the Bible; this month, we’re considering the fate of individuals, such as tribal people or people in rural foreign contexts, who have never heard the Gospel before.

We will also cover relatively recent news events, we will discuss concerns about the movie industry, and we will describe common deceit tactics that are frequently used in our culture.

We’d love to hear your thoughts and input. Feel free to send your thoughts and ideas about any of our articles to feedback@eclectickasper.com. Also, you can “like” our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page and comment on any of our posts there.

We appreciate you being on this eclectic journey with us for the last decade with our The Eclectic Kasper and here with our new effort The Eclectic Web Journal. Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic! 

NEWSBYTES, OCTOBER 2023: Debates, Mug Shots, and Endless Wars 

by Matt Kasper

Note: these mini-articles were written several weeks ago, before the Republican Speaker of the House debacle and before hostilities broke out between Hamas and Israel. I feel like enough people are covering these stories such that I have little more to add. All I would do here is reiterate the need to pray for peace in the Middle East, and then, to move on to the Newsbytes below. These may be closer to “Oldsbytes” by now, but hopefully will still be insightful. 

To Debate or Not To Debate

So this is a bi-partisan rant. Trump didn’t join the debate on August 23 or September 27, and doesn’t plan to be involved with other primary debates anytime soon. I understand the strategy, but that doesn’t change my point here. Biden has already said that he doesn’t want to participate in any debates. First, all of this is stunning given that most candidates for any office want more face time and not less.

But here’s the important point: no politician should have the choice to debate or to not debate. The citizens whose votes you would like, we determine that you should debate whenever the opportunity is put before you. Nobody is entitled to skip. We demand that you debate, that get in front of us, defend your positions and record, and that you are able to articulate your ideas in a mature and comprehensible way.

If you are too proud, too busy, too tired, too entitled, or too infirmed to participate in a 90- or 120-minute debate, then you should not be running for office, and you do not deserve our vote!

A Mug Shot to Remember

In August, Former President Donald Trump was indicted for the fourth time. He showed up at a Fulton county office in Georgia, on Thursday, August 24, and posed for a mug shot. The picture is like a Rorschach test for our culture; he looks confident and determined if you are sympathetic toward him, and angry and guilty if you are not so predisposed.

No matter what side of the aisle you are on, it is difficult to deny that some of this seems like political theater; or else these indictments would have come two years earlier. It also seems like a terrible use of governmental resources, and many people sense that our federal agencies are being weaponized against political opponents, functioning to tarnish reputations rather than to carry out law and justice. This mug shot seems like a symbol of all of this, including governmental waste and cultural divide.

It may be overstatement on the conservative side, but I have heard some people say that this is the most important picture of our lives; an iconic image for these times. But these efforts to stifle Trump are more likely to just backfire than to succeed. In fact, these legal efforts against Trump have angered his base and will generate more sympathy for him. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this particular picture will likely translate into millions of votes.

The Endless War in Ukraine

“President Biden has asked Congress for an additional $24 billion for the war in Ukraine, bringing the total aid to $135 billion,” according to a report from the Center for Strategic International Studies (Mark F. Cancian, August 15, 2023). We are told that this war will be won any day by the Ukrainian resistance forces, that they will push Russia back, that Russian soldiers are leaving Putin’s army in droves, and we have been fed these lies for the last year-and-a-half.

I have a great deal of sympathy with any group of people that have been cruelly invaded by another group, and I have personal tie-ins with Ukraine, too. But I don’t trust either our government to manage these funds well and demand accountability for how they are used, nor the Ukrainian government to use these funds in honorable ways. I also can’t help thinking how that $135 billion could be used in our own country, for homelessness, infrastructure, or education. Or, what if those funds were divided among the approximately 135 million full-time employees in America providing a $1,000 tax rebate to each of them? Then those funds would mainly benefit American businesses and service organizations. Leaders on both sides of the aisle need to stop shipping disgusting amounts of our funds to foreign nations and they need to stop squandering the wealth of this nation throughout the world.

ROMANS: The Obligations of Grace, Part 1, Romans 6:15

What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

By 1520, just three years after Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenburg church in 1517, the new Reformed movement had already come under attack for misusing grace. Protestantism has emphasized salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from works, but minimized that works are the intended result of a life of faith. Catholic opponents accused Luther and other Reformers of suggesting that because of grace, people can go on sinning and they had no compulsion to engage in works of service and compassion. In response, Luther wrote a book called A Treatise on Good Works in 1520 saying that Christians need to do good works and that we shouldn’t abuse grace by continuing to sin.

This was apparently a problem that the Apostle Paul dealt with, as well. Since the compassion and grace of God is fundamental to salvation, it is no wonder that people would misunderstand and abuse it. Paul deals with this issue in Romans 6.

In v. 15, Paul actually asks a question similar to the one in v. 1, where he asked whether the increase of grace relative to sin is proper motivation to continue in sin. He then argues that more grace is not a cause for sin, but should be a deterrent for sinning. We don’t work to receive grace, but we work and strive not to sin because we are recipients of grace. Or, to put it another way, because we have received God’s immeasurable grace, we now have obligations to shun sin, pursue purity, and engage in acts of service, worship and sacrifice.

In v. 1, he echoed someone asking if we could sin more because we know that there will be more grace. Here in v. 15, the query is if we can sin more because there will be less law!

The broader concern of this chapter is how do we fix the sin problem, and these rhetorical questions in vv. 1 and 15 are attempts to find loopholes to this process: Does more grace and less law mean that we can sin more? Does more law and more grace help us sin less? The answer to both is no; we conquer our sin by applying the doctrines of the death and resurrection of Christ to our sin nature: we identify with Christ, we die to sin, we shun its promptings, we consider ourselves dead to it. There are other ways we can activate grace in our lives: we rely on the Holy Spirit for purity, we utilize mechanisms to help prevent sin, such as prayer, Bible study, Bible memorization, accountability with other believers.

In fact, that kind of accountability bathed in prayer is called for in James 5:16: “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” Some people have a hard time even asking for directions, let alone asking for help with spiritual and moral issues. James and Paul both note that individuals need other godly believers to help us though our struggles with sin. We also grow in grace by pursuing purity and practicing diligence, a day-by-day, moment-by-moment attention to walking in the Spirit, making wise decisions, and being Christ-like.

In verse 15, Paul asks whether no longer being under the law gives us license to sin. His answer here is just as definitive as his answer in vv. 1-2.

Verse 15 begins with the phrase “What then?” In Romans, this phrase often accompanies a question or objection pointing to a conclusion that Paul will then oppose (3:1, 9; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14). That will be the case here, as well; the rhetorical objection assumes a conclusion that is false, and one that Paul will argue against.

The verb for “to sin” is subjunctive, suggesting that Paul is speaking theoretically. The theory seems to be that not being under the Law, specifically, Mosaic Law, releases the Christian from all law, obligation, or duty. We should keep in mind, also, that just because we are not “under” the law doesn’t mean that it has no relevance for us; it is still inspired Scripture, and it still helps us understand God’s expectations for us. In fact, it still helps us understand God Himself, His holiness, His passion for justice and balance, and His moral desires for us today. That fact that we are not “under the Law,” means that it is not binding upon believers today as it was during that dispensation.

Paul adamantly opposes the idea that not being under law means that we don’t have to work, obey, or that we can just go on sinning. He again uses the dramatic phrase me genoito, “May it not be!” This phrase is reserved for when the speaker or author wants to make a clear, profound ideological contrast (Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21; 6:14); ten of the fifteen occurrences of the phrase are in Romans.

Again, it is illegitimate to think that just because we are not under the law, that we now lack any accountability. The question is really, has God lowered His moral expectations for His people now that grace has a higher priority in this dispensation than does Mosaic law? Passages like Matthew 5 demonstrate that, quite the opposite, those in the age of grace are expected to live by a higher moral standard, not a lower one. If we think that grace means that God has become less strict or more lenient, than we don’t understand grace. In fact, Paul already said in 5:20 that grace becomes greater when sin increases. The fact that we have entered into an age of grace does not mean that God has inherently become more interested in grace. The fact that we have entered an age of grace is more a commentary on the moral decline of humanity, and not a sign that God has become a pushover.

We could summarize from this chapter and others what being under grace does not mean. First, it does not mean that God has changed or become less concerned about moral standards or sin. Also, it doesn’t mean that unbelievers or believers have less accountability; again, we are still accountable to the Law of Christ (Matt 28:18-20; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2; James 2:12; 2 Peter 3:2) and we should exhibit some accountability to one another (Heb 13:17; James 5:16).

And one last thing; grace does not mean that believers today have a lower moral bar than they did in the Old Testament. In fact, we have a higher one (again, see Matt 5). That is one reason why the world sees many Christians as hypocrites, because we have proclaimed a high bar, and failed to live up to it. We proclaim grace, but then just live in license, which is not the point of grace. Living on that higher plane of moral purity and experiential holiness will help our witness and testimony in a world that needs to hear the Gospel and that needs to see the virtue and compassion of Christ incarnated in His followers today. 

ON MY BOOKSHELF: The Other Oppenheimer

We tend to treat today’s prejudices or biases as though they are new or are uniquely worse than those of previous generations. Understanding the prejudices and racism of other time periods can grant us perspective and help us appreciate that we have made tangible progress in Western society regarding racism and antisemitism.

Lately, a fellow named Robert Oppenheimer has received a lot of press with the big Christopher Nolan movie about Oppenheimer’s involvement with the Manhattan Project.

However, I recently read a book about another Oppenheimer, and that book gives us a glimpse into European antisemitism almost three hundred years ago.

Joseph Süss Oppenheimer was a Jewish individual who became a financial adviser in the court of Duke Karl (Carl) Alexandar in the German region of Württemberg in 1733. Four years later, in 1737, Karl Alexandar died suddenly, probably of a heart attack, but many blamed the court Jew Oppenheimer. A clearly unfair eleven-month trial ensued, where many previous indiscretions in Oppenheimer’s life were dredged up, and yet, when convicted, he was not sentenced for any specific crime. The trial and the documents surrounding the trial reflect suspicions about the Jews, their motives, and the complexities of their integration into European cultures and society. Oppenheimer was eventually hanged publicly, and yet, even after his death, this trial continued to take on a life of its own.

The book about this case that I read is Yair Mintzker’s The Many Deaths of Jew Süss: the Notorious Trial and Execution of an Eighteenth-Century Court Jew (2017). Mintzker notes the odd situation in this case that there were few but reliable documents about the early part of Oppenheimer’s life and career, yet a large but unreliable amount of material regarding Süss’s trial. In this case, “less proves to be more, and more proves to be less” (7). Mintzker claims to employ polyphonic history that studies not merely what was reported, but how and why individuals around Oppenheimer reported on events in the way that they did. We can interact with documents of questionable reliability and understand the biases and perspectives of those who wrote them, and in doing so, perhaps leverage those biases and perspectives to get closer to truth or consensus.

Even given his concern about the reliability of documents, Mintzker’s conclusion was that those surrounding Oppenheimer felt jealously toward him, or were perhaps acting out of disillusionment regarding their own stalled careers: “The inquisition committee, and [Philip Friedrich] Jäger in particular, had an open, personal account to settle with Oppenheimer. In the end, this account was settled in the cruelest way possible” (281). Yet, still, how much of those “personal accounts” were merely personal, and how much were driven by a suspicion of Jews that was popular in different parts of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe?

What makes Jewish studies in Europe so fascinating is the unique sense of interrelation. While the lives of European Jews were not homologous, there was nonetheless an interconnectedness between them, perhaps more so than individuals from other ethnicities. Mintzker recognizes that what happened to one Jewish individual in an area could have a ripple effect on others: “As the trial of the famous court Jew progressed, it touched the lives of many dozens of Jews and their families, and these people, while they did not share Oppenheimer’s fate, were nonetheless deeply implicated in his ordeal in various ways” (137).

Knowing the pushback that he would receive for a book like this, Mintzker includes many “conversations” at the end of some of the chapters, or dialogues between himself and an imaginary reader. I appreciate what Mintzker was trying to do in these conversations, to explain his approach and methodology in a charming and engaging manner and to pre-empt anticipated criticism. However, these sections came off as artificial to me, occasionally condescending, and sometimes, even self-congratulating; at one point, the imaginary reader, who is Mintzker himself, tells the author, who, of course is Mintzker, that “The chapter [specifically, chapter 3] is also very well structured and the documentation supporting it is detailed to a fault” (224). It is like writing a glowing review about your own book! If the author has a point about methodology to explain or clarify, I would prefer that she or he do so in the text or at the conclusion of the chapter.

That said, these conversations demonstrate the author’s self-awareness of his task and the challenges of trying to convince a potentially skeptical audience of his methods. For instance, the notion was just starting to shape in my own mind when Mintzker puts the assertion in the imaginary reader’s mouth: “Having read about Jäger and Bernard so far, I feel that I know quite a bit about the two men but that I’m not closer to understanding Oppenheimer” (173). That at least told me that the author was aware of the objection that a reader would naturally have. But again, I feel like this projection of self-awareness and potential criticism could have been handled more profitably in the body of the chapter.

What clouds this particular case is the fiction and media that surrounds it. In addition to many historical works that have been written about this case, there have been many novelizations about it, the two most popular of these being Wilhelm Hauff’s 1827 novella Jud Süß, and Lion Feuchtwanger’s 1925 novel Jud Süß. In addition to reading Mintzker’s book, I also watched two old movies about Oppenheimer, again, not the Christopher Nolan film. One of those movies was created in 1934 in Britain by German-born Jewish director Lothar Mendes’s called Jew Süss. It is quite Judeophilic, that is, sympathetic to the Jews and their various historical plights. Mendes’ film portrays Oppenheimer as a victim of unfair anti-Jewish biases. As Oppenheimer is hanged tragically, his fellow-Jews mournfully chant in anguished Hebrew the shema, a creedo from Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

A few years later, perhaps in response to Mendes’ film, another was released by German director Veit Harlan in 1940 called Jud Süß. This inelegant film is straight-up Nazi propaganda, portraying Oppenheimer as scheming and opportunistic as he eventually rallys other Jews in Württemberg in an attempt to stage a coup against Duke Alexandar. This film ends with Süss trying to pathetically bargain for his life. His execution is followed by a Württemberg official reading a solemn proclamation to protect Germany and its future from the alleged Jewish scourge: “All Jews must leave Württemberg within three days. . . . May our descendants adhere to this decree, and thereby be spared suffering for their own well-being and for the sake of their children and their children’s children.” Though clearly propaganda and fiction, this demonstrates how film director Harlan used this case of one Jew from the 1730s to “warn” his countrymen about all Jews in the 1940s.

Given the unreliable nature of many of the documents surrounding the trial of Joseph Süss Oppenheimer, and the many literary and film adaptations about his life, it seems that how one views this case, or similar ones like the Dreyfus Affair in France in 1894, is a reflection of oneself or one’s culture. How we perceive this other Oppenheimer is really a commentary on ourselves. 

ZECHARIAH’S VISIONS: The Terror of the Nations, Zechariah 1:18-21

Our world is becoming a crucible of conflict for the nations. The United States seems to be on a trajectory of economic or even military war with Russia and China. Hostilities are breaking out anew in the Middle East. Other nations are flexing their muscles, like India, Brazil, and Iran. The world seems like it is moving toward an international cage match that will quickly get out of control.

In church, we have always sung songs that remind us that God is still in charge like “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands” and “This is My Father’s World.” But it is easy to question that premise when nations discuss their nuclear capabilities, their economic expectations, and their territorial ambitions. And in instances when nations do unite, like the League of Nations or the United Nations, they tend to target religious people and especially Christians, for allegedly being intolerant, exclusivistic, and enemies of globalism and progress. Even living in a great country like the USA, God’s people can feel like we are small and on the losing side of these cultural and geo-political battles.

Are there powers out there that are greater than the greatest nations, and that can combat those who would attack God’s people?

As we mentioned in previous articles in this study of Zechariah’s night visions, the post-exilic Jewish community also felt small and insignificant in light of the nations and powers that surrounded it. This second vision in Zechariah 1:18-21 reminded the Jews that no matter how great the nations become, their power is temporary and they can be overturned by God very quickly.

This is a vision of four horns in vv. 18-19 and then four craftsmen in vv. 20-21. Zechariah “looked and behold,” which is a phrase that occurs frequently in this book (1:1, 2:1, 5:1; 6:1). He sees “four horns” (v. 18). This introduces one of the tie-ins with the previous vision in vv. 7-17, specifically the mention of the number four.

But think about the imagery of horns. Old Testament altars had four horns on them (Exod 27:2; 38:2, 43:15, 20), and there are horns on the goat in Daniel’s vision of a ram and a goat (Dan 8:8, 22). The horns represent the authority of a nation, and in Daniel 8, they are probably referring to the four Greek kingdoms after Alexander the Great. Horns reflect the power and intimidation of a strong animal, and this imagery is so pervasive that three NFL teams display horns on their helmets (Rams, Vikings, and Texans). Elsewhere, horns represent the power of nations (Deut 33:17; Psalm 75:10). We have a clue from Zechariah 2:6 that the four horns are a variety of nations from the four directions on a map, and similar language occurs in Rev 7:1 and 20:8. 

Zechariah asks about these horns in v. 19, and the angel says that these are the implements used to scatter the Jews. The idea of the Jews being scattered among the nations is seen frequently in the OT: Lev 26:33; Psa 44:11; Isa 41:16; Jer 15:7; 49:32; Ezek 5:10; 12:14; 20:23; 36:19. It probably refers to what powerful ancient empires like Assyria and Babylon had done to the Jews, however, lesser nations had taken captives from Israel, including the Ammonites (Ezek 25) the Edomites (Obadiah). These nations used their horns, their military might, to scatter the Jews.

I had a thought when studying this particular vision, specifically, a thought about actions and consequences. This is appropriate since the Old Testament Jews possessed an entire book about these dynamics, specifically, the book of Proverbs. The point is that Israel could have been a prominent ancient empire building on the Davidic/ Solomonic era. But they divided, fought each other, sinned, embraced idolatry, and were taken into captivity. Their unwillingness to remain faithful to God had consequences for their ability to grow and thrive as a kingdom. For us, too, we surrender greatness in the future when we reject faithfulness in the present. 

The mention of “Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem” at the end of verse 19 represents all the Jews and the completeness of their scattering. “Zechariah has in mind the whole people scattered in exile, just as he considers the whole pagan world responsible for the scattering” (Joyce Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 104). The good side is that sometimes notions of scattering are linked with promises of regathering (Jer 31:10; see Ezek 34:12).

Let’s be honest: In Western civilization, the church has relinquished its responsibilities, its influence, and its authority, and allowed secular thinking to run rampant. That is true for churches in our country, too, and believers today are consequently scattered and lacking influence.

But the vision isn’t over. In verse 20, we see four “craftsmen”; the word charash actually points to an “engraver” or “artificer,” from the word, “to cut” or “to engrave,” used 125 times in the Old Testament, but only here in Zechariah. The question Zechariah asks in verse 21 is interesting, not “what are these?” but “what are these coming to do?” What is their purpose, especially in relationship to the horns? 

In answering, the angel reiterates the players beginning with the horns. He adds here in verse 21 that scattering produced by the horns was so complete that “no man lifts up his head,” an idiom for experiencing a hopeless situation (Psalm 3:3; 27:6).

In response, the craftsmen “terrify” the horns; the verb charad in the Hiphil stem means means “to cause to tremble.” In Ezekiel 21:31, we have “artificers” of destruction or “men skilled in destruction,” which is odd, because craftsmen build rather than destroy. Here, however, they will “thrown down” or “cast down” the “horns,” or the nations that caused the Jews to be deported and scattered. A similar judgment is issued in Amos 3:14: “For on the day that I punish Israel's transgressions, I will also punish the altars of Bethel; The horns of the altar will be cut off and they will fall to the ground.” See also Jeremiah 48:25: “The horn of Moab has been cut off and his arm broken, declares the Lord.” In Zechariah’s time, some of this had already happened, like the Persians defeating the Babylonians. Sometimes little fulfillments like this verify the certainty of future fulfillments.

For believers today, any attempt by the nations or by an alliance of nations is likely going to be antagonistic to God’s people. The United Nations pushes for diversity and environmental policies and they see Christianity as hostile to their causes. At some point, proclaiming the exclusivity of Christianity and the superiority of Christ through evangelism and missions efforts will be seen as defamatory and bigoted to cultures and world religions. Christianity will be lumped in with Islam, and all religions will be vilified as intolerant and unacceptable for civilization.

My summary of this vision in Zechariah 1:18-21 is this: Those strong and prominent nations which rose up against God’s people to scatter them and minimize their influence will themselves be terrified and thrown down by God’s representatives in God’s timeframe. “Though the returned exiles were vulnerable and had not even a city wall to defend them, any nation threatening Judah would itself be overthrown” (Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 103). This passage reflects what is seen in Daniel 2 and 7 about “the basic course of Gentile world powers” (Benware, Survey of the Old Testament, 243), and the reality that those powers will remain powerful during this present age.

Since Israel had rejected law, prophets, wisdom, and God, she had also rejected an ability to have a prominent geo-political role in the ancient world. Therefore, the Gentiles would be in control of the Middle east, and this reality would plague the Jews for millennium, even up to the present day. For us, too, there is the danger that we surrender greatness in the future when we reject faithfulness in the present.

There are other valuable reminders for Christians today. Geo-political threats that oppose Christianity will be easily defeated at some point in the future. Though they try to humiliate and intimidate, God’s people “will see the enemies they so much fear reduced to nothing” (Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 105). It is easy to feel small in light of the growing world powers that surround us. But God’s kingdom is greater, and that will be clear at some point in the future. Our mission in the meantime is to wait, to struggle, to endure, to strive for God’s kingdom, and to live and die for it, if necessary. 

MOVIES/ TV: A Negative Movie Review (And What That Says About Movies)

I would usually do a movie review by actually reviewing movies, and I guess we’ll do a little of that in this article. In a way, this is a negative movie review, not in that I will be saying negative things about movies I saw. Rather, it will be negative in that I will be discussing all the movies that I didn’t see.

It is an impressive array of films that I forsook recently; I almost feel like I'm obligated to turn in my geek card for not having served moviedom better over this last year.

I can’t believe that a Jurassic park movie came out last year, and I still haven’t seen it. Some new cast and some original cast, and I still didn’t take the time to watch it. This year there was an Indiana Jones movie, a Transformers movie, and a Marvel movie, specifically, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, and I didn’t go and watch any of them. I didn’t see the new Mission: Impossible and I skipped Across the Spider-Verse (and that, despite how much I liked the first one!). I’m actually a big fan of DCEU, yet I didn’t go see Blue Beetle. I’m into history (to put it lightly!), but I didn’t go see the Oppenheimer movie.

Ironically, of all the movies in the last year, the one that caused the most cultural buzz is another one that I didn’t see, specifically, Barbie. I do believe that I will have to watch this eventually, but I certainly wasn’t going to pay money to go see it!

Of course, I could be an outlier, but I’ve been amazed to find out how many people I know, specifically, other nerds like me, didn’t go see several of these movies either.

The only movie that that I felt enough compulsion to go see was The Flash. I actually thought it was quite a good film, love the cameos, loved Michael Keaton, and really thought this movie could have reinvigorated DCEU. It was a bit cheesy at times, and I could have done without the flat Supergirl character, but otherwise it was rather good, with a few interesting twists at the end. But of all these great movie franchises, I can’t believe that this is the only movie that I went and saw.

So what does the say about movies, about going to see a movie, or about franchise movies? I suspect most of our answers to this will be negative, except for one or two rays of hope.

I do wonder if there is some legitimate movie fatigue, or at least superhero or action-hero fatigue. Perhaps nobody wants to actually say it, but Infinity War and End Game were indeed the apex of the superhero genre; and I think we all know, and I think the box office receipts bear it out, that it’s all downhill from there.

Also, there’s so much streaming media, shows, movies, comedy specials, that we don’t feel like we need to go out to the movies any more. Additionally, I think the movie industry has done itself a huge disservice by shrinking the time between when a movie comes out in the theater and when you can stream it on Disney+ or Paramount+. It might be a great movie, one that I really wanted to see. But even some of the movies mentioned above contain nothing so gripping that I don’t feel like I can’t wait two months until I can watch them on Amazon, which, of course, I usually don’t do anyway.

Is it the ticket price? I could take a few kids and watch it now for $35 or wait two months and watch it with the whole family from my living and in my PJ’s for $2.99. Or are we just movied-out; have we just been so exposed to origin stories, sit-com crises, rom-com romances, and action flicks, that none of them really hold much interest for us now? In the avalanche of media that we are living in, individual shows and movies have lost their grip.

Here’s another odd related observation: I was recently in Target, and when I am there, I like looking for the discount movies that they often have on the end of the aisle or by the cash registers. But there were no DVD’s or Blu-rays to be found. Instead, what inhabited the ends of cash-register shelves that were not already cluttered with glasses or makeup, was books. No movies, no CDs, but books. I’m not sure what to make of that yet culturally; that is, I’m not sure if that implies that we’re tired of movies, or if it means that we’re suddenly in love with books. But one wonders if this is a positive sign for our society, specifically, that with all the forms of entertainment available to us, there is still, as there has been for generations, and probably always will be, an interest in books. After all, reading is taking words from the printed page and using them to make movies in our minds.

There are probably some other lessons that we can learn from the more successful movies of the summer. History is still important enough, as with the Oppenheimer movie, to be captivating and marketable. In a world full of reboots, it is encouraging that some people are shoehorning helpful, historical material into the media landscape.

This summer, we also learned that we love our toys! Between Barbie and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, some toys just have an appeal that transcends generations and apparently translates well onto the big screen. And some of those toy movies can even be utilized to provide social critique; I personally may not have liked all of the social critique that the Barbie movie provided, but it certainly got people talking!

Full disclosure compels me to admit one more thing about that previously-mentioned trip to Target: After finding no films on the ends of aisles, I browsed around in other areas, candy, coffee, CDs, and eventually, men’s clothes. As I was looking through men’s shirts I found a Raiders of the Lost Ark t-shirt, which I immediately snagged up. The irony hit me later, I’m looking for movies, and writing about movies that I haven’t seen, yet when I had the opportunity to grab something from a movie connected with my nostalgic past, I couldn’t resist it.

Perhaps sometime soon, they will start making movies again that I simply can’t resist going to see in the theater. But until then, I will remain aware of all the movies that I am not seeing, and will probably just read a book instead. 

ECLECTIC BIBLE QUESTIONS: The Trouble With Tribals

Welcome to the first installment of our new series called, “Eclectic Bible Questions.” If you have any questions pertaining to the Bible, Bible studies, theology, or church history, feel free to send them to feedback@eclectickasper.com, or post a question on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page, and we’ll cover them in a future edition.

The issue of tribal people in distant places who have never heard about Christ or Christianity is a pervasive one; it haunts the theoretical questions about evangelism, but also the real lives of missionaries. Taking a cue from a popular episode of Star Trek, I call this, “The Trouble With Tribals.” We want to love all people, we want everyone to go to heaven, and to enjoy the salvation and eternal life that only comes from Christ.

But this world is a big place, and while Christianity has spread through most of it, there are still people in rural contexts or in tribal settings who have never hear about human sin, the substitutionary death and literal resurrection of Christ, and the ability to be delivered from condemnation by trusting in Him. Can those people be condemned for what they are not aware of?

Succinctly, how does God treat people who have never heard of the Good News of Jesus? Are they at least given the benefit of the doubt? Are they judged based on their response to general revelation? Are they let off the hook if they have been a relatively-good tribes person? Does ignorance earn you some leniency?

This is simple theologically, but difficult emotionally. In fact, it is so simple theologically, that the answer sounds trite and impersonal.

We often like to quote C. S. Lewis, but he actually doesn’t help here, and perhaps muddies the waters a bit. It is helpful to recall that Lewis was more of an apologist than strictly a theologian or an exegete. Also, as an Anglican, he may have been a bit broader and more inclusive theologically than many conservative evangelicals. In his work The Last Battle, the final book of the Narnia series, Lewis’ Christ-figure Aslan, tells one of the bad guys (a Calormene from a country south of Narnia) named Emeth, that the devotion that he had exhibited to the false deity Tash would be credited as devotion to Aslan. That would seem to suggest that the if one is a devoted tribes person, or relatively moral according to their tribal religion, then that faith in their god or gods would be translated to Christ, and they would be saved.

In a sensitive case like this, we have to answer Biblically and logically, without pandering to someone’s humanism. People may not like the answer, they may not find it satisfactory, but we do have to be true to what Scripture says, and not give in to sentiment. We don’t have to try to prove that the Bible’s perspective is fair by our standards; we just have to prove that it is right.

Romans helps with this issue, not because it is addressing this specifically, but because it is trying to solve other issues. Are all condemned? Yes. All Jews and gentiles? Yes (Romans 3:10-20). Can people be justified, or, made righteous, and forgiven and saved through faith in Christ? Yes (Romans 3:21-28). Is faith in Christ the only way to be justified? Yes. (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 1 Timothy 2:5). John 14:6 is especially definitive: “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.’” These answers must be sufficient for the question regarding those who have never heard the Gospel.

A detractor may argue that someone never even had the chance to hear the gospel; Paul says that everything they needed to know to be accountable is revealed in general revelation (Romans 1:18-20). There is enough truth in general revelation to convict, but not enough to save. Nature testifies to the existence of God but also to His attributes. Romans 1:20 says that the unbeliever, including the villager or tribes person is “without excuse.” Those who have not had access to the Law or to revelation will perish apart from revelation (2:12). Also, when given the chance, humanity turns away from the one true God, even in light of the revelation they have (Gen 3, Rom 1, 3).

We could declare that this system is not fair, but that assertion is self-condemning. Romans 3:4 really speaks to all the times people accuse God of being unjust, unfair, or untrue. He is perceived as unfair for not saving tribal people, or unjust for allowing tragedies to occur, or unreasonable in electing some but not others. However, in the end, God will prove to prevail in truth while mankind is steeped in delusion, lies, and finitude; our accusations against God will prove childishly and petulantly untrue.

And, I want to go back to those verses about the exclusivity of Christ, or the fact that He is the only way to receive salvation and right relationship with God the Father (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 1 Timothy 2:5). Acts 4:12 states “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” That rules out getting to heaven by our merit, by being a good person, or by being ignorant. Not knowing or never hearing the gospel doesn’t get us through the gates of heaven on a technicality. If God saved them, because of ignorance, then it wouldn’t be fair to those who hear and believed. Also, it would dampen our desire to share the gospel, because, ironically, sharing the Good News of Christ with someone would now consign them to condemnation, rather than them supposedly being saved by their ignorance.

The exclusivity of Christianity helps with this issue in another way; allowing for any other way to God apart from Christ would trivialize Christ’s death and resurrection. It would make His suffering on the cross unnecessary. That doesn’t seem fair either!

Other verses give us more insight into the fate of the unsaved person. Rom 9:22 notes that many unbelievers are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Unbelievers are prepared by God for wrath and judgment (Prov 16:4; 1 Pet 2:8). God is just and right to condemn those who have never heard the gospel. Also, there is no way to please God and receive His righteousness without faith (Heb 11:6). Faith without proper content of that faith is just mythology or fairy tales.

This is, of course, not just academic. We do care about people, and we don’t want anyone to go to Hell because they didn’t hear about the saving gospel of Christ. As a legitimate concern, American Christianity should put its money where its mouth is, and be more aggressive funding efforts likes New Tribes Missions, Global Frontier Missions or Youth With A Mission. These organizations especially seek to mobilize believers to reach the unreached and the least reached people groups around the world. Perhaps soon, we can get to the point where everyone from every tribe, tongue, and nation has heard of the Gospel of Christ, and can trust Him as their Savior.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Some Deceit Tactics of Our Age

This article was originally presented in the November 2021 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal, and is re-presented here, in a very timely nature, with minor modifications.

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 legitimacy 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 true. When several different news outlets repeat the same thing, that doesn’t make it more legitimate 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 radio 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 an “expert” 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 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: they 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 also 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 it takes the form of 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.

The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently completing a PhD in reformation history from Georgia State University. Matt is the pastor of a small church northeast of Atlanta called Grace Atlanta Bible Church, and is involved in several other groups and activities in the Atlanta area, as well.

We had written a decade’s worth of articles in our previous web journal, called, The Eclectic Kasper, which we published from 2011 to 2021. Those articles are also arranged topically in our “Eclectic Archive,” which you can access here.

Also, if you haven’t yet, please give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like” and you can leave comments about any of our articles on our posts there.