Dilemmas and Trilemmas saturate the October 2025 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. We’ll discuss the choice between anxiety and joy, and decisions about the deity of Christ.

Some decisions, however, are not as difficult, such as deciding between a future bar fight or a space caper. All this and more in the October 2025 edition.

We are tempted here at “Eclectic Headquarters” to comment on the Charlie Kirk assassination and on the division and hostility from both sides that have ensued; we are as saddened and perplexed as many others are. However, in the flood of commentary on this episode from both sides, we didn’t feel for now that we had much meaningful to add. We may provide an article in an upcoming edition with thoughts about the assassination or insights on free speech. But for now, we thought it would be best to let some time pass; we decided just to do a “normal” edition, and allow others to carry the social and political commentary relative to that event for now. 

We have not been as active on our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page but we would like to change that and interact with readers a bit more. If you haven’t yet, please give our FB page a “like,” and you can leave any feedback and comments on our articles there.

And while we welcome other points of view, we have always tried to invite and encourage civil feedback. Please leave your thoughtful opposition, your gracious pushback; but in days like these, let’s try to keep it civil, even when we’re discussing controversial political or theological issues.

Thanks for reading, strive to be kind, and stay eclectic! 



APOLOGETICS: Testing the Trilemma, Part 1: Background and Biblical Claims

C.S. Lewis’ “Trilemma” is one of the greatest apologetics jujitsu moves in Church history. It especially tickles me because it also intersects with one of my favorite doctrines, specifically, the full and unqualified deity of Christ.

We have highlighted the Trilemma before, but it is worth a revisit in light of the criticisms that it has taken over the decades. Does Lewis’ Trilemma still work? Does it stand the test of time, and the assaults of critics, post-modernism, and reality?

And before I get too much farther into this article, I must acknowledge my debt to an acquaintance, Dr. Donald T. Williams, who is a C. S. Lewis scholar at Toccoa Falls Bible College, a Christian liberal arts school in North Georgia. I recently read His book Answers from Aslan: The Enduring Apologetics of C.S. Lewis (2023). Reading that book prompted me to think through the Trilemma again, to consider the criticism that it has faced, and Dr. Williams’ chapter on the Trilemma has re-awakened me to the power of this great tool. So in this edition of The Eclectic Web Journal and the next, we will spend a few articles discussing the Trilemma, its critiques, and its relevance for theology and apologetics today.

You have heard of a “dilemma,” a choice between two options. Usually, too, those choices are mutually exclusive; you can’t have a little of one and a bit of the other. Well, Lewis concocted an important “trilemma,” a choice between three options. As with a dilemma, a logical trilemma presents options which are mutually exclusive; you can’t have some of all three; you must select one of the choices, which automatically excludes the others.


Background

It was fashionable among British thinkers in the first half of the twentieth century to believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but also to dismiss some of the allegedly childish elements of Christianity, such as the stories of seas being parted, and people being healed, and certainly, the myth of people rising from the dead. One critical aspect of Christian theology that was being dismissed was the doctrine of the full deity of Jesus Christ.

In light of that, Lewis’ created a trilemma that can be used to evaluate Jesus Christ’s self-claims to be God. As Lewis put it: “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” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 54).

Lewis believed that in light of Jesus’ claims to be God, we have only three options available to us, and those are to believe that Jesus is a liar, or a lunatic, or truly the Lord as He claimed to be. Again, He can’t be a bit of one and some of another, for, as we will see in this series, each option excludes the complete validity of the other.

And there are further implications to these choices; if He is a liar or a lunatic, then who cares about what He taught? And if His claims are true, and He is not a liar and not a crazy person, then He is not just a great teacher who should receive our attention; He is also fully God as He claimed, and He should receive our worship and obedience, as well.

In this article and the follow-up to it later in this edition, we will explore Lewis’ Trilemma in light of further considerations and critiques it has faced in the last half-century. We will analyze the options Lewis presents, consider if there are any legitimate options that he left out, and evaluate whether the Trilemma continues to be a helpful apologetic and evangelistic tool today.


Jesus’ Claims

The assertions of Christ about Himself in the Gospels are critical to this debate; if Christ didn’t actually claim to be God, then the Trilemma is moot. We have reviewed these verses extensively in the old web journal, which we will try to get back online soon. For now, we will just give a few examples and references. And keep in mind, Jesus never explicitly says “I am as much God as God the Father!” But many of His claims to be God are only slightly less explicit than that.

For example, in John 8:58, Jesus declares not only that He existed before Abraham, but also that He is the great “I AM” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14). In John 5:17, He puts His own works on par with those of the Father, and later simply asserts, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30; see also 10:38; 17:11, 21). Jesus forgives sins like God (Matt 9:6 [see parallel verses in Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24]), He applied an OT quote about God (Dan 7:13-14) to Himself (Matt 26:64 [par. Mark 14:62]). He asserted that He was “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17, 2:8, 22:13; cf. Isaiah 41:1; 44:6; 48:12), the One who holds “the keys of death and Hades” (Rev 1:18; cf. Job 38:17), the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev 22:13; see Rev 1:8; 21:6), and “the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13; 21:6). He never contradicts anyone who accuses Him of blasphemy (Matt 9:3 [par. Mark 2:6-7; Luke 5:21]; Matt 26:65 [par. Mark 14:64]; John 5:18; 8:59; 10:31-33; 19:7); His audience clearly recognized that He was claiming to be God, but they just didn’t believe Him.

And all of this comports with what the Bible says about Him being fundamentally God (John 1:1-3; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15-17; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 6; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). Again, we featured an entire series on the deity of Christ and all the verses that point strongly to the legitimacy of that doctrine. We could go on, but hopefully, you get the point: Jesus did claim to be fundamentally God, as much God as God the Father is God, and those who wrote about Him in the NT agreed.


The History of The Options

Thus, we come to Lewis’ Trilemma. Jesus clearly claimed to be God in the NT, which leaves us with only a few choices, all of which cancel the other choices out. Jesus is either God as He claimed to be. But if not, then He lied about this claim, or He is a self-deceived lunatic. 

Lewis juxtaposes these options with the claim that Jesus was just a good teacher, but that claim is empty in light of these three choices. If He is fully God, then being a great teacher is only a small part of His role as the Second Member of the Divine Trinity, as Savior, and as eschatological Judge as depicted in the book of Revelation. Great teacher, yes, but that and so much more. And of course, He could hardly be a respectable teacher of religion, ethics, and truth if he were a liar out to deceive others, or a lunatic, and, therefore, deceived about Himself.

While the three choices that Lewis gives us are hailed as being new and innovative, the Trilemma restructures an argument that is centuries old. Don Williams explains that the Trilemma was “a refinement of a much older debate, the aut Deus aut malus homo (“either God or a bad man”), which goes back at least to early church fathers, or the Patristic period, roughly the first five or six centuries of the church (Williams, Answers from Aslan, 81). Again, the point is that because of Jesus’ claims to be deity, He either was God, or was a bad person—or certainly not a great teacher—for deceiving others or Himself about it.

Again, Don Williams explains the shift from that dilemma to Lewis’ trilemma: “Lewis makes the dilemma a trilemma by subdividing the malus homo (bad man) option into two types of badness—mendacity and insanity—which are potentially relevant to the case of the claims of Christ to be God” (Williams, Answers from Aslan, 81).

The point is that theologians and writers had considered these options before, specifically, that Jesus was either a fraud, or that He was truly God as He claimed to be. Lewis really encapsulated these options for us, and reminded us that the Jesus can’t be merely a good Teacher, as many were claiming. Though these options seem quite self-evident, and mutually exclusive, nonetheless, Lewis’ Trilemma has been attacked and criticized both by unbelievers, but from people within the church, as well.

Well, having reminded you of Lewis’ Trilemma, we will take a break here and then dive more deeply into these options in the next article of this series below. 


CALVIN’S CORNER: Unavoidable Sovereignty, Ephesians 1:4-5

See the following previous installments in this series:


Calvinism continues to be a divisive issue today; I have told our congregation that I have lost friendships with people in part because I was Calvinistic, and I have also lost other relationships in part because I was not Calvinist enough. This series is my own, probably futile, attempt to take the temperature and emotions out of this debate and to arrive at exegetically honest answers to the divine sovereignty versus human will dilemma.

I have recently been studying through Ephesians, and was impressed by how Ephesians 1, especially vv. 4-5, answers many of our questions about this dilemma. Unfortunately, people dismiss verses like these as just being too Calvinistic. But it is not that some verses are Calvinistic and some are Arminian; rather, those systems try to harmonize these verses about divine election and human decision. Hopefully, we are trying to approach these verses without contaminating them with too much of our own theological agenda. To put it another way, we are not trying to find verses that agree with our theological preferences, but trying to craft our theology from honest exegesis of these verses individually and collectively.

Ephesians 1:4-5 in the NASB says, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”

It is interesting how some people see a verse like this and get caught up in the “choosing” or “electing” and in Paul’s clear lunge toward Calvinism, but ignore the beautiful statement about the reason why we were chosen by God. 

The “just as” at the beginning of v. 4 connects this verse with the idea of spiritual blessings in v. 3, and reminds us that salvation is the greatest spiritual blessing that we could ever receive. In fact, salvation is such a phenomenal spiritual blessing that it minimizes the impact and scope of all our mortal difficulties and dilemmas (Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 4:17; 1 Pet 4:13). Perhaps another tie-in is that as Christ is in the heavenly places (v. 3), so through faith in Christ can we be transferred into the heavenly places eventually as justified and redeemed people (Eph 2:6).

The verb eklego means “to select” or “to choose,” and occurs 22 times in the NT. It is either used in a general sense of picking someone or something ahead of time (Luke 6:13; 9:35; 10:42; 14:7; Acts 6:5; 13:17; 15:7, 22, 25), often of the apostles specifically (John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24), or used of God choosing believers (Mark 13:20; 1 Cor 1:27, 28; Eph 1:4; Jas 2:5). The need for God to choose believers is made abundantly clear in Ephesians 2, specifically, because we were “dead in our trespasses and sins” (2:1; see also 2:5; Col 2:15). Fallen people lack the spiritual capacity to chose God (Rom 3:10-12). We were chosen “in Him,” meaning Christ; that is, the Father chose us, but the Son lived a perfect life, suffered, and died and rose again to effectuate redemption for those whom the Father chose (Mark 14:24; Colossians 2:13). This decision was made “before the foundation of the world,” even before humanity was created; so, what independent choice could we have made, or what free will could we have contributed to this decision?

Despite what our Armenian friends assert, this choice had to be completely independent of us, because it was a choice made before we existed, or “before the foundation of the world.” Some, however, are not happy with the plain reading of a phrase like this or when the Bible mentions the concept of “foreknowledge” (Rom 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet 1:2; see also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28). In order to appease their theology and to accommodate their obsession with human will, they interpret these concepts to mean that God looks ahead to see if we would choose Him or not, and then elects us based on that.

There is, of course, no semantic nor exegetical evidence for this. Besides, this doesn’t fix the problem: Even if God looked ahead to see if we would seek Him or choose Him, He would only see that people don’t choose God outside of His prompting and the regeneration that He accomplishes within them (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Psa 53:2; Rom 3:10-11; 5:8-10). In order to avoid this, God would have to make us in such a way that we would choose Him, and, therefore, our choice of Him would still driven by His will to make us a certain way. 

There is another fallacy with believing that God looked ahead to see if we would choose Him and based His foreknowledge on that; the problem is that then our salvation becomes about our will, if we decide to be saved, not on God’s kind and gracious will. No matter how hard you want to cram human will into this equation, our salvation still comes entirely as a result of divine will (1 John 4:10, 19).

Paul had just mentioned in v. 4 that God chose us before the foundation of the world, and he now opens v. 5 with the phrase “He predestined.” This is probably not meant to be entirely separate from the choosing mentioned in v. 4, but rather, building upon that and explaining it more. The verb proorizo means, “to predetermine” or “to foreordain,” and is used six times in the NT either of God’s general purposes and plans (Acts 4:28; 1 Cor 2:7), or of God predestining believers to salvation and sanctification (Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 1:5, 11). Again, it is difficult to find a way to shoehorn human will or decision into this process of God’s foreordaining us to salvation. The point here is that our salvation is the result of God’s will, plan, and predetermination, and that decision is made, thankfully, completely independent of our own will.

This predestination was for “adoption,” huiothesia, an exclusively Pauline word (Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). And all of this takes place only “by means of Jesus Christ” (the Greek preposition dia in the genitive translates “through,” or “by means of,” or some other instrumental nuance). While the Father predestines, the salvation, redemption, sanctification, and adoption could not happen without the work of Christ. And again, I am seeking in vain to find where human will fits into our salvation as it is described in these verses.

We are reminded in v. 5 that this is all according to the kindness of God’s will and plan. The preposition kata here in the accusative means “according to” or “corresponding to,” meaning that all of these things are accomplished as a result of God’s kindness and with reference to His benevolence. Again, this undermines the notion that God looked ahead and saw how we would respond; then it would be according to our good nature and will, not His. And lest we accuse God of being cruel for making these decisions about our eternal destiny apart from our own will or permission, the text notes that this is according to God’s eudokia, a Greek word that means “good pleasure” or “good will” and even “kind intention.” The fact that God destined some for eternal bliss with Him, but did not do so for everyone does not mean that God is a heartless tyrant; rather the salvation of some fallen sinners is a product of His kind will, and is arguably, the kindest thing He could do. The word thelema means “will,” and occurs 62 times in the NT. It usually refers to God’s will (Matt 6:10; 7:21; Acts 13:22; Rom 1:10; etc.), though sometimes to human will (John 1:13; 1 Cor 7:37; etc.). These verses emphasize the all-sovereign will of God and the critical work and Person of Christ in the process of salvation; relative to this, human will disappears until it is revived and given life by God as a result of redemption and conversion, but not before conversion.

We have discussed before the fallacy of “free will,” and we will circle back to this in a future article and explain why there is no such thing as unfettered human free will; the sooner evangelicalism cycles this phrase out of its lexicon, the better we will be. But the point here is that salvation is unavoidably the result of God’s sovereign will, and not our own. Then, after God’s Holy Spirit regenerates the soul of a sinner, that person is redeemed, and is now able to use their will in ways that they couldn’t before they were justified and converted. Then, every command in Scripture is an invitation for that saved and redeemed person to leverage their will toward God, rather than for the self, or for the flesh, or for the world (Rom 6:16-22).

I know that people love human will, and we want to preserve our freedom as vociferously as we can. And I am a big fan of our political liberty, and of resisting tyranny and governmental intrusion. However, we have to be careful when we impose those American values on our theology, and especially on our understanding of salvation. The reality is that if God doesn’t call and predestine us, then we are truly lost; there is no way we can save ourselves through our will, works, efforts, or through any sense of worthiness. 

But receiving grace and being saved is not a reason to look down on others (Eph 2:8-9), but rather an opportunity to be humble, to serve, and to tell other sinners how they can be saved by God’s gracious, sovereign, and loving will. The sovereignty of God is unavoidable; we both oppose and resist it to our own detriment. But to embrace it, and the free gift offered by grace through faith in Christ is to receive irrevocable forgiveness and eternal life, so that we can enjoy the sovereignty and goodness of God forever. 


CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Why Are We So Anxious Today? A Cultural Conundrum, Part 1

I am not a professional counselor nor a sociologist nor a psychologist. However, between my training and experience in ministry and in history, I have spent a lot of time helping people in the present and analyzing people in the past who have or had a variety of phobias and anxieties. I have examined the anxieties and stressors that people experienced in specific historical contexts, from personal concerns, to worries about the church, to apocalyptic anxieties. And I have also walked with many people of different ages and backgrounds through their anxieties and struggles today.

Even before the Charlie Kirk assassination and other violent incidents in the news cycle lately, anxiety has been on the rise. I think that many people today don’t appreciate how difficult life is; it has always been tough, and there have always been fears and uncertainties. Yet there seems to be more anxiety today, and less ability to deal well with life’s fears and uncertainties.

If anything, we are quite fortunate to be living in the modern era. Most of us live above subsistence existence, not wondering where our next meal will come from. There is ample food, clothing, goods, services, and entertainment aplenty. Sure, we’d all like more money, a better job, a bit less financial constraint. But compared to times in the past, we have incredible resources of food, technology, and medicine, and yet, we seem more and more unhappy and anxious.

But this is the odd contradiction of modern American culture: we have everything that previous generations could want materially, educationally, and much more beyond what previous generations could have dreamed of. And yet there seems to be an epidemic of sadness and anxiety today. Why do our lives seem to pulsate with tension and frustration? Why are too many people struggling to deal with the realities of life even in a prosperous society like ours? 

It takes just a few stats to tell the story: Suicide rates increased 37% from 2000 to 2018; they have remained steady since 2018; it is good that suicide hasn’t increased during that time, but it is not good that it hasn’t decreased. There is other evidence for this: “In 2024, 43% of adults say they feel more anxious than they did the previous year, up from 37% in 2023 and 32% in 2022. Adults are particularly anxious about current events (70%) — especially the economy (77%), the 2024 U.S. election (73%), and gun violence (69%) (taken from “American Adults Express Increasing Anxiousness in Annual Poll; Stress and Sleep are Key Factors Impacting Mental Health,” accessed 10-04-25).

While preparing a message recently from Romans 8, I read about separation anxiety. Separation anxiety is normal for babies 12 to 18 months old, but it usually goes away as the child learns that they can bear the physical absence of the parents. Sometimes however, this develops into a longer-range separation anxiety disorder. If not treated properly, it can become Adult Separation Anxiety. According to the DSM-5 (2013), 1-2% of American adults have some form of separation anxiety disorder (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition [Arlington, VA: 2013]). That turns out to be a lot of people with separation anxiety even though most of us are usually surrounded by people. 

Increasing stress and stressors have lead to the rise of what is called “Anxiety Culture,” a term leveraged in the book Anxiety Culture: The New Global State of Human Affairs (edited by John P. Allegrante, Karen Struve, Michael I. Schapira, Ulrich Hoinkes [2024]). One article says that the contributers to this volume “explore the societal factors driving this global crisis — from climate change and health challenges to school violence and the impact of technology — and examine how we can better understand what is believed to be a new wave of ‘anxiety culture’ in today’s evolving world” (taken from a review at https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2025/january/examining-the-rise-of-anxiety-culture/). This topic has been addressed in many other works, as well; recently Jonathan Haidt, who has written extensively on political divides today, published a book called The Anxious Generation (2024). The anxiety epidemic is getting more and more attention today, but there seems to be no solutions and no moving away from an anxiety-ridden culture.

Again, I am not a professional psychologist, nor psychologist, but I research the anxieties of people from the past, and spend many anxious moments ministering to people in their trials and difficulties today. What contributes to this rise of an anxiety culture? Why are the benefits of modern culture, such as technology and medicine, not mitigating the effects of anxiety? What can we do as individuals to live a lower-stress life? 

Let’s start with a few of the reasons why there is so much anxiety today, and I bet that you could add a few of your own to this list.

The Ubiquity of News: In times past, news was more local geographically, which meant that many of us would only hear about local stories and only about the most important national or international ones. Now, we hear of every stabbing, every mass shooting, every war, every snarky comment from a president to a senator, or from a mayor to a governor. Very little of this impacts our life in any way at all; a shooting on the south side of the city doesn’t really change how safe I am or feel on the north side of the city. But I suspect that for every news story we hear, we carry a small burden of it; even if every one of these stories carried a mere sliver of anxiety, those burdens of anxiety could add up over time. It’s like death by a thousand paper cuts; those cuttings and stabbings reported in the paper are creating terrors and psychoses by means of a thousand anxious stories.

The Constant Nature of News: Not only is news everywhere, but it is also all the time! As news used to be more contained geographically, it was also confined temporally. That is, most people consumed national news from 6:00 to 6:30 in the evening, and then local news, sports, and weather from 6:30 to 7:00. Sure, anyone could pick up a newspaper at any time and read it, but it was understood that there was a time for news, and then, a time for other activities, such as a time for football, a time for church, a time for family, a time for late-night comedy. Succinctly, there can be no avoiding the reality that internet accessibility to local and global events and the ascendancy of 24-hour cable news have increased fears and anxieties in our lives. Have these news sources raised greater awareness? Perhaps. Have they made us more anxious? Most definitely!

The Language of Anxiety: Another “innovation” in modern society that has probably made us more anxious in recent centuries and decades is all of the vocabulary we have developed to explain the varieties of anxieties that we face. I am not saying that these definitions are not good or beneficial, but I am not sure that naming all these fears and conditions have served us well.

In previous generations, people were afraid of plagues, invasions, droughts, and famines. People were naturally worried about their family, their village or town, and their ability to survive and provide. I have seen this in my research of Protestant church leaders in the early 1500s as they try to provide comfort to their churches and audiences and as they list the panoply of fears that an early-modern European might face. But these fears were general and they were discussed in the most general of terms.

Today, by contrast, we probably have less life-threatening and subsistence-level anxieties, and we also have more counselors, therapists, and psychologists per capita than any other time or place ever has. And yet, we seem more angst-ridden than other times or places ever were. I imagine that by creating a new industry of therapy, and therapeutics, we have simultaneously created a heightened awareness of anxiety and trauma. Similarly, we have also popularized language and vocabulary describing fears and anxieties, including terms like insecurity, trauma, scarcity, and phobia. Again, these words may have been used in the past from time to time. But, I wonder if we use them so frequently now that we have come to adopt them as characteristics of ourselves and of our society. Perhaps we have identified and diagnosed feelings and conditions that people in the past had but didn’t have a word for.

And, by the way, I am not trying to dismiss these conditions nor look down on those who have them. I have told others about my own struggles with insecurities that are sometimes almost debilitating, so I am not making light of any of these terms or feelings. My inquiry here is simply whether or not we have exacerbated these anxieties by naming and identifying these conditions, and perhaps these conditions were handled better by people in the past for whom these conditions went unnamed and unidentified. That may not be true for all of the conditions that people suffer from today, but it may be true for others. Perhaps we have both fixed and amplified some of them at the same time.

There are more stressors in our lives today, so let’s pick this up in part 2 of this article below. 


BROWNCOAT BAY: Making Tracks – “Big Bar Fight” and “Leaving/ Caper/ Spaceball”

It is difficult to imagine the grandeur of the original Star Wars movies without the thoughtful compositions of John Williams. For that franchise, he provided both heroic fanfares, ominous marches, and other songs that matched the other-worldly atmosphere of some of the scenes.

Music tends to be an underrated aspect of creating a setting for a film or a TV show; we think about the impact of sets, costumes, and characters, but we sometimes don’t think about the soundtrack.

That said, it may sound odd to you when I assert my contention that at first pass, we shouldn’t think about the soundtrack to a show or film; that is, it should blend into the setting so perfectly that it doesn’t distract us from the plot, characters, or dialog. It should only be later, that we are familiar with the other elements of the scene, that we really listen for and appreciate the music, which added depth to the scene that we hadn’t even noticed previously.

The short-lived Joss Whedon TV show Firefly, is one of my absolute favorite TV shows ever; and Greg Edmonson’s soundtrack for the show is about as perfect as a soundtrack could possibly be.

We have highlighted a few tracks off Edmonson’s Firefly soundtrack before, and Edmonson does a great job capturing the diversity of environments and atmospheres of Firefly. Sometimes our intrepid crew are doing a job on a wealthy and sophisticated planet, but they also have gigs on planets that are, well, not so prosperous. Sometimes they are in crowded urban areas, and sometimes they are on a creepy derelict ship. Wherever they find themselves, the soundtrack always seems to match the situation perfectly.

There are some tracks on the Firefly album that are more like soundscapes, songs such as “River’s Afraid/ Niska/ Torture” and “Early Takes Serenity.” There are some mellow pieces like “Inara’s Suite” and “Inside The Tam House,” and even a fun Celtic piece, “River’s Dance.”

But two tracks especially capture the Westernish spirit of Firefly, which is really the essence of Firefly; those tracks are called “Big Bar Fight” and “Leaving/ Caper/ Spaceball.”

The track “Big Bar Fight” mainly features music from the beginning of the episode “Train Job,” the second episode of the series after the pilot, but the first episode of Firefly originally aired back in 2002. The song starts with a sense of people talking, deliberating, trying to find out where each other stands. But since this is Firefly, that conversation breaks out into a fistfight; after all, Firefly would hardly be considered anything remotely Western if there weren’t some good fistfights, but especially, one in a bar. Well, it starts in the bar, then goes through the “window” of the bar, and spills into the area outside the bar, and then, almost off the cliff near the bar. By this point the music has spiritedly, almost comically, caught up with the fight that is growing outside. This part of the track features energetic guitar, hectic percussion, unpredictable fiddling, as though capturing the frantic nature of a bar fight.

The second part of this track accompanies a scene from the pilot episode, where Serenity has to “rabbit” away from an alliance cruiser. The crew gets on board with some stolen cargo from a derelict ship; Mal orders wash to disconnect from the derelict and take off, and as they do, the soundtrack reflects Serenity’s launch with several gratifying guitar cords at the 1:25 mark. To me, these strummed bars are almost the Firefly equivalent of the heroic Star Wars theme; as John William’s brassy fanfare captures the epic heroism of Skywalker’s saga, so too, these few measures capture the rugged, frontier-like feel of Firefly as the crew just barely escapes from the evil alliance. And here, it is actually the dialog that accompanies the music; as Serenity’s main engine blazes to full power and the ship skitters away, Jayne tactfully says, “Let’s moon ‘em!”

Another track that captures that Western-y and frontier-like sense is entitled “Leaving/ Caper/ Spaceball.” This is a compilation of snippets from scenes in the episodes “Bushwhacked,” “Trash,” and “Objects in Space.” The first half of this track features an interesting combination of instruments, including guitar, strings, timpani, and what sounds like vibraphone. The combination of these sparsely-used instruments creates an eerie tension indicative of any number of dangerous jobs or heists that the crew of Serenity undertakes.

The third quarter of this track dissolves into a quite beautiful and contemplative guitar song that sounds like something you would listen to around a campfire out on the prairie. The last quarter of this track interrupts this peaceful guitar song with a frantic fiddle run that initiates a more spirited piece. The last forty seconds of this track are about a Firefly-ish as you can get with its lively, guitar-directed anthem.

Firefly is a show renown for its great writing, unique plots, and compelling characters. In fact, we often discuss how the ship itself is not just a setting but it almost serves as the tenth character of the show. This is especially true when we see Kaylee talk to or lovingly stroke the ship, or when it intermingles injuries with Mal in “Out of Gas,” and when it seemingly becomes inhabited by River in “Objects in Space.” But as important as the setting, characters, and plots are, the music adds a depth and feeling that dialog and scenery alone couldn’t hope to convey. And these Western-style tracks especially capture the essence of the show: a series of rugged tales of those trying to get a job, attempting to fly away from too much trouble, and seeking just a little bit of serenity in their own lives. 


APOLOGETICS: Testing the Trilemma, Part 2: Was Jesus a Liar?

Even amidst all the talk of moral relativity today, most of us don’t like liars. Plagiarism is still a serious offense in most instances, and being a liar can land someone in big trouble. 

In 2021 it was revealed that David Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes, may not have been as honest as he led us to believe. A BuzzFeed investigation discovered that between 2015 and 2019, Mikkelson may have plagiarized up to sixty articles (see the Associated Press article “Prominent fact-checker Snopes apologizes for plagiarism”). This, of course, doesn’t mean that the content of those articles was wrong, but it certainly does raise questions about Mikkelson’s own credibility on a fact-checking website.

More recently, in 2023, it was discovered that Harvard professor Francesca Gino may have falsified findings and engaged in data manipulation in some of her published studies. Ironically, she did research on honesty and on ethical behavior. “For the first time in roughly 80 years, Harvard University has revoked the tenure of one of its professors” (Matt Lavietes and Viola Flowers, “What to know as Harvard professor Francesca Gino’s tenure is revoked amid data fraud investigation,” May 27, 2025). I think that she is going to have a hard time finding a good job anytime soon.

We are all sinners, liars, and hypocrites to an extent; we have all fallen short and bent the truth a little, or embellished a personal story, or cut corners on an expense report or on our taxes. Many get away with it, at least for now. But many people face tremendous backlash; and they face more backlash the more prominent they are, and even more so if they deal in the realm of ethics and honesty.

As we argued in the prior article in this series, Jesus clearly claimed to be Messiah, Savior, and God. But how are we to evaluate these claims? What are our options? In this article, we will explore the option in C. S. Lewis’ Trilemma that Jesus may have been a liar regarding His claims to be God. In the next article in this series, we will explore whether or not there was some lunacy and delusion behind His self-claims. If either of these options are true, then this compromises the credibility of Christ as a religious and moral teacher, as well as the integrity of Christianity on the whole. If neither of these are true or credible, then that forces us to face the reality that Jesus was telling the truth about being God.

Critiques of Lewis’ Trilemma really fall into two categories. The first category questions whether these options of liar, lunatic, or Lord, that is, His claims that He was fully divine, are really as mutually exclusive with each other as Lewis claimed. Another issue is whether any of these options, especially liar or lunatic, are indeed mutually exclusive with Jesus being a great teacher. Could Jesus have been deceived about who He was, or could He have been over-ambitions about His claims of being fully divine, and yet we could still consider Him a good teacher? Could He 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?

The other category of critiques regarding Lewis’ Trilemma rests on the question of whether there can be other legitimate options beyond liar, lunatic, or Lord. Part of the defense of the Trilemma is to demonstrate that these options are mutually exclusive with each other and with the claim that He was just a great moral teacher, and also to demonstrate that there are really no other meaningful options beyond these three. We will address both of these sets of critiques as we work our way through this series.

One of the alternatives in the Trilemma is that Jesus was a liar, intentionally deceiving others about His miracles, teachings, and claims regarding Himself. This would include lies about His content, especially teachings about faith, what pleases God, and ministering to others. 

We tend to look down on the intelligence or wisdom of those in the past, most of whom were certainly less educated than ourselves. However, I am also inclined to think that, without all the knowledge and entertainment that clutter our lives today, maybe those people were wiser and more discerning than we give them credit for. I think that more people would have noticed if Jesus was a liar, was lying about His miracles and healings, and would have called Him out then and there. The antagonism of the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day were more a commentary on their hardness of heart, and not reflecting that Jesus was a fraud. But after three years of claiming to be God, claiming to do miracles, people would have noticed that He wasn’t delivering. As a result, Jesus’s teachings wouldn’t have gained traction, He wouldn’t have risen from the dead, and there would be no Christianity now. 

Also, being a liar would undermine the credibility of Jesus’ critiques about those of His own day. Jesus frequently criticized the deception, false-piety, and hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders, and these criticisms serve as valid warnings for believers today. But how valid would these warnings be if Jesus Himself lied about His own identity, including His claims to be the Son of God, insinuations that He was the Messiah, and any assertion of His own deity.

If Jesus was a liar, then His worst lies were about Himself, especially any subtle implication that He was fully divine (John 8:58; 10:30; 17:5, 22). He may have said some nice things, but if He knew that He was not God and Messiah as He claimed to be, then He lied about Himself, His identity, and His authority as both God and as someone sent by God the Father.

I mentioned previously about Snope’s co-founder David Mikkelson and the multiple instances of plagiarism. The fact that he stole stories from others and put his own name on them doesn’t invalidate the content of those stories. They were just as true whether someone else’s name was under the headline or his was. But the manner in which he hijacked those articles and took credit for writing them undermines his legitimacy as a journalist. The content that he claims to have written may still be valid, but His validity as a fact-checker is demolished by his own dishonesty.

Similarly, Jesus may have lied about His identity, but that does not invalidate some of the teachings attributed to Him in the NT. Thomas Jefferson famously produced a version of the New Testament that extracted all of the elements from the Gospels that were supernatural and miraculous, including the account of the resurrection, and Jesus’ claims or even insinuations that He was fully divine. Jefferson retained many of Jesus’ teachings, believing that the ethics of the Gospels were valuable and that they should be preserved. But he denied that Jesus performed miracles or claimed to be God.

But remember, our discussion here, and the point of Lewis’ Trilemma, is not about the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, or lessons on spirituality from His parables; rather, Lewis is discussing the credibility of Jesus’ claims. And even beyond this, the question is whether someone could have plagiarized material, positioned himself as a Messiah, lied about his own identity and divinity, and yet could still be considered a great moral teacher. He may have issued some great moral teachings, but we wouldn’t consider someone like this to still be a great moral teacher.

To leverage another example, there were probably many good and wise lessons regarding family, parenting, and honesty that we gleaned from The Cosby Show. But knowing now what we know about Bill Cosby, nobody would accuse of him of being a great moral example, and nobody will ever call him “America’s Dad” again.

Similarly, it doesn’t matter what Jesus taught if He lied about being Messiah, Savior, and God. This is true especially because He connected so much of His teaching and miracles to His identity as someone sent from God, and as the only way, truth, and life. He frequently pointed to the truth that He was living and proclaiming and how that demonstrated that He was from God (John 3:21; 5:36; 8:40, 45; 10:25; 17:19). Was He lying when He claimed to speak the truth (John 8:45), or when it was said to be “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), or when he claimed to be the truth and the only way to God and to life (John 10:9; 14:6)? He insisted that His claims, especially about Himself, were true (John 8:14; 18:37; see also Rev 1:5; 3:14). His teachings about God, ethics, and doctrine are indeed invalidated if He frequently lied about or intentionally misrepresented Himself.

So, what’s the verdict on this one? The question is not just which option do we believe in, that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic, or the Lord God. The other component is whether He can be any of these three and still be a great teacher. 

Our conclusion is this; while His teachings have been preserved down through the ages, no logic would allow Him to have lied about His messianic identity or His divinity. And as such a fraudster, there is no way in which He could still be considered a great moral teacher. He certainly was a great moral teacher, but that role is less significant than that of Miracle-worker, Savior, and fully-divine Son of God. If He lied about this, then what validity do any of His truth claims really have? 


ZECHARIAH’S VISIONS: Both Sides of Judgment, Zechariah 5:1-4

Even for many believers, the Word of God seems old and antiquated. Does it still apply now? Is the Bible just a list of old stories and outdated morals? Do the Scriptures still help us appreciate God’s expectations for His people today?

Zechariah 5:1-5 contains the sixth of Zechariah’s visions. Some combine this vision and the next one, the woman in the basket, into one continuous vision, but I think that there is enough internal evidence to treat them separately. This vision consists of the vision of the scroll in vv. 1-2, and then the meaning of the vision in vv. 3-4.

This short vision begins with the phrase “then I lifted up my eyes”; the Hebrew version of this phrase has an interesting career, including being used in a vision by Jacob (Gen 31:10), Ezekiel (Ezek 8:5), Daniel (Dan 8:3), and four times by Zechariah (Zech 2:5, here in 5:1, again in v. 9, and also in 6:1). The occurrence of this phrase in Ezekiel 8:5 is most similar to this one; as Ezekiel sees the abomination of an “idol of jealousy” in the temple, here Zechariah sees a scroll filled with curses for those who disobey and forsake the one true God.

Zechariah looks up in v. 1 and sees a “flying scroll”; this is the Hebrew word megillah, used frequently in Jeremiah (12 times) and Ezekiel (four times), and then twice here in Zechariah and once in Psalms (40:7). Usually the word sepher would be used, which refers more to a codex or a book. Perhaps the value of “scroll” here instead of book is the spread-out nature of a scroll as it flies.

As in 4:2, the angel asks the prophet, “What do you see?” (5:2); he apparently wants to make sure that Zechariah is tracking with him and understands. Zechariah explains what he sees: a scroll that is flying through the air. The dimensions of the scroll are unusual, as a scroll is often many times longer than it is high. Here, the dimensions twenty cubits long and ten cubits wide match both the porch in front of the original temple (1 Kings 6:3), and also the length/width and height of the bronze altar in front of it (2 Chron 4:1). The eschatological temple described in Ezekiel 41 also has a porch of the same proportions, but different dimensions; that is, this porch, or “nave” in Ezekiel 41:2 is forty cubits by twenty cubits. Either way, these are large temple-ish dimensions, whether referring to Solomon’s temple which had been destroyed by Zechariah’s time, or the future or hypothetical temple seen in Ezekiel 41.

Eugene Merrill notes three places that have similar proportions, where the length is twice the width, specifically, the Holy place in the tabernacle (Exod 26), and the porch and bronze altar mentioned above; he notes that these are all places associated with the “sanctuary, the place where YHWH meets with his people” (Eugene Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 166). Given that so much of Zechariah consists of the prophet encouraging the post-exilic community to rebuild the temple (Zech 1:16; 4:9; 6:12, 13, 15; 8:9), it should come as no surprise that these proportions and even specific dimensions reflect spaces associated with the tabernacle and temple.

Given how odd this sight must have been, the angel doesn’t waste time getting to the significance of the vision in 5:3-4. While the interpretation doesn’t give us all the answers that we are looking for, it sends us in the right direction, specifically, expressing God’s displeasure that His people are not abiding by the basic precepts of His Law. The “interpretation” in vv. 3-4 is “filled with covenant terminology,” and makes one think that the scroll is just the Torah itself” (Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 167).

But the scroll is described as a “curse.” It is not some kind of magical curse, but rather it is listing the consequences for covenant disobedience (Deut 28). The scroll intends to convict people of the sins that are still present, not just among pagans, but in the land of Israel that the exiles have returned to. It is significant, too, that the scroll has writing on both sides (v. 3). Moses’ tables had commandments on “both sides” (Exod 32:15), and the specific vices listed here in Zech 5:3-4 are ten commandment vices, like, do not steal (Exod 20:15), and do not swear falsely (Exod 20:16; see also Lev 19:12). The intent of these commandments was to purge as much evil behavior out of the land; but this vision seems to be referring to that ideal and pointing toward future purgation. The eschatological aspect of this is that people will be purged from the land based on the numerous sins and vices listed on the scroll. God’s desire is to forge a people who live out the holiness that He asks for.

The Word of God is not just to be considered on Sabbath or, for us today, just on Sunday mornings. It is supposed to permeate our lives. This vision notes in v. 4 that the word of the law will penetrate the houses of the residences (v. 4). The word of God should fill our lives, help us purge out our sinful habits; there isn’t a part of your life that should be immune from the influence of the Word of God (Zech 14:21a).

This vision communicates to the exiles returning to Judah and Jerusalem that God wanted to purge the evil out of His land. That desire remains true today, as He also wants us to purge evil out of the lives of believers. Ephesians 4:24 says, “And put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (see also 1 Thess 3:13, Heb 12:10 and 1 Peter 1:16). The word of God will demolish unholiness “timber and stones” (v. 4). This seems to imply that the act of purging will have some painful destruction that goes along with it. Pursuing purity always means destroying something. Paul says in 2 Cor 10:5, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

Many of these visions pertain to living by God’s law and to rebuilding the temple. In that context, this vision combines the notion of the house of the Lord and the houses of the people; the exiles returning to the land cannot expect to be blessed for rebuilding the house of the Lord if they are disobeying the will of the Lord in their own houses. Similarly, Christians today can’t expect that God would bless our efforts of evangelism and disciple-making if we are failing to pursue purity behind closed doors.

The exile was intended to purge many sins out of the lives of God’s people. Yet they found out when they returned to the land that there were still vices clinging to their lives; a tremendous moral gap between God and the people still existed. This vision of a scroll reminds them that the Word of God would continue to hover over God’s people reminding them of the expectation that they should be holy for His service. “The vision was a reminder to the postexilic community that they, like their forefathers, were still subject to God’s standards for social conduct as expressed in the Decalogue” (Robert B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 463).

With so much time having passed since Jesus and the apostolic writings, perhaps believers today also need a reminder that we are still bound by Jesus’ teachings and apostolic doctrine. The passage of time does not erode morality or God’s truth. The Word of God still hovers over God’s people reminding us of God’s expectations, and calling us to a life of greater obedience, and, consequentially, of greater effectiveness and greater blessing.


CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Why Are We So Anxious Today? A Cultural Conundrum, Part 2

In part 2 of the article started above, we want to continue investigating reasons why we are such an anxiety-ridden culture, and what are some things we can do as individuals to be less taken in by worry and fear.

Jettisoning the Transcendent: Yes, I’m going to get a bit preachy here, but only enough to raise the point and allow you to evaluate whether there is some fruit here. Sometimes, we see the honesty of the secular mind admitting potential problems when a society casts off revelation and the favor of God. Friedrich Nietzsche’s passage “The Madman” from his 1882 collection of writings called The Gay Science (§125) is enigmatic and difficult to interpret. It has often been credited with contributing to the “Death of God” mentality popular at the time, positing that modernism has made religion and Christianity implausible and even irrelevant. But Nietzsche also asserted that this is not necessarily a good thing for the moral foundations of Western Civilization, and jettisoning God can contribute to greater anxieties corporately and individually.

Nietzsche notes that eighteenth and nineteenth century European society had largely moved away from God’s grace and revelation, deeming God to be irrelevant in the new nations that were being crafted in these centuries. The removal of God left not just gaping holes in the knowledge and morality of many Europeans, but for some, it also created a sense of moral drift, an ennui, a rudderlessness and rootlessness. He recognizes this allegedly-liberating movement away from God and likens it to the earth being “unchained . . . from its sun.” He laments: “Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?” If we jettison God from society, we lose revelation, joy, direction, and favor: 

How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?

When we shun God, we shun God’s favor, we shun atonement, joy, and meaning. Nietzsche was no evangelical, but he at least recognized that the price for getting rid of God means that, to an extent, we also lose ourselves in the process.


There is, of course, more to the spiritual dimension as we address the epidemic of anxiety in our culture, and we will address this question from a Biblical perspective in a follow-up article in a future edition. But for now, allow me to provide just a few helpful suggestions for reducing anxiety in your life.

Watch less news. Again, news today is often not helpful nor edifying; it is usually a catalog of death, struggle, and sorrow, and that can drain away our joy. It doesn’t really help you to know everything that is happening. If you are news junkie like me, maybe try to cut down on your news intake, and instead, listen to a comedian, or a podcast. Maybe turn off the 24-hour cable news channels and listen to some great music; I recommend Mozart, John Williams, and Bon Jovi.

Anxious Shadows: Research has revealed that most of what we worry about never even comes true. An interesting study at Penn State University conduced in 2016 investigated 29 people who meet the criteria for having GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and had them track their worries and anxieties for an entire month. The participants then described the results of those things that they were worried about; the study found that about 91% of the things that the participants worried about didn’t happen, and for several of them, none of what they worried about ever came true (“Exposing Worry’s Deceit: Percentage of Untrue Worries in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Treatment”). I am oversimplifying this study somewhat, but the results are definitive and transferable. Most of what we worry about doesn’t happen, and worrying about things doesn’t contribute to our mental or physical health (Jesus addressed this directly in the Bible, but again, we’ll throw that to a follow-up article!). Perhaps, too, rather than being worried about what may (but probably won’t happen), we can train our minds to focus on the good and on the blessings that we have actually received.

Why Worry?: Determine to not worry about things you can’t change. I can’t stop the war in Ukraine, though I would dearly like it to stop. I wish there was less strife and conflicts in the middle-east and in Palestine. However, there is literally nothing I can do about these situations, so I am trying not to worry about them. It is not that we can’t read about them or be informed, but at some point, you have to push situations out of your mind that you can’t do anything about. That may be difficult, but you simply have to redirect your mind to that tasks that you do have control over, rather than worry about situations upon which you have no influence.

Again, we will offer a Biblical perspective on this issue in a follow-up article for anyone who is so inclined. But for all of us of any stripe and background, it is important to note that worry is a choice, and that joy is also a choice. We have to decide what we want our minds to dwell on and what we don’t want to think about. Anxiety is a corrosive poison for the mind that refuses to let it go. But at some point, we have to make the choice to not dwell on worrisome matters, and to redirect our mental faculties in more profitable directions 

Back in the late 1980s, Bobby McFerrin treated us to an unlikely hit entitled “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.” An important imperative for us today lay just beneath the camouflage of the song’s lite lyrics and wispy Caribbean style; that infectious reggae ditty reminds us that joy is a choice. The title alone is a piece of profound wisdom for a needlessly anxiety-ridden age. So when anxiety hits, chose joy, and remember the title of that song; in fact, consider that “you might want to sing it note for note.”



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.