FEBRUARY 2011

    And, I don’t want to be critical or pessimistic just for the sake of being critical and pessimistic. In fact, I genuinely hope that my president has made a conservative, or at least a centrist shift, in contrast to his increasingly unpopular left-leaning (or “left-lunging”) record of the last two years. But closer analysis of the speech betrays a series of both logical inconsistencies and mere populist platitudes.

    The centerpiece of the address was the proclamation of a “spending freeze,” but this phrase requires evaluation before we all joyfully jump onboard. A “freeze” merely indicates continuing to spend at current, and obviously, unsustainable, levels, namely at levels that have added about $3 trillion to our national debt in just two years. This spending freeze is a bold declaration by the Left that government does not intend to spend more irresponsibly than we are spending now! A USA Today article quotes Senator Jim DeMint’s contrast between a spending freeze and a spending cut: “When you're in a car recklessly speeding toward a cliff, you don’t hit cruise control. You slam on the brakes and reverse course.” We do not need to lock in our current rate of spending, but drastically cut spending.

    But here's the big question:  How do we accomplish the myriad of initiatives Obama proposed if we are under a spending freeze? How can we build roads, achieve greater internet infrastructure, improve education, and invest in green energy sources, all without spending any more money?! This contradiction is as staggeringly evident as a pacifist at a hockey game. The effect of pouring money that we don’t have into these projects can only result in greater debt. We would all like better roads, improved technological capabilities, and better education. I would also like a beach house in the Bahamas and a private jet to get me there! An individual or a nation of individuals cannot have all their dreams fulfilled without having to pay the price somewhere. Successful businesses, non-profits, and families must operate within the reasonable confines of a budget, and the government should be no different.

    Other promises in the State of the Union address that sounded conservative were disingenuous at best. Obama vowed to veto any bills that came to him that had earmarks. But this is something that new House Speaker John Boehner and many other Republicans had already promised to eliminate during the Fall campaign. It is further disingenuous because Obama had already signed several bills from congress over the last two years that were replete with earmarks. While campaigning in 2008, he peddled the popular anti-earmark jargon that all Americans wanted to hear. However, his rhetoric became significantly more earmark-friendly when he landed in the White House, such as his notorious statement in March 2009, within two months of his presidency, where he said that: “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination.” At that time, conceding that an earmark can be a “vehicle for waste, fraud, and abuse,” he remarks that earmarks are fine when they have a “legitimate and worthy public purpose.” So, who decides that? But now, post-November 2010, he (again!) staunchly opposes earmarks.

    Obama’s comments about solidarity and working together are timely, and hopefully they will be found in the end to be genuine. However, our faith in them is tempered by a seriously partisan track record, punctuated by sentiments like his statement back in October that Republicans who want to join him “can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” This condescending comment was even interpreted by some as racist (where’s the NAACP when a liberal makes a statement like this!?).

    In the State of the Union, Obama said that the “first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation,” and he spoke as though he were the champion of the free enterprise system. Yet with the other hand, he pushes for more power to create a bigger, statist government that wields more regulations that inevitably stifles innovation and free enterprise.

    So was there anything that I liked about the speech? I appreciated the tone; it was a tempered speech without the hoopla and pep rally fodder that one often finds in a State of the Union address. Perhaps in light of the November “shellacking” and the recent Tucson shooting, it was a sober and thoughtful speech, and yet, not without being completely uninspiring. Obama is an exceptional speaker, and his speech writers did an above average job providing a balance of ideology and substance (though the plane engine analogy was a complete plane crash!). That said, one still would have appreciated more specifics, and even dollar amounts on some of the ideas that Obama was throwing out. I appreciated the respectful nod to John Boehner and the Republican victories in November, as well as the acknowledgement of Gabby Gifford's suffering, and the gratitude expressed to the noble women and men who serve in the armed forces. I am also grateful that the American people were not beat over the head with a plea to be civil. In fact, I respect the mature and almost un-PC concession which Obama makes, that vigorous and contentious debate is both healthy and far preferable to tyranny.

    President Obama, not renowned for his side-splitting jokes, was able to use humor to disarmingly poke fun at himself and at government. He mentioned how he had noticed “concerns” in the House over health care, and referring to our burgeoning bureaucracy, he commented on how complicated the administration of smoked salmon can be. The best moment of the night, however, was the response by Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, who obviously understood the financial realities and challenges better than our ivory-tower theoretician-president. Despite seeming a bit nervous (who wouldn’t be!), Ryan’s remarks were well reasoned, concise, and practical (would someone, please, pick up this kid as a VP for 2012!?!).

    So what was the public reaction to the speech?  Immediate reaction seemed good. A CBS poll said that, “82 percent of those who watched the speech said they approve of the president’s plans for the economy.” The slightly longer-term effects however are reflected in the Rasmussen Report daily Presidential Tracking Poll, which showed a drop in Obama’s approval index from a rating of -4 and -5 in the beginning of the week to back down into the double-digit range of -11 and -12 by the end of the week. After another bump back into negative single digits for a day or two, he plummeted back down to the -15 and -16 range (perhaps somewhat a reflection of his handling of the Egyptian revolt). By the way, mid-January was the first time that this particular approval index showed Obama spending a full week up in negative single-digit ratings since October 2009 (yes, folks, not October 2010, but 2009!). In the long term, however, a better “index” of what people actually think about Obama is reflected by a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released the day of the State of the Union (i.e., before anyone heard the address) showing that 49% of the public approves of the job Obama’s doing in the White House, while 50% disapprove of how he’s handling his duties. Now that the dust of the speech has settled, and other significant world events have captured our attention, it is probably this last poll that will prove to be the more honest indicator of what the nation thinks about Obama on the whole, and not just what they think about his ability to make nice speeches. 

    Many conservative principles were paraded in the 2011 State of the Union address. That these principles should be adhered to was the strong message of the American people reflected by the November 2010 elections. I truly hope that government officials work hard to make difficult spending cuts, to minimize administrative redundancies, and to forge common-sense solutions to health care. However, ever lurking underneath the conservative-sounding façade of Obama’s rhetoric is his centerpiece philosophy, the paradoxical ideology of “freeze and spend,” which is illogical at best, and unsustainable for the nation.

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH: Part 2, Verbal Plenary Inspiration

    In January, we discussed the first of eleven “Essentials of the Faith,” namely, the Trinity. This time, we will discuss the next essential, which is also the first of five “Fundamentals” from the beginning of the 1900s.  (I know that's a bit confusing, so I've put together a chart on the right to help you out!) 

    By the early 1900s, Christianity faced a fourfold ideological attack by a variety of unlikely bedfellows. One attack on basic Christian doctrine and practice came from the rise of significant cults in the 1800s, including Mormonism (1830s), Jehovah’s Witnesses (1870s), and Christian Science (1870s). Another was the ascendancy of religious naturalism, or theological liberalism, which affirmed the basic ethics and social teachings of Scripture, but gutted it of anything miraculous or supernatural because this offended late nineteenth-century scientific sensibilities. A third and related movement, was the rise of higher criticism (mainly coming from Germany) which significantly limited the importance placed on the divine authorship of Scripture. Fourth, the prevalence of Darwinism and evolutionary thought (The Origin of Species was published in 1859) resonated with those before and after the turn of the century. For many, Darwin provided a pseudo-scientific basis for two popular ideas: 1) Humanity had evolved from sludge into its current greatness, and, 2) God is philosophically unnecessary to human creation or development.

    In response, pastors and teachers representing a variety of denominations rallied in the early 1900s around five uniquely Christian doctrines that were most under attack. These were called the five “Fundamentals,” and they are #2 through #6 of our eleven essential doctrines and practices of the Christian faith that we will discuss in this series. The first of these five fundamental doctrines, which we will discuss in this article, is the “verbal plenary inspiration” of Scripture. Each of these three words is important and will be explained in turn. As before, since I am adapting this from my personal statement of faith, the truths about Scripture will take the form of confessional (“I believe that...”) statements.

    Authority. I believe that the Bible is solely and completely authoritative pertaining to all matters of life and faith. In reaction to late Medieval Roman Catholicism’s attempts to remove Scripture from hands of the laity and offer them human rules and decrees instead, the Reformers of the early 1500’s affirmed sola Scriptura, or that “Scripture alone” was the only necessary guide for the church and for life. Their conviction was that only the Bible was the Word of God and that it was unwaveringly sufficient for matters of doctrine and practice. The Creed of Nicaea of 325 CE affirms the authority of God’s Word when it acknowledges that Christ’s resurrection was “in fulfillment of the Scriptures.”

    Inspiration. I believe that the Holy Scriptures (the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments) are the inspired Word of God (2 Sam 23:2-3; Acts 3:18; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). They are without error in the original autographs (that is, the original writings), and have been preserved with exceeding reliability in many modern translations. I believe that inspiration extends to the individual words of Scripture (verbal inspiration) as well as to every part of Scripture (plenary inspiration).

    Inerrancy. I believe that the Bible is entirely true and never false in all it affirms about theology, ethics, history, and science. Since it is a product of divine inspiration, it is steadfastly and fully reliable (2 Sam 22:31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119:142, 144, 160; John 10:35; Rev 21:5; 22:6). I also acknowledge that the primary concern of Scripture is theology, and not history, and that under the auspices of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, the Biblical writers occasionally rearranged chronological events in order to advance a theological principle. 

    I also firmly believe that all apparent “conflicts” between Scripture texts do not confound the doctrine of inerrancy, but merely betray that a solution to such seeming inconsistencies is beyond the ability or knowledge of the modern reader. All apparent “errors” are misunderstandings or misperceptions on the part of the contemporary person rather than problems with the ancient inspired text. Unfortunately, many even in our own evangelical tradition compromise or qualify the doctrine of inerrancy because of pressure from current scholarship, liberalism, or “scientific” discovery. In distinction, I prefer to side with the ultimate truthfulness of Scripture even if such a position becomes “indefensible” according to modern or post-modern standards.

FUN MUSIC GROUPS: E Muzeki

    While listening a few years ago to a Celtic station on Live365, I heard a few songs from a group called E Muzeki. I quickly found myself thoroughly enjoying the sumptuous texturing of eclectic sounds from Celtic, Eastern European, and middle-eastern traditions.

    Based in San Antonio, TX, E Muzeki showcases the amazingly diverse talents of Mark Varelas and Jenny O'Connor, who wrote much of the music that they perform. The variety of styles, influences and instrumentation is incredible, and a delight to anyone with an eclectic sense about them. Mark and Jenny are kind enough to make some of their songs available for free download, and I have picked up some of their other songs as well.

    E Muzeki somewhat defies categorization: Acoustic, folk, instrumental... none of these does their diversity justice. The most predominant influence is from Eastern European or “gypsy” traditions, as in their songs “Dorelia,” “Syrtaki Kofto,” “MacSuibhne's Trill.” These songs are exotic and rich, pulsating with the intentional bustle of a Hungarian, Arabian, or Greek marketplace. In addition to the gypsy style there are songs of a Celtic ilk (“Catharsis,” “The Butterfly,” “Rites of Man”), and tunes that have more of a south-western feel to them (“Sedona Melody,” “The North Jetty”). Some pieces demonstrate a Spanish flare (“Biserica Neagra,” “Guadiana,” “The Victor,” “Desert Song”), and others resonate with a middle-eastern style (“Roxanna Of Illyria,” “Arabian Horseman”) or even a Persian sound (“Sindh,” “Patsheeva”). One of their albums even includes a gypsy-style version of Led Zepplin’s “Kashmir.” Thought it’s really hard to narrow it down, my favorite tracks include, “Sindh,” “Sedona Melody,” and “Aroania.” You can find out more about E Muzeki at www.emuzeki.com and most of their songs and albums are still available on Amazon. I highly recommend that you check them out. 

    Alas, all good things come to an end. In 2008 after eight years of performing and recording together, Mark and Jenny decided to go their separate ways. However, they continue to create eclectic music in their new directions, Jenny with a group called Circa Paleo and Mark with a band named Wine and Alchemy. I have not looked into these other groups too much yet, but I hope to, and maybe we will spotlight them in the future.

TALES OF TRIALS, FAILURES AND ENTRAILS IN THE BIBLE: The Piercing Initiative of Ehud

    There are some great disgusting stories in the Bible. Some almost seem inappropriate in their gore, and yet, they are an honest, realistic recounting of an event that left someone not doing so well, and usually, dead. These stories shouldn’t be ignored, but explained and understood for their deeper theological and rhetorical value. Every other issue or so of The Eclectic Kasper we’ll highlight one of these fun stories and try to probe the deeper meaning of it. The initiative of Ehud is a great example of meaningfully-told gore.

    By the time of the Judges, Israel had forgotten God’s miraculous workings. The plagues against Egypt, the voyage across the dry ground of the sea, the astounding fall of Jericho... these events were faded pictures in Israel’s scrapbook. After Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Caleb passed off the scene, the people of Israel turned to other gods and were, consequently, oppressed by the nations of those false gods. Israel’s true God raised up women and men, called “judges,” to liberate his people from their oppressors. One such judge, Ehud, lead God’s people by taking initiative to do what was right even though he was alone and the odds were against him.

    Some significant literary details are offered at the beginning of Ehud’s story in Judges 3:12-30. First, it was the Lord himself who allowed Israel to be oppressed because she stopped being faithful to him (v. 12). The second is that Eglon (boo!!) was the king of Moab, but he led a multi-national campaign against Israel (v. 13). The third detail is that Israel was under the domineering thumb of Eglon for “eighteen years” (v. 14)! Apparently during this time, nobody had the gumption and initiative to alter this situation. Ehud decides to change that.

    Our hero Ehud is a trusted tribute-bearer (think, taxes, but worse), who delivers resources from Israel to her Moabite oppressors (v. 15). However, on one such delivery, he decides to prepare a delivery of his own. He straps a double-edged short sword to his right-thigh, because he was left-handed (vv. 15-16), rather than to his left side, which is where a right-handed individual would fasten their weapon. Thusly placed, his homespun sword was not detected by the aggressive pat-down of Eglon’s thugs (certainly, the TSA agents of the day). The reader is then given the only physical detail about King Eglon in the passage, namely, that he was “very fat” (v. 17). This seemingly unnecessary (and very un-PC!) fact actually serves two significant purposes to the story. First, the statement about Eglon’s girth juxtaposed with the bringing of tribute of from Israel basically means that Eglon was getting fat off of God’s own people, a further sign of his unjust oppression of them. The second reason for this detail becomes clear as the story unfolds...

    Ehud knew that doing something daring for God meant taking some measured risks, and as a trusted tribute-bearer, he was in an ideal position to that. After delivering the tribute, he went back to the king alone (v. 18) under the pretense of having a secret message for him (v. 19). Eglon, as paranoid as any ancient or modern leader, dismisses everyone else, and takes Ehud up to his private chambers (vv. 19-20) so that he alone can enjoy Ehud’s secret, and then determine how to disperse this information to others.

    And here’s where the story gets fun... and I don’t just mean Bible scholar/ interpreter kind of fun, and certainly not chick-flick kind of fun... but more like guy/ football/ NASCAR/ Lord of the Rings/ apparently-senseless-violence kind of fun.

    Ehud ironically suggests that he has a secret message for Eglon from God (v. 20). Technically, he is not lying, in that the “message” was hidden, and it is motivated by Ehud’s desire to free God’s people. In a symbolically meaningful, but brutally literal gesture, Ehud pulls out the sword and strikes the king right where he had benefited the most... in the stomach (v. 21). Eglon’s appetite for power and exploitation of God’s chosen nation returned against him in the most miserable way possible.

    Any ordinary book would have stopped there and not included the gore in v. 22. A modern reader may be a bit startled to find this kind of stuff in Holy Scripture! So, what is the purpose of including all the PG-13 (or maybe R?) details in v. 22? First, it brings a disturbing vividness to the story, and shows just how unpleasant it is to have your own dirty deeds returned back on yourself. Also, the detail indicates an eye-witness account. After the battle that ensues, Ehud obviously tells his story and it is recorded and canonized in Scripture. It is not the fabricated tale of a long-gone legend, but the factual recollection of him who did the deed. Additionally, the detail shows in very disquieting ways just how fat Eglon had become by taking advantage of God’s people. Another purpose of this verse is that it reveals the peril that Ehud presently finds himself in; he is suddenly unarmed, in the upstairs of the king’s palace, surrounded by advisors and guards, and he must somehow flee defenseless back to his homeland.

    He still has the element of surprise on this side, and he escapes while Eglon’s advisors wonders why their lord was so delayed in his “upper room” (vv. 23-24, apparently, they were accustomed to him spending a lot of time there – I’ll let you to draw your own conclusion!). They finally unlocked the door and entered only to find him very, very dead (v. 25). Meanwhile, Ehud musters the troops of Israel in an effort to overthrow their foreign overlords (vv. 26-27). It is fun to note in v. 28 how Ehud speaks of the impending battle as though they had already won it (“God has given Moab... into your hands”), which demonstrates his certainty of victory and his faith in the Lord’s power. James Boice defined faith by saying: “Faith is: dead to doubts, dumb to discouragements, blind to impossibilities” (Nehemiah: Learning to Lead, p. 38). Ehud illustrates this kind of amazing faith and determination.

    Ehud is the last of the great initiators during the period of the Judges. Joshua and Caleb saw problems and met them directly. They were not perfect men, but they were otherwise men of faith and purpose. Ehud follows in their footsteps, although in less conventional ways. After Ehud, there are a series of judges that simply lacked the spark of initiative that characterized their predecessors. Barak (Judges 4-5) agrees to fight the bad guys only if Deborah agreed to hold his hand and come along (4:8). For that lack of courage Barak is denied the victory, and it is the women who take the day and praised for their valor (4:21; 5:7, 24). The next “great” judge, Gideon (Judges 6-8), needs both an angelic visitation and miraculous signs to motivate him to lead. And don’t pretend that Samson (Judges 14-16) was a man of noble initiative like Caleb, Joshua, and Ehud. Rather, Samson’s most significant actions are driven by aggression and revenge that stem from his libido-laden ego. He is not motivated by pleasing God or accomplishing justice, but only by his own sense of vengeance down to the bitter end (16:28). 

    Modern believers do not approve Ehud-like violence, especially against rulers of our own day for a variety of interpretative reasons. However, we applaud the Ehud’s recognition of injustice, his preparation for a difficult task, his initiative to do what nobody else was willing or able to do, and the risks he took to do what was right.

MOVIE/ TV IMPLAUSIBILITY: Case Study #1, The Cape

    Ever watch a show that should be better, but you keep asking yourself: Why would the good guy (or alternatively, the bad guy) do that? Ever watch a movie that can’t seem to stay within certain laws... like physics and gravity! Ever pepper your nightly viewing with sentiments like, That’s not true... that couldn’t happen... I don’t buy that! Well, then, you’re probably suffering from a bad case of a widespread disease known as movie and TV implausibility. But don’t worry; you’re not infected... Hollywood is!

    Here’s how it works. The creators, writers and producers of a show or movie invite viewers into a premise. For a crime drama, a hospital show, or a sit-com, the premise is daily reality. It may be reality that is somewhat outside of our own framework, but it is reality, nonetheless. If one of the characters suddenly starts flying around the room, or a fiendish robot crashes through the wall, the viewer has the right to be insulted, because this implausibility is outside the confines of the realistic premise.

    For either soft or hard sci-fi or fantasy, the author offers the viewer an implausible or unrealistic premise or set of premises. The writer may settle on a premise that involves warp-speed ships, medieval magic, time-traveling cyborgs, or an individual with super human capacities. Having locked himself into that unrealistic premise, however, all of the stories, characters and situations that are constructed around that premise must maintain a measure of plausibility. This is unfortunately, where many shows or franchises miss the mark. Once the writer goes beyond the bounds of plausibility past his or her implausible premise, then they are no longer inviting us into a make-believe world, but rather, they are simply insulting our intelligence and assaulting our senses. A space ship or a techno-vigilante can’t simply sidestep commonsense physics.

    There are dozens of great examples of this “implausibility factor” that we’ll discuss over the course of time, but for now, we’ll start with a fairly recent example.

    I had such high hopes for The Cape, which was lauded as a mid-season savior of the NBC prime-time line-up. It looked bold and gritty, multi-layered, and it had Summer Glau (can I get a big Browncoat and/or Sarah Conner Chronicles “woo-hoo”!). The effects are decent and the basic plot is tolerable. But the series breaks down because there are too many elements of implausibility that corrode one’s enjoyment of the show. 

    I’ll give you a big **SPOILER ALERT** even though if you haven’t seen The Cape yet, you probably don’t care, and in all likelihood, if you’ve seen it, you probably still don’t care. Vince Faraday is a disillusioned cop, who decides to work for a private security company. Somehow, within a few weeks or days, he has complete security access to every bank in the city, and believe it or not, we haven’t even arrived at the more hard-to-swallow elements. In the pilot episode, implausibility is interspersed with moments of cliché: Faraday is framed, there’s an explosion, he’s assumed to be dead, blah, blah, blah. Eventually, he ends up with a bunch of circus folk who teach him how to use a cape that has unnatural properties. 

    The circus gang is implausible in its own right: they rob banks, and hide underground, but then perform circus shows for everyone to come enjoy. Meanwhile, Faraday can’t go back to his wife and son, and allows them to think he’s dead. Unfortunately, the reasons for this make less sense the more the writers try to pound them into the story line. Faraday lets his family struggle along emotionally and financially, while he gallivants around the city, donned in tights and cape, engaging in heroic efforts to gratify his macho ego. And that was just the pilot episode.

    I read a hint online that the second episode was better than the pilot. So, armed with that glimmer of naïve hope, I gave it a try. What I found in episode two was a story that completely lacked cohesion, and continued to be punctuated by implausibility. There is an implausible break-in, an unlikely twenty-story fall that renders negligible ill effects (do you seriously expect me to believe that the “cape” doubles as a parachute?!), and a poisoning by a member of a secret assassin’s guild that still doesn’t take effect after several hours (what kind of crummy assassin job is that!?!). The dialogue is so stilted and artificial that it seems more like loosely-connected sound bites and superhero clichés than real life dialog (by the way, when you are predicting the character’s lines before the character says them, that’s a sign that you are in the midst of really bad script writing). The episode was barely worth sticking around for the ending where the Cape gives Cain a stove-top facial. The third and fourth episodes were no better, and were similarly littered with dialog and actions which made me roll my eyes so often that I developed a headache.

    I may be a bit sappy, but I think the greatest point of implausibility is Faraday’s self-imposed alienation from his family despite all of his talk that he wants to get back to them. I just don’t see why rejoining them, or at least letting them know that he’s still alive would be so difficult, especially when he seems perfectly able to alight outside his son’s window at the end of every episode without anyone else noticing (and hey, Faraday, if you’re so heroic, you could at least slip the poor kid a few bucks once in a while!).

    The problem with NBC is that it can’t seem to maintain a decent, popular-level, soft sci-fi series. They either have to build you up to a painfully disappointing finale (à la, Persons Unknown), or they drag you along a meandering story-line interminably (Heroes, or The Event) until you’ve completely lost interest in the human race altogether. The Cape falls short of even these examples by lacking a thoroughly believably premise and by failing to point the audience toward a worthwhile literary crescendo. So, here’s my advice to NBC: rather than throwing your Heroes or Capes off a twenty-story building every other episode, try threatening to do that with your writers, and see if they finally learn to develop a decent, plausible story-line.

    The Cape, as in the character in the story, has endured poison, twenty-story falls, fights with master magicians, and train capers, but also implausible plots, unrealistic action, and mediocre writing. However, I’m not so sure that The Cape, as in the TV show, can endure its greatest looming menace: inevitable cancellation.

    So, are there other examples of movies or TV shows that we expected great things from, but completely failed on account of this “implausibility factor”?  Oh yes, my friend... oh yes.  Every few months I’ll discuss one and see what you think. Until then, don’t just keep it real: keep it plausible!

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: Thanks, Again, For Feedback!

    Thanks for your feedback from the inaugural January 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. I appreciate your input and thoughts, so keep it coming by sending to feedback@eclectickasper.com.   

    Next time, I’ll discuss what is probably my favorite movie soundtrack in “Soundtrack Review,” and we’ll also continue our study on the “Essentials of the Faith.”