JANUARY 2012

In this edition . . .

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 5, Worship is Intellect and Emotion

MOVIE/ TV IMPLAUSIBILITY: Case Study #3, 2012

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17! Part 1: Stating the Issue and External Evidence

POLITICS: A Simple Solution to Global Welfare

DATE SETTERS: The Psychology of a Date Setter (with a special emphasis on “Psycho”!)

FEEDBACK: Fall Feedback

The year 2012 begins with apocalyptic fervor fluttering through the air. But more importantly than the beginning of the year or the fact that the world may end on Dec 21, 2012 (!), is the fact that this is the second year of The Eclectic Kasper!

Welcome to year two, which promises to maybe be slightly better perhaps than year one (possibly). We hope you enjoy this January 2012 edition, and feel free to send us your thoughts at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

In fact, we have an extra long feedback section this month with some great comments related to our last few editions. Thanks for your great interaction and keep it coming!

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 5, Worship is Intellect and Emotion

    This series of articles on worship has attempted to demonstrate that a Biblical definition of worship is not an exact point but rather, the balance between several continuum. Biblical worship is a balance between worship directed toward the Father and toward the Son; it is exclusively for God but it benefits man; it is both a liturgy and a lifestyle. In this installment, we will investigate how worship is portrayed in Scripture as involving both the intellect and the emotions; maintaining equilibrium between them is critical.

    A key verse for balancing the cognitive elements of worship with the emotive aspects of worship is in John 4. While worship includes the genuineness of the act, it also includes presence of truth. This is consistent with Christ’s assertion to the woman at the well, whose deficient understanding of worship (v. 22) He is eager to correct. Specifically, the woman associates worship with a place. This is not necessarily an unfounded presupposition, as, generally, corporate worship in the Old Testament was confined to a particular location (Ex 3:12; 1 Sam 1:3; 15:31; 2 Sam 12:20; 15:8, 32; Ezra 7:19; Ps. 99:9; Is 27:13). This understanding is carried out to a certain extent in the New Testament (Luke 2:37; Acts 24:11; Rom 9:4; Rev 11:1).

    Christ reorients her thinking to the fact that God seeks those who will worship Him in “spirit and in truth” (vv. 23-24). In this instance, “spirit” does not refer to the third member of the Trinity, but rather to the human spirit (see Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p 675, 3b). This sincerity, which includes the emotive and volitional components of a human being is what is required for the “true” worshipper. “The combination ‘spirit and truth’ points to the need for complete sincerity and complete reality in our approach to God” (Leon Morris, John, p. 239). The two words are joined by hendiadys, as are “grace” and “truth” in John 1:17, which shows that these are not two separate categories but two mutually dependent elements of worship; truth without sincerity is rigid ritualism, and sincerity without truth is sappiness. The Greek word dei (meaning, “it is necessary”) in verse 24 shows that these elements are not desired, but demanded. Sincerity (“in spirit”) and reality (“in truth”) are compulsory requirements for true worship.

    The Psalms also demonstrate that worship is holistic, integrating body, mind and emotion. They express external objective truths about God and emotional elements from individuals to produce volitional and ethical responses by God’s people. Words like “joy” and “gladness” (Ps 5:11; 32:11; 92:4) are both emotionally laden, but those emotions are based on objective realities regarding God’s character, redemption and blessings. These emotions related to joy, penitence, relief and frustration lead to decisions of trust and attitudes and actions of faith. This balance of intellect and emotions stands in sharp contrast to the intellectual dearth of many modern worship songs. This balance also contrasts both the emotional excess or, conversely, absence in many modern worship services.

    The struggle to find balance between intellect and emotion in the music of the church is not an easy one and it is not a new one. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) similarly struggled with the tensions between text, music, emotion and passion in the corporate worship of his day. He declared that he enjoyed the use of music in services, which he calls, “sound to which [God’s] message gives life” and especially “when they are sung with a good and well-trained voice” (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. E. M. Blaiklock, 271). However, Augustine was constantly concerned about the danger of being too emotionally gripped by the melodies of the songs. He continues:

For at times I seem to give them more honor than is proper, sensing that our minds are more devoutly and fervently inflamed in devotion by the holy words themselves when they are song this way than when they are not. I notice that the different emotions of my spirit, by their sweet variety, have their appropriate expressions in the voice and singing, but some hidden relationship which stirs them up. But gratification of my flesh, which must not be allowed to take control over my mind, often beguiles me. My feelings do not serve reason, so as to follow it patiently, but after having gained admission for the sake of reason, strive to grab the reins and take the lead. Thus in these things I sin without knowing, but realize it afterwards. . . . When I happen to be more moved by the singing than by what is being sung, I confess that I have sinned gravely (Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. Hal M. Helms, 217-18, emphasis mine).

    He admits, on the other hand that sometimes he reacts too strictly, “wishing to have every melody of sweet music to which David’s Psalter is often sung banished both from my ears and from the Church itself” (Ibid., 217). But in response to this he realizes the “great usefulness” of setting truth to music, “so that the weaker minds may rise to the feeling of devotion by the delight of the ears” (Ibid., 218). By way of balance he conveyed to his readers the wisdom of Athanasius, the prominent Bishop of Alexandria: “He made the reader of the psalm utter it with such a slight inflection of the voice that it was more like speaking than singing” (Ibid., 217). For Augustine, this solution was better than being unnecessarily distracted in one way or another by the use of music in worship on one hand, and ridding the church of music altogether on the other.

    Closer to our own time, the insights of worship guru Don Hustad regarding excessive emotionalism in worship are pertinent:I get the sense that emotion is used not as a means of expression but of manipulation. For example, praise-and-worship singing that seems to be spontaneous actually follows a predictable progression. Often it begins moderately and increases in tempo, rhythm, and volume over a period of perhaps thirty minutes; at that point, usually the music is hushed, when, with quiet singing or in silence, the Holy Spirit “takes over” and worshipers experience the climax of intimacy with God. In a charismatic service, that is the time when supernatural phenomena, especially speaking in tongues, occur. In this progressive experience, the worship leader (the central figure in the praise band) is very important. Apparently, the leader is authorized and expected to lead the entire congregation “into the presence of God” (Hustad, True Worship [1998], pp. 98-99).

    Hustad comments later in his book, “Though individual praise choruses may function excellently in specific ‘response’ situations, I am convinced that the typical, prolonged, charismatic praise-and-worship ‘experience’ (like the old-fashioned revival song service) is an emotional musical ‘binge’ that is inappropriate for mature, cognitive worship. The traditional approach that allows a congregation to sing multiple stanzas of well-written texts that express, praise thanksgiving, penitence, dedication, and petition at appropriate places throughout the service is much better. If that practice succumbs to contemporary musical emotionalism today, the church will beg for its return tomorrow!” (202).

    In summary, author Christopher Shelt warns against, “Imbalances in singing such as dead orthodoxy or mindless emotionalism” (“Toward a Biblical Theology of Music in Worship,” Reformed Theological Review 55, no. 2 [1996]: p. 70). Churches must seek balance, and avoid the emotional excess as well as the emotional absence that contaminates many Sunday morning services.

    A church worship service should be authentic without feeling sappy; it should be of high performance quality without seeming “canned”; it should be joyful and personable without being hype-driven. Most importantly, the songs, the sermons, the readings and the recitations should all burst with Biblical content and substance. Worship that is in spirit and in truth is concerned for authentic spirituality as well as doctrinal veracity.

MOVIE/ TV IMPLAUSIBILITY: Case Study #3, 2012

    *** WARNING: The following article contains spoilers for the movie 2012. ***

    If you’ve ever watched a movie or TV show that didn’t really seem to be working for you despite decent acting and good effects, then you’re in the implausibility zone. Many potentially great media ideas have been ruined by plots or by numerous plot elements that were simply too hard to swallow.

    The part that I find completely impossible to accept about 2012 is that four huge ark boats (large enough for 100,000 people each!) as well as parts of several others had been constructed in a mere two years. Even one of the characters admits, “I didn’t think it was possible, not in the time we had.” Well, that’s because it’s not! Five to ten years I could buy; but two years . . . no way!    The entire ending of the movie is implausible: a ship captain and crew who are perfectly calm and unmoved by their boat hurling toward a huge mountain, engines that do not have emergency override capabilities, and the unbelievably politically correct ascension of the continent of Africa at the end of the movie. And then, there were elements that were so implausible that they were simply ridiculous: the salvation of Caesar the dog, a painfully humanistic speech by Adrian, Amanda Peet’s horrible acting (yes, I blame her for the demise of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip!), and the wasted moments of sentimental drivel between Jackson and his family before he holds his breath for twenty minutes to save the ship.

    These frequent forays into sentimentality did not, unfortunately, advance the plot significantly, though it did make the movie a half-hour longer than it needed to be.  Too many characters were introduced just to support the sentimental elements (such as Harry Helmsley, Tony Delgatto, the Karpov boys, Tenzin, Nima, etc). All of these additional characters did not contribute meaningfully to the movie, but created an unnecessarily jumbled, hard-to-follow and hard-to-believe plot.

    2012 director Roland Emmerich seems compelled to watch the world end about every five to ten years. I found his The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 to be horrifically boring. On the other hand, his 1996 hit Independence Day was one of the most well-balanced, enjoyable and, more to the point, plausible alien invasion/ disaster movies that I have ever seen. I know that many computer geeks didn’t approve of the ending, but with that possible exception, the movie was eminently easier to swallow than 2012.

    Emmerich has strayed from ID4’s formula of a plausible disaster movie. My hope is that he will get back to that formula for future disaster flicks, that is, if we all make it past 2012.

    For a hysterical take on the plot implausibility of 2012, check out the 3 minute version of 2012 by the guys over at “How It Should Have Ended.”  And, if you have any other great examples of Movie/ TV Implausibility, send ‘em into us at feedback@ecletickasper.com.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17! Part 1: Stating the Issue and External Evidence

    I know that some of you really like the more technical questions that come into play with Bible interpretation. So, over the next few editions, we’ll examine a variety of issues related to the ending of Mark’s Gospel. I think that you will enjoy not only the conclusion that we arrive at, but also the different methodological steps that we take along the road.

    The question with Mark 16 is, essentially: After which verse did Mark put down his pen? Where did Mark end his gospel? Did he write all the way to 16:20, or did he end after 16:8? We are not talking here about how much of Mark 16 is inspired, but how much did he actually write? Many Bibles include a note like: “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” Did someone add an ending to what Mark had already written? Once this question is solved with relative certainty, the follow-up question is: Why did Mark end where he did? What literary effect upon his audience, including modern readers, was he attempting to achieve?

    We will start by looking at the external evidence from early copies of Mark that still exist.  External evidence refers to information about a text of Scripture based on early existing manuscripts of the text, the earliest translations of the texts, and references to textual variations by the church fathers. With Mark 16, the case that 16:9-20 was not originally written by Mark is fairly strong.  In fact it seems that it was probably added decades, or maybe centuries after Mark wrote his gospel.  

    Mark 16:9-20 is not found in two of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the NT from the 4th century, the Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter א [“aleph”]) and Codex Vaticanus (designated, “B”). These texts are enormously significant to answering this question. Mark 16:9-20 is in several 5th century documents including Codex Alexandrinus (“A”), Codex Ephraemi (“C”), Codex Bezae (“D”), and Codex Washingtonianus (“W”).  Even some later manuscripts that contain 16:9-20 include a scribal note that these verses were not original (Bruce Metzgar, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 103). The earliest translations of the NT are also helpful for understanding this issue. The text of 16:9-20 is not found in the oldest Latin translations, including codex Bobiensis (4th/ 5th century), nor in the oldest “Syriac” manuscripts (4th century) and “Coptic” manuscripts (4th century).

    It is helpful to examine the writings of the early church fathers as well, since they constantly quote from or allude to the NT. Clement of Alexandria (CE 150-215) and Origin (CE 185-284) seem to have no knowledge of Mark 16:9-20. Eusebius (275-339) and Jerome (347-420) indicate that Mark ended his gospel with 16:8 according to most of the manuscripts available to them (Joel F. Williams, “Literary Approaches To The End of Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 42:1, March 1999, p. 21). Metzgar concludes: “Almost all textual studies and critical commentaries on the Gospel according to Mark agree that the last twelve verses cannot be regarded as Marcan” (Textual Commentary, 228).

    The external evidence from early texts, translations, and church fathers indicate clearly that Mark put down his pen after Mark 16:8. The second ending in 16:9-20 was added by a later editor or scribe. In the next article in this series, in the February 2012 edition, we will examine the internal evidence that illuminates to this question by analyzing the writing style, vocabulary, and theological emphases of 16:9-20.  Eventually, we will get to the powerful literary and rhetorical implications behind why Mark chose to end his gospel at 16:8.

POLITICS: A Simple Solution to Global Welfare

    OK, I have an idea, and I have my own web journal . . . a dangerous combination indeed! So, here goes:

    I have a simple solution for the ridiculous amount of money that we are sending to foreign countries while many in our own country suffer. The ghastly foreign aid problem is a soapbox that I have stood on before but it seems as though we are at a critical time for simple straightforward solutions. I would like to see some candidates from any party offer a solution that is as simple as what follows.

    First, the secretary of state sends a letter to every country in the world which is receiving foreign aid from America. It doesn’t matter who they are, how much they are receiving, or what they think of us. 

    These countries will receive a letter that says that the aid that they receive from the United States regularly will be cut by two-thirds, effective immediately. There’ll be no questions, no diplomacy, and no exceptions to this policy.

    This move alone will save our country over $38 billion immediately. Yes, that’s right, we are currently sending more than $58 billion per year in foreign aid to about seventy-five countries around the world. (See the accompanying chart and note that the estimated allocations should be multiplied by a factor of one million. And keep in mind that this still does not include our military expenditures in those countries!) Cutting two-thirds of that will save us $38 billion immediately. It will also minimize the welfare mentality that we are beginning to develop around the globe, let alone here in our own country.

    Paragraph two of the letters that are sent to all countries receiving aid from the U.S. will go as follows: “A bipartisan Congressional committee here in the United States will be established to review how foreign aid funds have been utilized by your country or by agencies operating in your country over the last ten years. That review will determine whether U.S. tax-payers will continue to send foreign aid to your country or if foreign aid to your country will be completely reduced. No country will receive more than two-thirds of the foreign aid that it is currently receiving, and many countries will see their amount of U.S. foreign aid eliminated. We believe that it is in the best interests of this country for us to put our own financial and economic concerns above those of other countries.”

    In summary, the simple plan is to reduce all foreign aid recipients down to one third of what they are currently receiving. Then we will decide over the next one or two years on a country-by-country basis if we want to raise that amount back up to two-thirds of current disbursements (based on the compliance and good behavior of the recipients) or if funding to these countries will be cut off entirely (which is what I hope would happen in many instances). 

    I understand that much of the foreign aid that the U.S. sends around promotes good causes, such as security, human rights, disease control, humanitarian efforts and economic development. Yet, I assert that our country should allocate tax-payer funds to help these efforts in our own country first, before we send any of this money elsewhere. Second, we should re-evaluate every dollar that is sent oversees to make sure that it does indeed go to causes and initiatives that are unmistakably in the best interests of the United States.