MAY 2013

    And then it was like Star Wars, but not as good. There was a Han Solo-esque figure, but far more generic and not nearly as compelling or charming (though, he does have a wookie-like sidekick). His credentials and background were implausible, and frankly, I didn’t mind really if he got killed – in fact, I was kind of hoping for it. And then there was a bizarre musical interlude. I really didn’t get the function of this, but it certainly did not endear me to the show at all during the crucial minutes when it is important to capture your TV audience.    Then it was like Mad Max, but not as good. Brigands rode around on under-maintained vehicles in a post-apocalyptic setting. Nolan and “wookie girl” try to make a living scavenging chunks of alien ark ships that fall from the sky. A special extraterrestrial disco ball is discovered, people get shot, and our protagonists end up in old St. Louis, now known as the city of Defiance.

    And then it was like Romeo and Juliet, but not as good. A punky alien Romeo has the hots for one of the human girls (fake gasp!). But their fathers are both important blah blah blah and the couple’s unrequited love for each other was blah blah blah before the timely reveal that they had spent the night together doing blah blah blah. This entire plot line epitomized the hokey dialog and predictability of the rest of the show. 

    And then it was like CSI, but not as good. The girl’s brother fought with the punky alien kid and later the brother turns up dead in a pretty ugly way. The gruesome cadaver incident becomes yet another plot point that distracts from an otherwise cool premise. The girl’s dad vengefully pursues the punky alien kid only to discover – and by “discover,” I mean everyone in the audience saw it coming! – that the murderer was not the punky alien kid (another fake gasp!). This situation turned out to be . . . so painfully formulaic that I lapsed into a catatonic state for a half hour.

    When I awoke, it was like LOTR: The Two Towers, but not as good. Bands of ork-like creatures were attacking the city from a rocky valley. And for a while, it felt like any other alien, military, or save-our-fortress kind of scenario until finally a deus ex machina (two, actually) saves the day! Yawn.

    And it was like Falling Skies, but not as good. And it was like X-Files, but not as good. And it was like Firefly, but not nearly as good.

    Some of the scenes and cinematography were spectacular, especially the space shots. But too many of the effects were unnecessarily cheesy, or, simply, unnecessary. In an age when everyone can make a movie on their iPhone, I just expected consistently better effects. The characters were as flat as the dialog and as predictable as the plot. 

    I expected Defiance to be sweeping and epic, but it was only derivative and painfully provincial. There was surprisingly little humorous or meaningful dialog; you would think that people who had been through such apocalyptic circumstances would interact and even joke more profoundly. 

    If the show can build on its premise, the only relatively unique aspect of the show, and not focus on cliché plot points, then it has some real potential. And if it weren’t for a scene inserted at the very end of the pilot – the first non-predictable element of the show – I would have little interest in watching any more Defiance. But I’ll be sporting, give it a few more tries, and hopefully it will go somewhere original and invigorating rather than rehashing the stolen and stale. But, my expectations are now low.

POLITICS/ CULTURE: Myths Perpetrated In the Debate About Homosexuality

    A regular reader could probably guess that we at The Eclectic Kasper are not big fans of the homosexual agenda and are opposed to applying the word “marriage” to same-sex relationships. However, my interest here is not to tackle the entire problem, but to discuss specific myths and red herrings that are frequently thrown into debates to muddy the ideological water. So the following is my attempt to bring some clear thought to two specific myths perpetrated by both sides.

    Myth #1: The Bible doesn’t prohibit homosexuality.

    This myth (actually, an outright lie) can be addressed fairly clearly and succinctly. I will concede that the issue of homosexuality is not addressed as often as most Christians imagine. But how many times does the Bible need to condemn something before people take that condemnation seriously?

    Homosexual activity is clearly forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. While we are not bound by Mosaic Law in the same way that Old Testament believers were, these passages still demonstrate God’s expectations and preferences, which do not change over time. The prohibition against homosexuality is so serious that it joins a category of Mosaic Laws where the infraction is punishable by death. But more to the point regarding what God thought, and still thinks, about homosexuality, the prohibition joins an even smaller sliver of rules where the infraction is referred to as “detestable” or “abominable.” In both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the Hebrew word used is toebah, a very strong word expressing God’s abhorrence of something. In fact, this same word is used in Ezekiel 16:50 of the “abominations” of Sodom (the place name from whence we derive the word “sodomy”). The reality that people are not put to death for this act anymore has changed; the fact that homosexuality was detestable to God has not.

    In the NT, homosexuality is clearly seen negatively in Romans 1:26-27. Also, the lists of those who commit vice in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 include homosexuals. The Greek word arsenokoitēs, is a combination of the words arsen, meaning “male” (it is used in gender specific contexts in Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6, Luke 2:23, Rom 1:27, Gal 3:28 Rev 12:5 and 13) and koitēs, meaning . . . well, I think that you know what that means. The resultant word arsenokoitēs refers either specifically to homosexuality, or to a variety of sexual perversions including homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality is included in lists of activities clearly forbidden for Christians. 

    To verify this, one could also appeal to the condemnations in Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6 on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20; 19:4-7). One could also note an intentional parallel to the Sodom story from Genesis 19:4-7 in Judges 19:22-23. In that episode the “men” of the city ask for the visiting “man” to be brought out so that the mob can have “relations” with him (the Hebrew word is yada, meaning “to know” . . . as in . . . the Biblical sense). The text refers to those men with homosexual intentions as “worthless,” “wicked” and “disgraceful.” This is simply God’s opinion, which doesn’t change from one testament to the other. Certainly the Bible talks about the love and forgiveness of God and the compassion of Christ; but those doctrines do not give people license to sin and they do not permit a Christian to remain in an unrepentant state.

    My goal here is not to get into a big heated debated about theology or social policy. I simply affirm that anyone who believes that the Bible does not condemn the practice of homosexuality is not being exegetically and theologically honest. I have seen the exegetical gymnastics that some use to perpetrate the myth that the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality, but those logical leaps are invalid by any hermeneutical measure. If someone wants to promote homosexuality, they have no ground to support that view from the Bible, and they shouldn’t even pretend to try.

    Myth #2: Some people have a genetic proclivity to homosexuality.

    Believe it or not, I am not going to deny this particular charge directly, because it is completely irrelevant, a red herring intended to derail us from the track of transcendent morality. Most of the research that drives this myth is dubious, and the non-dubious part is irrelevant. Below, I will simply focus on the irrelevant part of the non-dubious science.

    In fact, I could argue the validity of the point theologically. The Bible clearly teaches that people have a fundamental, and, therefore, genetic proclivity to sin and mortality because of the fall, which is essentially the problem described in Romans 5:12 and 19 (see also verse 14 and 1 Cor 15:21-22). The notion that some have a genetic proclivity to certain traits or vices even generates some of our stereotypes: Some ethnicities are alleged to be more prone to anger, laziness, drink, etc. Whether these stereotypes are valid or not is hardly the point; the fact that certain vices are not merely socially conditioned, but genetically derived accords with Scripture and with experience.

    So let’s say that someone has a genetic proclivity to a certain type of activity. Is that fact determinative of their behavior and does it mean that they have to participate in that activity? By the way, it is fascinating to see people embrace determinism when it suits their agenda; they argue that they have to be gay because they are genetically predetermined to be gay (and some even say that God made them that way!); yet they simultaneously think it monstrous that God predetermines some for eternal bliss and others for eternal condemnation. Convenient!

    Simply put, genetic tendency does not sanction any behavior. I believe that in time, the scientific community will claim the ability to blame every virtue and vice on genetics. If it is discovered that someone has a genetic predisposition to drinking, does it mean that person is mandated to be an alcoholic? Or if someone has a biological inclination toward violence, would that justify any act of murder they commit? Genetics may steer our lives, but they do not determine actions and should never be allowed to justify behavior. And if something is recognized to be wrong, whether Biblically defined or determined by secular legal or cultural ethics, then that activity is wrong, and the discussion of genetics is irrelevant. 

    Well, those are two myths thrown around in the homosexuality debate that frankly need to be put to rest. We’ll mention more myths another time. But this is a hot topic, and I’m sure that you have some thoughts about it! Feel free to send any civil and substantive reaction (we have no interest in nasty, hateful, empty comments) to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print it in future editions.

WHY MARBURG MATTERS: The Meeting

    Finally the day arrived when the issue dividing the protestant reformers would be dealt with in a civil and mature manner. But that day came and went, and unfortunately, civility and maturity were scarce resources, especially from Martin Luther.

    In the last exciting episode of our series “Why Marburg Matters” we discussed reformer Martin Luther’s ugly tone and rhetoric during the debates about communion in the 1520s. Through many books and pamphlets written during this decade, Luther debated hotly with Ulrich Zwingli, Andreas Karlstadt, and many others about the issue of the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic. Concern over the venom and division during this debate led both religious and political leaders to convene a meeting or “colloquy” in the German city of Marburg from October 1-4, 1529.

    Interpreting the accounts of Marburg is tricky. At Luther’s request, and despite Zwingli’s protest, Philip I, who presided over the colloquy, forbade anyone from taking minutes or notes of the meeting. The seven versions of the proceedings come from the memory of those present, and some of these are from anonymous sources. As a result, these reports are mere summaries of the debate points. They are also somewhat biased in their retelling based on whether the author was on Luther’s or Zwingli’s side. However, one can glean some clues from these summaries that demonstrate Luther’s continued obstinacy, petulance and sometimes even odd behavior during the few days of this meeting. 

    For instance, Rudolph Collin reported that in his opening speech Luther “testified in advance that he disagreed with the persons of the opposing party and that he would continue to do so” (Luther’s Works, 38:52-53). Casper Hedio also wrote notes after the meeting and concurred that in his first address Luther proclaimed that he would maintain his position about Christ’s real presence in the elements and he said that he had no hope that he would agree with the other reformers. An anonymous report says that at one point Luther “answered that he could hardly put up with” the remarks of Johannas Oecolampadius, another reformer with opposing views of the Eucharist (LW 38:46). Hedio records that already on the first day, Luther proclaimed to Zwingli, “Your logic is very poor; it is the kind of logic for which a schoolboy is caned and sent to the corner” (LW 38:25). On another occasion, Luther told Zwingli to desist from continuing his argument, because its continuance would result in “long, unnecessary, useless, and irksome chatter” (LW 38:64).

    Luther’s acrimonious tone minimized opportunities at the Marburg Colloquy for well-reasoned debate and civil dialog. While other reformers like Zwingli and Martin Bucer were chiefly concerned about the unity of the church, Luther stubbornly insisted that the phrase “this is my body” could only mean that Christ’s body was literally, not metaphorically or symbolically, in the communion elements. He was so exasperated early in these debates that he actually wrote with chalk on his table the words “This Is My Body” (some accounts say that he carved these words into the table).     Zwingli attempted to encourage reasonable dialog, and his political background with the Zurich city council taught him diplomacy and conciliation. In contrast, during the Colloquy, Luther reportedly refused to even shake hands with Zwingli. By the end of several days of debate, Luther stated to the Swiss Reformers: “Your spirit is different from ours,” which was, essentially, an accusation that they were heretics (see 2 Cor 11:4, Gal 1:6, 2 Thess 2:2 and 1 John 4:1). At Marburg, remarkable concord was reached by the collocutors on fourteen of fifteen theological assertions regarding the doctrines of salvation and of the church. However, the impasse regarding the Eucharist prevented the unity that many had hoped for. 

    In the next installment of “Why Marburg Matters” we will examine the unfortunate historical legacy of the Marburg Colloquy of 1529 and why it holds important lessons for modern Christianity.

                Pictured above is The Marburg Colloquy of 1529 an oil painting by August Noack, completed in 1867.

INSIGHTS ON ISLAM: Hey . . . Taqiyya!

    There is a doctrine in Islam called taqiyya. I am surprised that there is not more coverage about this idea in the news. It is a significant idea when we are fighting with, in, or against predominantly Muslim nations or making treaties with this people group. This doctrine should give us pause when we are listening to a Muslim tell us that the Mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York City, or any mosque building program, for that matter, is undertaken with the intent to promote religious tolerance and intercultural exchange.

    Taqiyya is a Quranic sanction given to an individual Muslim and the Muslim community to deceive, withhold the truth, or minimize one’s intent when doing so is in the best interest of Islam (a similar principle called kitman, refers to omitting or concealing truth). I first found out about this little known, but commonly practiced doctrine from Mindy Belz’s article in World Magazine entitled “Lie to Me” (July 18, 2009, page 62). I quote a paragraph from the article below, but I encourage you to read the entire article at http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15622:

WikiIslam defines taqiyya as ‘sanctified hypocrisy.’ That’s generous. At least a half dozen verses of the Quran instruct Muslims to practice deception, or to lie, when it serves the purposes of Islam. Taqiyya means ‘guard,’ as in guarding oneself against unbelievers, which can include lying to them or deceiving them. ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them,’ according to authority Abu Al-Darda. In one passage (Sura 16:106) Allah allows Muslims to go so far as to deny their faith when under ‘compulsion,’ as long their heart remains ‘firm in Faith.’

    Other Islamic sayings support this practice as well. A ninth century Muslim scholar named Muhammad al-Bukhari relates an allegedly inspired quote by the “Prophet” Muhammad: “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar” (Bukhari 49:857). Similarly, Sura 2:225 in the Quran asserts that Allah will not hold people responsible for a “senseless oath,” but rather he judges the heart. This seems to indicate that Muslims are permitted to promise or pledge something even though they don’t intend to fulfill it. Apparently, some Muslims will even utilize taqiyya to conceal the existence of the practice of taqiyya.

    Of course, there are examples in the Christian Bible of deception, or withholding important truth, facts, or intent. However, these examples are either condemned, as with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11, or they are for the purpose of saving lives, as with the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:15-21. Otherwise, Christians are directed to be truthful (Prov 12:17-19; Zech 8:16; Rom 9:1; Eph 4:15, 25; Col 3:9) and lying is strongly prohibited (Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Psalm 119:163; Prov 30:8; Rev 22:15). It is one thing perhaps to minimize one’s allegiance to a particular faith when someone’s life is threatened as with persecution, or to deceive someone under the same kind of circumstances (as in the “Anne Franke” scenario). Scholars of all religious stripes debate the relative merits of truth-telling under such circumstances.    However, taqiyya allows Muslims to go as step further, not only to mislead when someone’s life is threatened, but to wholesale deceive for the sake of the advancement of Islam. I believe that when a Muslim says to the American public that Islam is peaceful and open-minded, or that the aforementioned Mosque near Ground Zero will be used as a center of religious tolerance, he or she is exhibiting taqiyya in its most heinous form. 

    Allow me to be clear: I believe the typical Muslim individual that we live near, work with, or who is a fellow-parent on our kid’s ball team, can be as decent and honest as anyone else. I have also met many, many Christians, and folk of other religious backgrounds, who couldn’t tell the whole truth if the human race depended on it! However, few religious systems allow lying, even for the benefit of the system. Islam, however, does. Taqiyya is deception, or misdirection for the sake of the advancement of Islam, and it should make us that much more discerning and cautious when the talking heads that represent Islam seem to be telling us what we want to hear.