NOVEMBER 2011

    In fact, the use of vocals in the movie score is exceptionally well done. Billy Boyd’s (Pippin) vocals in the song “The Steward of Gondor” is full of ominous tension and accompanies one of the most captivating and haunting pieces of cinematography I have ever seen and heard. Ben del Maestro lends his clear, high and numinous voice to “Minas Tirith,” as well as to “Forth Eorlingas” and “Isengard Unleashed” from The Two Towers. “The Fields of the Pelennor” and “The End of All Things” feature pulsating orchestral segments, majestic and maddeningly intense choir sections, which are then interrupted by otherworldly vocal sections. Renée Fleming’s contribution on the ghostly “Twilight and Shadow” is very beautiful, but something about her voice seemed to be lacking in this song. I think that she does better in “The End of All Things.”    Though difficult to chose absolute favorites on this album, I would have to go with “The Steward of Gondor,” “The Return of the King,” and “The Grey Havens.” I must admit that I am not very fond of “Minas Morgul” because it is too cacophonous for my taste on a pure listening level, but I still appreciate what it is doing in the context of the movie. Also, I am not an Annie Lennox fan, but if I have to listen to her, I would just listen to “Into the West” over and over again. It is a beautiful song, earning both an Oscar and a Grammy, and she pulls it off admirably. The album as a whole won a Grammy for “Best Score Soundtrack Album for a Motion Picture” in 2005.

    I would also like to add how glad I am that this project was not assigned to another composer. I mean, come on, people, you all know how much I love John Williams! I could talk about the breadth and variety of Williams’ work all day, not just on Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but work for his work on more solemn  projects like Empire of the Sun, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. That said, I don’t see Williams scoring LOTR with the same kind of conflicted depth that Shore achieved. I think Williams’ version would have ended up too heroic and insufficiently murky (and maybe even a little too campy). Some have intoned that David Arkenstone should have been selected to write the score, à la, Arkenstone’s album “Music Inspired by Middle Earth.” I will admit that this is a charming album and I enjoy the way he integrates more period instruments into his music than did Shore. Some tracks, however, fall gravely short of even being admit-able into a major motion picture soundtrack (I am thinking particularly of track #12, “The Field of Cormallen”). Arkenstone’s talents would have greatly enhanced the animated versions of LOTR that came out in the late 70s and early 80s. However, his scoring would have watered down the potency of Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy significantly. I think Arkenstone is very good, and I enjoy most of his work, much of which is already fantasy, medieval, and Celtic oriented. I just don’t think he has the musical maturity and the depth to have accomplished anything close to the scale of what Shore does. 

    Howard Shore’s work brilliantly fits the tone, mode, characters, and story that Peter Jackson, et. al., have pulled together. It is hard to imagine any music other than Shore’s accompanying this epic trilogy.

    We have featured several movie score albums, such as Michael Kamen’s work on Robin Hood and Danny Elfman’s score for Batman. So we want to know, what is one of your favorite movie soundtracks? Let us know what are your favorites by sending a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll print your thoughts in upcoming editions. Also, notice our “Greatest Movie Trilogy Ever?” challenge in our “Feedback” section below!

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 4, Worship is Liturgy and Lifestyle

    This series about Christian worship has discussed how worship is both Theocentric and Christocentric (September 2011) and also how worship is for God (that is, exclusively directed toward God) and for Man (that is, humans benefit from the worship of God) (October 2011). This installment will discuss how worship is both a liturgy and a lifestyle.

    Worship is sometimes portrayed in Scripture as a ritual of God’s people whereby he is adored, thanked and petitioned in regular and organized corporate gatherings. This corporate worship can either be highly structured, as in the liturgy in Anglican, Lutheran or some Presbyterian traditions or a fairly simple order of worship, as in many Baptist, Bible or congregational traditions.

    The book of Psalms offers a glimpse into the liturgy and worship of the Ancient Israelites and draws a close connection between the worship of God and the functional use of music for that purpose. The Hebrew words zamar, shir, and ranan all include the ideas of “praise” and “sing” or “shout,” and they are often used in parallel, such as in Ps 33:1-3. This reveals the strong implicit tie between worship and music in the liturgy of the Israelites. And, as discussed in the last installment, music is mentioned in the context of NT services as a means to educate the believing community (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:18-19; Col 3:16-17). However, God calls for more from the believer than her or his ability to sing, because worship also contains an ethical dimension of keeping God’s commands and statutes (Deut 13:3-4; 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 17:34, 37; Jer 16:11).

    Perhaps the most ardent advocates of a life of worship that matches the liturgy of the community were the OT prophets. From the time of Samuel’s ministry, the prophets were concerned both about the acts of worship, as well as the proper attitude of obedience behind those acts (1 Sam 15:22). Worship can easily be confused with ritualism, and when it is done so, it is considered inauthentic (Is 29:13 [cf. Ps 50:16-17; Jer 12:2; Matt 15:9]; Ezek 33:31; see also Col 2:23). Isaiah 1:13-15 shows the danger of act and ritual without true spirituality (see also Prov 15:8; Amos 5:21-25; Mic 6:6-8).

    The problem of the ritualistic worship that was addressed by the prophets in the Old Testament was compounded immeasurably by Jesus’ day. Jesus strove against the regimented and inauthentic religion among the Jewish leadership, and sought to show them what true worship is. He demonstrated that any ostentation in worship is really self worship (Matt 6:1-6), and that rites and customs are not as important as morality and justice (Matt 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-27, 3:1-6). For the true worshipper, a lifestyle of compassion for others takes precedent over ritualism. The climax of Paul’s discussion throughout Romans about sin, justification, sanctification and God’s relationship to Israel occurs in 12:1-2 where believers are instructed to offer themselves to God as the most appropriate act of worship. Here in Romans 12:1, the original Greek word for “worship” is latreia from which we get the word “liturgy.” Paul seems to be minimizing the difference between ritualized corporate worship and a lifestyle of praise to God through an ongoing sacrificial attitude. The glorification of God is a result a believer’s good works (Matt 5:16; John 15:8; 2 Cor 9:13; 1 Peter 2:12; 4:11) and a life of purity (1 Cor 6:20). The overarching principle found in 1 Corinthians 10:31 demands that everything we do must be an act of worship.

    Worship is both the formal order, or liturgy, of the regular corporate gatherings of God’s people and it is an ongoing attitude of sacrifice, purity and service expressed daily by believers.

POLITICS: Is This What We Fought For?

    President Obama, ironically, a Nobel Peace prize laureate, drove America deeply into yet another military conflict. We were already spread thin between Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other global locations where we have troops stationed. We were war weary and increasingly ready to bring more of our military women and men home. And yet Obama saw fit in March 2011 to involve our armed forces with the Libyan insurgency.

    We’ll set aside, for a moment, the fact that most Americans were uninterested in committing our troops in Libya. Rasmussen polls found that only 45% of voters agreed with the President’s decision to take military action in Libya in mid-March, and that has plunged down to only 32% in a October 14, 2011 Rasmussen poll. Few were excited about the “no boots on the ground” mentality naively espoused by the Obama administration and nobody liked his suggestion that U.S. troops would be under the control of the U.N. And, why did we practically ignore other humanitarian needs in the region, such as those in Somalia, Darfur, or Uganda and rush in to help Libya? Some said oil, and others suggested that Gadhafi’s head would be yet another feather in the cap of Obama, whose approval numbers were declining rapidly. But now that the end game of the Libyan rebellion is beginning to unfold, we consider with great horror what Obama may have intended all along.

    In a “liberation” celebration in Benghazi on October 23, a mere three days after their tyrant’s death, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, Chairman of the National Transitional Council of Libya, declared to thousands of supporters that post-Gadhafi Libya would utilize Islamic Sharia law as the prime inspiration for new legislation.  Gadhafi was no stranger to Sharia, but he espoused something closer to Islamic socialism.  Those who follow in the wake of his death desire to drive Libya far deeper into the abyss of Sharia dogma.

    Did anyone know or suspect that Libya would turn to Sharia with such frightening speed and certainty? Did anyone on “our” side sit down and talk with these individuals before we committed resources to this effort and ask them what their end game was? Did we send our brave men and women into harm’s way and fund this ridiculous escapade only to help create an Islamic Sharia state? But again, the more horrifying question is, What exactly did Obama know?

    Two possibilities exist. One is that the Obama administration completely did not know the intentions of the Libyan revolt. While I hope this to be true, it still does not alleviate from them the responsibility of doing some due diligence: Did anyone investigate these rebels? Ask some questions? Do a background check!?! If the Obama administration and the UN teamed up to help the Libyan resurgence without asking what they intended if Gadhafi were removed, than that would be an executive oversight of epic proportion. And, I hope that this is what happened, for the alternative is even more horrifying.

    That other possibility is that Obama knew exactly what the Libyans would do, and it was precisely for this reason that he committed American troops and funds to the effort, rather than assist with other humanitarian needs in the area. Remember, also, he committed troops without congressional approval, despite criticizing Bush’s handling of Iraq. While few doubt that, in a national emergency, the president can order troops into action, any sustained engagement must be approved by Congress. This isn’t a technicality: It’s embedded in the U. S. Constitution, manely, article one, section eight (remember, this is the same Commander-in-chief who taught constitutional law!). The speed with which Obama dodged the Constitution to help the Libyan rebel reassert Sharia law in Libya makes Obama’s motives for committing U.S. troops quite suspect.

    I will say as strongly as I possibly can in this PG rated web journal: I am as unhappy as heck that my tax money went to catapult an entire nation backward into the Sharia mentality of the Dark Ages!! And I am irate at the possibility that Obama may have known the revolution's end game.  The Libyans not only ousted a leader, but they introduced a new tyrant, namely Sharia despotism; and Obama sat on the sidelines and watched incompetently or purposefully. If he didn’t bother determine what the intended result was for the Libyan rebellion, then shame on Obama. If he knew what their end game was and supported them anyway, then shame on the American people for voting a Shariaphile into the White House.

    So, agree or disagree: Is this the Libya that we were fighting for? Let us know what you think by sending a response to  feedback@eclectickasper.com.

BIBLE HISTORY: A Non-Complimentary Tribute On the KJV’s 400 Year Anniversary

    Before the year 2011 closes, we need to comment on the 400 year anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. It is disregarded by some, practically worshiped by others. Either way, the KJV has made an undeniable mark on the English-speaking world.

    While I will be gleefully critical of the KJV in a few moments, I will start by gladly acknowledging the cultural impact of the KJV on Western civilization. Even as our culture freefalls into Biblical illiteracy, it has become fashionable in modern media to borrow Biblical phrases and statements. Phrases like “salt of the earth,” “holier than thou,” “skin of my teeth,” or the act of “girding thy loins” slink their way from time to time into popular media. No book has made such an impact on English speakers as this iconic translation.  So that’s my only slightly obligatory praises for the King James Version of the Bible. However, my focus in this article will be more on the critical side, as I believe that the KJV is decidedly inferior to modern mainstream translations for a variety of reasons.

    My first concern about continuing to utilize the King James Version is the archaic language that permeates even later revisions. Archaic words such as “thee,” “wot,” “ye,” and “wrought,” present unnecessary linguistic barriers to the modern reader both in the context of public reading and evangelism. That is, reading the KJV is difficult for a believer, who hopefully has some Biblical background, however, it is near impossible for someone who has minimal previous exposure to the Bible. Many people have a false sense that this archaic language is sacrosanct and more spiritual than contemporary English. If presenting God’s truth clearly is the goal, than using the KJV is clearly an unnecessary obstacle. Reverence for and adherence to KJV language can seem cultish, especially to unbelievers.

    Also, there have been about 75,000 specific corrections and updates to the KJV since the original 1611 publication. When I have encountered people who believe that the KJV is the only correct translation, I am compelled to ask them, which one specifically is the correct edition . . . the 1611 version? the 1629 revision? the 1769 edition? the 1971 King James II Version . . . or the 1982 New King James Version? (by the way, the NKJV is a good version, and was the first translation that got me interested in spiritual matters). Frankly, the 1611 version is nearly unreadable, which is why KJVers today use the 1769 revision, and erroneously believing that they use the "original" 1611 edition.