OCTOBER 2012

This edition of The Eclectic Kasper represents not merely an eclectic collection of topics, but an eclectic contribution from Kaspers! Making his debut in these hallowed journalistic corridors, we feature an article by Les Kasper on the Electoral College, a frequently referenced but rarely understood mechanism in American politics. We also feature the contribution of Josh and David Kasper, writing beside Matt Kasper in a vociferous debate about Batman’s gallery of villains in “Three Rogues Debate Batman’s Rogues.”

Also, check our out our articles on the dangers of imbalance in worship, what the history U.S. presidential elections tells us about how “unified” we are, and a devotional though about the reception of wisdom.

On a slightly more sober note, this month we begin a series that has turned out to be immensely timely. As someone who studies and has taught about world religious I believe that we all should be more informed about Islam, one of the largest and most influential religious forces in the world. But in light of the recent uprisings mainly in Muslim countries, it is critical that we understand Muhammad’s faith. This first installment of this series immediately below simply serves to orient us to the truths and mis-truths that have been propagated about Islam, and it will explain how this series “Insights on Islam” intends to provide an accurate and fair presentation about Islam and the Quran.

Thanks again for reading, and stay eclectic!

INSIGHTS ON ISLAM: Read Through Your Quran in a Year!

Many Christians see it as their sacred obligation to read through their Bible in a year, and this can be a noble goal. I’ve taken a slightly different approach for 2012 to supplement my Bible reading; I have also been reading through the Quran, the “Bible” of Islam. I read through it once early in 2011 and I am perusing it again in 2012.

I am not converting, nor attempting to find some synthesis between the two faith systems. I am simply trying to be informed, especially as I begin this series on “Insights on Islam.” In fact, this series about Islam, and the need to be informed about Islam, seems all the more important in light of the euphemistically-titled “Arab Spring” in early 2011 and the recent anti-American/ anti-West uprisings primarily in Arab countries. Many talk about the violence, or heresy, or misogyny in the Quran, but most have never actually seen those things in the text itself. I often get e-mails about what the Quran says only to turn to the passage in question and find that it doesn’t say that at all! Again, I have no interest in defending Islam, but I simply want to be fair about what the Quran says, and informed when I launch my own set of concerns and critiques against Muhammad’s religion.

My main battle here is not so much against Islam, or Muslims, or against those dismissive of the radical fringe of that faith. Rather, my battle is against ignorance (a weapon, unfortunately wielded far too often by political pundits). If people have the wrong impressions of Islam I want to correct that. Some folks demonize the Quran making it worse than it is (some of the violence in it is no worse than what one finds in the Bible!). However, ignorance also blinds some to how bad some of the more subtle doctrines of Islam really are, especially in a socio-political context (we will discuss one such example in our January 2013 edition). It is critical for Christians to be informed about other religions generally, but especially about Islam, which boasts 1.5 billion adherents globally. In fact, due to our convictions regarding the importance of truth, Christians especially must be both fair and informed.

We frankly shouldn't be surprised by the amount of ignorance in our society, and many of our own opinion polls demonstrate how ignorant and self-contradictory the populace tends to be. Anna Greenberg, former assistant professor of public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, observed: “Polls show that Americans have the perplexing ability to hold ideologically contradictory views. As many scholars also note, Americans are simultaneously attached to both limited and activist government policies; they are capable, for instance, of favoring both cutting the federal budget and increasing spending on education, health care, and other social programs. Americans are also quite willing to offer opinions to poll takers on subjects that they concede they know nothing about” (“Public Opinion Makes Better Sense Without the Opinion Makers,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 May 1999).

Authors Jack W Germond and Jules Witcover describe the ignorance of most people that are surveyed in opinion polls: “The hard truth is that many and perhaps most of those questioned in opinion surveys know little or nothing about the issues and people the pollsters are interested in” (National Journal, August 14, 1999, see the article here). While the context of their assessment is political issues, the principle applies also to the rampant ignorance about religion, whether it be Islam or even Christianity. So, while people become more unaware in this country about politics and religion, we lend increasing weight to their clueless opinions on these matters through frequent polls, allowing ignorance to ascend to the echelon of a virtue. This phenomenon is rampant in America, which makes everybody think that their opinion matters more than it really does. (Of course, your opinion matters to me, but I’m just a lowly web journal writer!)

Speaking of ignorance, comedic pundit Bill Mahar’s comments in a March 11, 2011 interview exhibit his own ignorance regarding the Quran. Note the following statements from that article:

“Maher was talking with Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, who gained widespread attention for his emotional testimony at Thursday’s congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization. During the conversation, Maher called the Quran a ‘hate-filled holy book’ that espouses a backwards ideology. He did make a point of qualifying his statements by saying that the vast majority of Muslims reject the violent aspects of the religion’s ideology. However, Maher insisted throughout the discussion that Islam presents a greater threat of terrorism than other religions.”

The grain-of-salt factor should be high considering Bill Mahar will say anything that he thinks is cutting-edge and funny, especially considering his tongue-in-cheek 2006 tirade about the benefits of converting to Islam. I don’t disagree at all with his concern about the threat of Muslim terrorism, but I doubt that he or most other comics, critics and talking-heads have even read a page of the Quran to know if it is truly a “hate-filled holy book” or not.

Our series of articles here in The Eclectic Kasper, entitled “Insights on Islam” intends to achieve fairness and to inform without the monumental cluelessness of the pundit class. I have worked hard to make sure that my comments are not coming from ignorance but through research, interaction, and from discussions with those more knowledgeable in this field than myself. I gladly invite any article ideas that you have, or any corrections or balancing points you want to share especially regarding Islam. At some points I will appear amazingly conciliatory toward what Muslims believe; at other times, I will criticize Muhammad’s faith harshly. The difference, however, is that I will criticize it with as much information as I can muster, and not as an ignorant reaction.

Future articles in this series “Insights on Islam” will cover more about what the Quran says about faith, violence, Christianity and women (you may be surprised!), among other topics. Also, we will give some historical background to the religion and also describe some of the different branches and popular contemporary offshoots of Islam (even describing where Hollywood slips Muslim-friendliness into popular shows).

Again, the hope is to do so with information, humility, and a healthy dose of journalistic and academic integrity. Let’s confront the abundant falsehoods of Islam on the basis of what Muslims and the Quran actually say and not based on a set of phantasmal falsehoods that we have unfairly concocted in our own minds. I believe that we would want that same courtesy extended to us, though it rarely is.

POLITICS: The Electoral College: Are We Really All Equal?

By guest contributor Les Kasper

As stated in our Declaration of Independence, “…all men are created equal.” This is true in a general, legal sense, but it raises the question, Are all voters ‘created equal’?

The answer is a limited “yes.” That is, within any particular state, the vote of each voter who casts a ballot carries the same weight. But when it comes to electing a President and a Vice President (hereafter, “VP”), while each voter within a particular state still has an “equal” vote, relative to the other voters in that particular state, the votes of people in a certain state may actually carry more weight than those in other states.

Why is that? Consistent with our democratic republic form of government, we don’t directly elect the President and Vice President, but instead, voters elect a slate of “electors” who meet in Washington D.C. about a week after the election (which is held on the 1st Tuesday in November). The gathering of these electors from the fifty states and the District of Columbia is called the Electoral College, one of the many ingenious “inventions” of our Founding Fathers.

When our Constitution was being negotiated, drafted and finally ratified (in 1787), some members of the Constitutional Convention were in favor of direct, popular election of the President, meaning that the candidate with the most total votes would win. However, other members favored appointment of the President and VP by the House of Representatives. As a compromise, our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College. When you vote for a particular pair of candidates for the offices of President and VP, you are really voting for the slate of electors which is committed to voting in the Electoral College for the particular candidates whom you favor. In 48 of the 50 states, the winner of the popular vote for President within that state receives all of that state’s electors, and in the other two states, they are proportioned in accordance with the split of the popular vote in that state.

So how could it be that not all voters are “equal” in voting for the President and VP? The number of Electors assigned to each state is equal to the number of U.S. Senators and Representatives, combined, thus effectively increasing the voting power of smaller states, on a per-capita (or per-voter) basis.

For example, Wyoming has 3 electors for 560,000 residents, which is one elector for every 186,000 people, whereas New York state has 31 electors for 19 million residents, which is one elector for every 612,000 people. So, if you are a resident of Wyoming, your vote for President literally carries more weight than does the vote of a New Yorker, by a factor of about 3.2. I live in Ohio where there are 11 million residents and 20 electors, or one elector for every 560,000 people, somewhere between the ratios for Wyoming and New York. So much for being created equal!

One group of people, operating under the name “National Popular Vote,” wants to replace the Electoral College with some form of a direct popular vote. There are currently eight states which have agreed to an interstate compact under which these states would grant all of their Electoral College votes to whichever candidate for President receives the greatest national popular vote total.

This compact would go into effect whenever a number of states, representing a majority of Electoral College votes, have passed substantially identical legislation, thus joining the “compact,” effective as of July 20 of any particular Presidential election year. So, it is possible that this compact could take effect for one presidential election, but then no longer be in effect for the next one, because one or more states passed legislation removing that particular state from the compact.

The motivation for supporting this National Popular Vote movement is ostensibly a concern that, under the present Electoral College system, the Presidential candidates focus their campaign efforts almost totally on a number of identified “swing states,” and that the effect of, for example, the vote of a Republican in California is nullified, and that voters know in advance that such is the case. While I am sympathetic to that concern, especially as our nation becomes more politically polarized, I would want to be very cautious before undoing anything our Founding Fathers put in place.

So what are your thoughts about the Electoral College? Is it important? Does the inequity factor make the electoral college illegitimate? Should we do away with it? Should we preserve it? Send us your thoughts and comments at feedback@eclectickasper.com!

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Incline Your Ear, Proverbs 2:2

If you pay attention (lit. “incline your ear”) to wisdom, and extend your heart for the purpose of understanding . . .

Even prosperous societies today exhibit a poverty of wisdom. Politicians dispense logical fallacies like they were candy; reality TV and sitcoms celebrate foppish characters as though they were revered Greek philosophers; sports and music stars model lifestyles that are dissonant and self-destructive. People today desperately lack the means to navigate through the cacophony and contradiction of modern life. While such wisdom is available in the ancient writings of the Bible, one must individually chose to pay attention, or “incline one’s ears” toward it.

In Proverbs chapter 2, the author, presumably, King Solomon, begins another discourse aimed at convincing the reader of the value of integrating divine wisdom into one’s life. He portrays himself as a father, reflecting that he probably had these conversations with his biological children, but now passes his wisdom on to a broader audience who position themselves at his fatherly feet.

Verses 1 and 2 of Proverbs 2 are very action driven, and the “father” utilizes a series of verbs to encourage an increasing dedication to wisdom on the part of his pupils. The conditional “if” is carried over into the translation of verse 2, which is consistent with the appearance of that word again in verses 3 and 4. In fact, these first four verses of Proverbs 2 are the conditions that need to be met by the individual in order for the result in verse 5, namely the reception of knowledge from God, to be attained. Implicit in the “if” statements in verses 1-4 is the danger that the result in verse 5 will not be achieved if the stipulations in verses 1-4 are not met.

The Hebrew word in verse 2 that translates the exhortation, “pay attention” is the word qashav. It is in the hiphil stem, which implies causation and could be translated, “cause your ear to turn.” Additionally, the Hebrew word has a prefixed syllable le, which probably emphasizes a sense of purpose in the command. In some cases, this phrase is translated “turn your ear” (NIV) or “incline thine ear” (KJV) to bring out the need for one to purposefully pursue listening to wisdom.

The word for “ear” is ozen. It is curious that the author doesn’t exhort his audience to incline their ears (plural). That is, the author is less concerned about a specific body part and more concerned about the individual’s capacity to hear and obey. In fact, Solomon is using a figure of speech called “metonymy of subject,” where an object is put in place of a less tangible concept related to that object. For instance, when a reporter mentions a law that came from Capitol Hill, they are referring to a law created by the complex political and interpersonal machinations of those within and associated with Capitol Hill. In the case of Proverbs 2:2, the body part “ear” (the subject) is set in the place of “hearing” (something associated with the subject). Again, this is a literary device emphasized by the fact that ear is singular, rather than plural. Of course, “hearing” itself points to a function of more than mere aural intake, but also presupposes the execution, or “doing,” of what is heard (Jas 1:22-25). As such, the figure of speech here may more precisely be understood as metalepsis or “double metonymy”: “ear” stands for “hearing,” and “hearing” stands for “doing.” Ultimately, the command is not merely to hear “wisdom,” but to live wisely.

The author further urges the listener to “extend your heart.” Of the four verbs used in Proverbs 2:1-2, the Hebrew verb natah, “to stretch out” or “to extend,” most reflects a volitional response of the will. Since wisdom has made herself accessible (1:20-21) and “extended” her arm to people (1:24), it is necessary that one extend their “heart” to understand her words. Here, “extend” suggests active acceptance and obedience to wisdom. The more common figure is to stretch out one’s hand (Ex 8:6; 10:22; 14:21; Josh 8:18; 1 Chron 21:16; Job 15:25; Is 5:25) to either exert influence, or appeal to a higher authority in a miraculous act or an admission of need. When actual physical contact is the desired effect, the word shalach is preferred (Gen 22:10; 48:14; Ex 4:4; Judg 3:21; Jer 1:9; Ez 8:3; 10:7). The metaphor of extending one’s heart reflects the need to recognize God’s superior wisdom, and, while a metaphor, should be taken no less seriously than its literal counterpart. The reader is to extend her or his heart toward “understanding” (cf. 1:2, 5). Again, the syllable le prefixed to this Hebrew word can yield the idea of “to” or “toward” understanding (i.e., “wisdom”) or “for” understanding, as in “for the purpose of receiving” understanding. The latter is preferred in keeping with the sentiment of this verse.

There is a stair-step effect with these verbs in Proverbs 2:1-2, as they increase in intensity and intentionality: Take . . . store up . . . pay attention . . . reach out to wisdom. The “father” can provide instruction, but only the student can actively and intentionally pursue wisdom for himself.

How does someone incline their ear toward divine wisdom? A believer must engineer frequent and intentional proximity to God’s Word in their lives. Believers must study God’s Word for themselves on a regular basis. While reading large portions of Scripture at a time has some value, I tend to chose smaller portions of Scripture, anywhere between a few verses to a half of a chapter. I take many notes on these verses, try to discover their message, and meditate on how I can integrate their ideas into my actions, speech and behavior. A believer can approach a person who has more knowledge of God’s Word if they encounter a statement or doctrine in their studies that does not make sense to them.

Also, believers can extend their ear toward divine wisdom by sitting under the regular teaching of God’s Word. Churches must highlight the careful and accurate exposition of Scripture, rather then just featuring a ten-minute happy homily every week. Believers who sit under the careful and thorough preaching and teaching of God’s Word in sermons, adult Bible classes and other Bible studies will see divine wisdom being taught and modeled; they will have a far better sense for how to integrate wisdom into their lives as they incline their own ear toward it.

AMERICAN PANTHEON: Three Rogues Debate Batman’s Rogues

By Matt Kasper, Josh Kasper, and David Kasper

The gallery of rogues in the Batman mythos is one of the most compelling aspects of the DC multiverse. Some of the Batman villains are simply silly and implausible; who can forget, as much as we would like to, the ridiculous campiness of Dr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane in the 1997 debacle Batman and Robin. However, many of Batman's enemies are far more gritty, menacing and plausible. In this article, three Kaspers debate which is the best of Batman’s villains from the seven live-action Batman films since 1989.

View #1:

Seven Batman movies that span three decades have presented a variety of Batman’s nemeses, and some more than once. Though frequently overshadowed by more flamboyant villains, Ra’s al Ghul as portrayed by Liam Neeson in the 2005 film Batman Begins stands out for his moral ambiguity, among other villains who seem superficially driven merely by their evil. Whereas other rogues revel in their chaos and destruction, Ra’s believes that his motives to destroy Gotham are clearly in the right. This places Bruce Wayne/ Batman in the awkward predicament of having to defend his demonstrably evil and corrupt hometown from Ra’s al Ghul’s noble idealism and his the-ends-justify-the-means tactics.

Also, Ra’s al Ghul lacks the masks, make-up and fanfare that other rogues rely on. Rather, Ra’s employs deception and subtly, which makes his actions that much more nefarious. Additionally, Ra’s is motivated by ideology, not personality. He is not out to “get” Batman, but he sees Batman as an obstacle to a broader goal of destroying Gotham, and, by extension, bringing balance to corrupt western civilization.

Ra’s al Ghul stands out for his complexity and his subtly. This generates a level of plausibility that makes him a truly compelling villain.

View #2:

Hysterical screaming fills the streets of Gotham City. Or could it be laughter? It’s . . . the Joker! The seven Batman movies contain many villains, some plausible, some exceptional, and some just laughably ridiculous. The Joker from the 1989 movie Batman, a precursor to some of the lamer villains in the series, is the best super villain in all the movies. With a uniquely depicted character, he is believably shown as an utterly insane villain who loves to smile his ghastly grin. His purple-and-green vested appearance displays his dysfunctional mental abilities. The psychotic, villainous, twist that the Joker puts on the philosophy that laughter is the best medicine serves to prove how truly evil he is.

In addition, he is intertwined into a remarkable plot, with many startling revelations, subtle secrets, including the mysterious murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne, parents of millionaire/ philanthropist Bruce Wayne. The Joker’s stranglehold on Gotham city and its residents showcases his capability to control and kill. He also has obvious power over television networking and wields it to sway the minds of the Gotham citizens and make himself appear the hero. He uses greed to convince the people of his good intentions. By throwing twenty million dollars to the inhabitants of Gotham, the Joker induces violence and destruction upon the city.

The Joker is, furthermore, a good fighter, strategist, and is a challenging opponent for Batman to best physically and mentally. He is by far the best villain in all seven Batman movies.

View #3:

Grinning Jokers, Mad Hatters, symmetrically exploded Two-Face, the villain-sicle Mr. Freeze, the list of deranged Batman bad guys goes on and on. The best of them all, however, is the muscle-bound Bane and his plot to destroy Gotham from the 2012 film The Dark Knight Rises.

Of all the Batman criminals Bane found a blend of crazy but not insane, amazing yet believable, evil but still human. Also, Bane’s inception was exotic, and unique, but not a one-in-a-million fall into chemicals like so many other Gotham antagonists. Moreover, the physical appearance of Bane himself is how a realistic, awesome villain should be. His person is large and imposing, not wearing tights, not clad in purple, nor sporting hockey pants. But in the most telling truth of all, Gotham City was under his control for upwards of three months, a feat no other villain had come close to. In reality, Bane is one of only two villains whom I can imagine defeating Batman in one-on-one combat (the other being Ra’s al Ghul). Bane’s character is not corny or faked, and he does his own dirty work, becoming a bestial thing to watch on the silver screen.

So, which case is more compelling? Or did we miss a villain from the seven Batman movies more fierce, plausible and compelling than Ra’s al Ghul, the 1989 Joker or the 2012 Bane? And for extra credit: can you guess which Kasper wrote about which rogue? Send your thoughts and comments (and guesses!) to feedback@eclectickasper.com, or you can sound off about your favorite Batman villain on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page!

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: One Nation Divided

Well, kids, we’re almost there at the big November 2012 election. This is the election that they’ve been telling us is “the most important of our lifetime.” I’ve even heard some say that this is the most critical election since 1860! One pundit proclaimed that this is the second revolutionary war, and some fear that we are more divided as a country than we have ever been (those individuals seem to have forgotten that pesky Civil War!).

I wanted to put this manner of rhetoric – which comes from both sides of the aisle – into perspective. These statements are used to some degree or another almost every four years. I acknowledge that this is an important election; but every election is important. And we are certainly more polarized than we have been in the past.

However, history dictates that we are not necessarily more divided than we have been in the past. That is, while we are currently very divided, we have always been divided. We have a record of being one nation divided, people who stand shoulder to shoulder in anxious sectarianism.

Glancing through results of the popular votes in presidential elections since 1824 yields a fascinating and humbling truth; namely, we’ve always been a nation deeply at odds with one another. You can access these election records from a variety of sources including a basic chart of presidential election results from Wikipedia (whose stats in this instance I have verified elsewhere), or the very detailed charts from the Federal Election Commission’s online document Library, or at the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections website (see here for their data from the 2008 election). What follows are some fascinating tidbits from an analysis of the 46 presidential elections since 1824 (as the Wikipedia article suggests, “No popular votes [were] tabulated prior to 1824 election”). Of these 46 elections, eighteen of the winners received less than 50% of the popular vote, in some cases, but not all, owing to the presence of a third party candidate. A few of these below-50% winners became some of our most influential presidents, including Abraham Lincoln (39.65% in 1860), Bill Clinton (43.01% in 1992), and John F. Kennedy (49.72% in 1960).

In sixteen of these 46 elections, the winner earned just barely above half of the popular vote, specifically, between 50% and 55%. This again, demonstrates the deep division that has always characterized our nation. These contests include Martin van Buren’s slim victory of 50.79% in 1836 and George W. Bush’s second term victory in 2004 with a slender 50.73% majority. Also, the 1880 contest gave the victory to James A. Garfield by a mere 9,070 vote margin. But even the victories closer toward the 55% level, such as those of Andrew Jackson in 1832 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, both of which garnered 54.74% of the popular vote, could hardly be trumpeted as overwhelming mandates from a unified electorate.

In only four of these 46 elections since 1824 did the victor win with over 60% of the vote, and the highest popular vote, received by Johnson in 1964, was only 61.05%. That is, in even the most “decisive” election, the winner still had virtually four of ten voters cast a ballot against him! And two of these four big winners included the notorious Richard Nixon (60.67% in 1972) and the corrupt and virtually useless Warren G. Harding (60.32% in 1920).

Even a few of the more renown two-term presidents never procured a majority of the popular vote in either of their victories including Grover Cleveland (48.85% in 1884 and 46.02% in 1892) Woodrow Wilson (41.84% in 1912 and 49.24% in 1916) and Bill Clinton (43.01% in 1992 and 49.23% in 1996).

While these elections demonstrate the division that Americans have always had, the numbers also betray the fickle nature of the electorate. In the most glaring example, Nixon went from a pathetic victory with 43.42% of the popular vote in 1968 to a stunning win of 60.67% in 1972, only to leave office in shame a few years later.

In summary, of the 46 elections, 29 of the contests (63% of them) were awarded to winners who only earned between 45% to 55% of the popular vote, including the meager 47.28% won by Zachary Taylor in 1848 to the mere 52.87% earned by Barack Obama in 2008.

The results of this historical survey should actually be encouraging, rather than depressing. Media pundits, who have a vested interest in trying to sensationalize news, point out how split we are as a nation now, and there may be some truth to the idea of polarization. The conservative center of balance has shifted right, which many talking heads like to call the “extreme” right. And the liberal average has slipped toward pure socialism. That is, the right has demonstrably become more conservative, and the left has demonstrably become more liberal. However, the vast philosophical differences that exist between Americans now have always divided us, and probably will continue to do so.

So, let’s keep the rhetoric in check. We are divided, but we have always been divided, and the presidential elections since 1824 bear that out. If your presidential choice doesn’t get in the White House this year, that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the Republic, and the problem of partisanship in America is not new. The United States is strong; we will survive; we are resilient. America, in some form or another, will continue to stand. And we may continue to stand divided, but at least we will continue to stand divided together.

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 9, The Dangers of Imbalance

This series on Dimensions of Worship” has argued primarily for balance. There should be balanced attention both content and manner in worship, to theology and Christology, to the mind and senses, etc.

It is, therefore, pertinent to demonstrate how “worship” in contemporary evangelical literature often reflects a lack of balance. Simply flipping through popular volumes of praise choruses – as I have done many times – reflects this reality.

We discussed the need to balance intellect and emotion (January 2012), and we even followed that up with an excursus about worship and emotion (February 2012). Contemporary worship is obsessed with immediate sensory experience of God, and this often crowds out the cognitive aspects of spirituality. Many modern songs speak of “seeing” God, such as in:

Many modern ditties speak of “touching” God (see, for example, Andy Park, “In the Secret” [I want to Know You],” © 1995 Mercy/ Vineyard Publishing or Bob Cull, “Open our Eyes,” ©1976 Maranatha! Music), and some lyricists even speak of smelling Jesus! (Graham Kendrick, “May the Fragrance of Jesus Fill this Place,”© 1986 Make Way Music, Ltd. See also Darrell Evans, “Your Love is Extravagant,” © 1998 Integrity's Hosanna! Music, and Danny Chambers, Jillian Chambers, and Trent Austin, “Even Now,” © 1994 Praise on the Rock). This “smelling sensation” is an odd figure of speech considering that “fragrance” is attributed to believers in the NT (2 Cor 2:15; Phil 4:18; though note the possible exception in Eph 5:2).

Many modern worship songs follow in the footsteps of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), called the Father of Modern Theological Liberalism, who insisted that religion could be reduced to a “feeling of absolute dependence on God.” Contemporary worship often describes “feel[ing] the Holy Spirit moving in this place” (Buddy Greene, “Faith to Follow,” © 2000 Rufus Music) or “feeling the message of Your [God’s] heart” (Christopher Beatty, “You are Worthy,” © 1986 Maranatha! Music). One chorus says, “I can feel His mighty power and His grace; I can hear the brush of angels wings . . . Surely the presence of the Lord is in this place” (Lanny Wolfe, “Surely the Presence,” © 1977 Lanny Wolfe Music). Many choruses are disturbing sensual: “I will take hold of you . . . Capture me with your grace” (Jared Anderson, “Rescue,” © 2003, Vertical Worship Songs).

Additionally, modern worship choruses exhibit a disturbing fetish for being in God’s presence. Examples include:

Yet, people in Scripture who were in the visible presence of God and and received a glimpse of his glory often fell facedown in terror and were evidently not anxious to repeat the experience (Deut 5:23-27; Is 6:5; Ezek 1:28; 3:23; Rev 1:17).

We have argued strenuously in this series that the content of worship songs are important as they regularly feed a local congregation with Biblical doctrine and divine expectations. However, modern evaluations of worship are done primarily on the aesthetic level and are often devoid of theological considerations. One reviewer of a worship CD commented: “As I listened to this CD . . . an air of peaceful stillness surrounded me. Restoring your soul with God’s music is the constant theme throughout the project” (Trish Carlson, “Review of ‘Quiet Places’ by Rich Rubietta,” Worship Leader 9, no. 3 [May/June 2000]: 4). That same reviewer later elaborates on this definition when she describes one song that has a “catchy melody and upbeat instrumentation” (Trish Carlson, “Review of ‘Re:awakening – A Community in Worship [Vol. 2]’,” Worship Leader 9, no. 3 [May/June 2000]: 50). While some trite lyrics are reproduced in the review, there is no consideration of the album’s theology or the durability of its lyrics, but comments are oddly reduced to issues of musical style as though nothing else mattered. Donald Hustad insightfully comments, “Style has become today’s chief musical concern—not the text or its theology” (Don Hustad, True Worship, p. 173).

The bottom-line is balance. Individual songs, or songs in a worship book, or the texts used in a church service require careful attention to balancing theology and Christology, intellect and emotion, liturgy and lifestyle. Poorly balanced worship will result in an imbalanced believer or local congregation.

FEEDBACK: In Someone Else’s Own Words

We received the following from one of our readers in response to our article “In Your Own Words, Too,” in the September 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. Below, we reprint the response in its entirety and provide a rejoinder afterward:

I feel compelled to write about an essay you posted in the September 2012 issue of The Eclectic Kasper. I find it disappointing when religious leaders infuse their own, often politically-biased leanings into sermons or talks or papers or essays.

In addition, I wanted to discuss certain statements in the “Politics: In Your Own Words, Too” section.

1) Your use of phrases/words “Socialist Regime” and “Comrades” – This type of language by individuals often indicates something to me: You’ve likely never been to another country and (more likely) never been to a current or former socialist/communist country (China, Russia, Eastern Bloc Europe). [You are quite wrong on this count. – Editor, TEK] You have never seen first hand the effects of ACTUAL socialism/communism on the people, the landscape and the aftermath. Republicans and Democrats debating the merits of altering marginal tax rates by small percentage points, certain business subsidies, and the role of governmental departments is not a fight between the Free Market and Communism. The debate between issues like these are worthy, but the language used to describe the differences is beyond hyperbolic; it is inaccurate. Under both Republican AND Democratic leaders, Americans own their own businesses, are free to change jobs, live in a city of their choosing, worship in the church of their choosing and pursue the lives that they want. This does not happen in Socialist societies.

2) “You Didn’t Build That” – From the very beginning, this is a faux-controversy conjured up by the Republicans. Taken out of context, it could sound damning, but if saw/heard the speech in its entirety it is clear that the “That” in the speech referred to “roads and bridges” which immediately preceded the “You didn’t build that” statement. [For the record, The Eclectic Kasper discussed the “You didn’t build that” comment and its context in the September 2012 article “In Your Own Words, Too”; our article also provides a link to the full text of the speech as well as a link to a video clip of this section of the speech. In the context, the word “that” is clearly not referring to “roads and bridges;” in fact, the quote when seen in context gives legitimacy to a concervative’s concern. – Editor, TEK] And let me give you a real world example that you might be able to relate to: “. . . Yes, Mr. Obama . . . I did build this web journal!” This sentence is near the top of the “Eclectic Kasper” and it highlights the fundamental error of your thinking. You did create the journal. You work very hard to update it on a regular basis with interesting content. It includes your own thoughts, opinions and beliefs and you should be commended for all of that. But, as the sentence suggests, it is a WEB journal. The structure on which it is disseminated is the internet, which was largely invented through the Department of Defense in the mid-1960’s (It was a US government initiative). You did not create the world-wide-web or its ability to disseminate information but you benefit from it. The US government created the Interstate Highway system that allowed for greater and easier flow of people, goods and services. And that is the ultimate point. The government, in tandem with individual initiative, can create a platform for which more and more people have the ability to succeed in whatever job/path they have chosen.

3) “…has had so many things handed to him over the years…” – This is a line of thinking that greatly confuses me and willingly ignores basic facts about the current President and recent Republican nominees for President. The President was raised by a single mother and his grandparents; His family had no political ties; He earned (by merit) academic college scholarships; He put himself through law school; He became President of the United States through diligence, hard work and WITHOUT the benefit of lineage or vast personal wealth. By all accounts he is a loving husband, a doting father and diligent in his work/profession. By contrast Mitt Romney (and George W. Bush before him) were born into very wealthy and very politically successful families. Much of their business success was predicated on family money and connections. Not that they didn’t or don’t work hard, but they had a significant leg up on average Americans. (I think it is safe to say that President Bush would NOT have gotten into Yale purely on academic merit). So to say that President Obama “has had so many things handed to him” seems disingenuous. I fail to understand how Republicans can’t even acknowledge the most basic facts and accomplishments of our President even though they might disagree with his policies.

4) Taxation - This is an area where selective use of statistics can be used to argue the point for either “team”. Yes, the 1% or the 5% pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. They also earn the vast majority of the nation’s income. I think most estimates but the number at 5% of the people control 70% of the nation’s wealth and pay 58% of the federal income tax. Also, for those people keeping score at home, taxes have gone DOWN under President Obama, not up. Almost all Americans have been receiving more money per paycheck because of the decrease in payroll taxes first enacted in the Stimulus bill. But the President has been consistent and honest about his belief that higher earning individuals and families should pay a higher marginal tax rate for the highest portion of their income (equal to the rates under President Clinton when the economy and job growth was strong). I’m all for a thorough discussion and review of the country’s taxation policy and firmly believe it should be far less complicated and hope that the discussion can be grounded in reality.

Your closing paragraph sums up the issues I have with the post. It’s HUGELY slanted and presented in an unfair manner. As you might have guessed, I will vote for President Obama again, but not because I want a socialist regime nor do I want to be taxed to death. As you rightly point out, there are differences in philosophy between the two candidates, but that difference is NOT “between a socialist regime that wants to rule and impose narrow definitions of ‘fair’ on this country by taxing us to death, or a decision for less government, less taxes and more freedom.”

I welcome a vigorous debate about the role of government in business and in life, but it should be an HONEST debate, not one based on canned political talking points.

I am very appreciative of this e-mail, of its civil tone as well as its thoroughness and specificity. As I’m sure you can imagine, we here at The Eclectic Kasper occasionally receive some less-than-civil responses to our articles. Those few examples notwithstanding, I re-affirm how pleased I am that the level of civility in the hallowed pages of The Eclectic Kasper far outshines what is likely heard in many halls and corridors in Washington D.C.! Furthermore, we will always gladly reprint kindhearted and substantive disagreement, and we even encourage it!

Though grateful for this response, I have far too many disagreements with it to address them all, so I will focus on one that I perceive to be a fundamental, philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. In fact, it is a point of curiosity and contradiction more than it is a criticism, based on a statement delivered with such matter-of-fact-ness, that I doubt that its author even recognized the extent to which it betrays the prime hypocrisy of the liberal mind. It is the second sentence of the response: “I find it disappointing when religious leaders infuse their own, often politically-biased leanings into sermons or talks or papers or essays.”

I will try to be succinct about this statement without being brutal: For all its rhetoric about the value of free-expression and openness and non-conformity and tolerance, the liberal mind appears to loathe the free expression of any ideas that are either motivated by religion specifically or that oppose the liberal agenda generally. I will be happy to concede the dangerous and annoying close-mindedness and intolerance that many exhibit in the name of religion (believe me, I could write a book!); but at least such people do not claim to be open-minded and yet evidently live otherwise. On the other hand, the liberal mind marches under the banner of tolerance and openness, yet cringes and demonstrates deep “disappointment” for ideas that do not align with its schema.

More to the point: What right does anyone have to be “disappointed” with the free expression of ideas despite their motive? As this month’s edition of The Eclectic Kasper exemplifies, I do not agree with the views of Muslims, many contemporary worship artists, and many political pundits, and yet I am not “disappointed” that they hold to their views and air their convictions! Their views are not unwelcome in public discourse because they stem from their backgrounds, education, experiences or religious beliefs; nor should my opposition to their views be marginalized because of my background, education, experiences or religious beliefs.

But again, under the thin veneer of “tolerance,” liberals despise views that do not concur with their own, and would seek to silence the millions in this country that dare uphold stances springing from dusty, religious documents.

In this case, the liberal mind devises a double whammy: A religious person is not to speak about politics in church lessons, nor is he permitted to discuss religion in civic contexts! Liberals have a dizzying array of circumstances and contexts wherein “we the people” are not allowed to express our views! What is it about discourse, religion, ideas, opposition, or time-honored principles that make liberals so petrified? The Eclectic Kasper not only invites other perspectives to this web journal, but we even reprint strong (but again civil!) disagreements with this web journal’s contents (in addition to this present section, see another example in the Feedback section of the January 2012 edition). We feel neither threatened nor “disappointed” by anyone’s perspective whether their opinions are derived from their faith, their background, their education, etc.

The above author claims in the last sentence to “welcome a vigorous debate” on one hand, but then immediately begins placing restrictions on the content of that debate; that is, the dialog that he alleges to welcome is not as free and open as he professes! The first constraint on our discussion about government is that it should be “honest.” In my experience, when either a liberal or a conservative calls for an “honest” debate, they aim to restrict the discussion only to assertions which conform with their own presuppositions.

Not satisfied with that restraint on free speech, he continues in his last sentence that such a debate must not include “canned political talking points.” Do such talking points include the factual reality that in the last four years the national debt has increased by well over $5 trillion dollars in contrast to an increase of less than $5 trillion over the previous eight years! (go ahead run the numbers yourself at the Treasury Direct website [and, for the record, I wasn’t very happy about what seemed at the time like out-of-control spending under that previous administration!])? Do canned talking points include the fact that the U.S. credit rating was downgraded in August 2011 two-and-a-half years into the current administration’s leadership? Or that the number of people who are on food stamps (those who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) went from 32.6 million in Jan 2009 to 46.6 million in June 2012 (see the USDA statistics here). Or that the unemployment was at 6.8% the month Obama was elected but then hovered in the 9% plus range for over two years and is still at a fragile (and, I might add, very suspicious) 7.8% (again, check out the stats at the government-run Bureau of Labor Statistics site)? Or, and perhaps more poignantly, that the labor force participation rate (tracking those over age 16 who are eligible to work) has unfortunately shrunk from 65.8% in Nov 2008 to 63.6% in Sept 2012, meaning that there are over 2% less people participating in the work force than there were almost four years ago (by the way, notice how the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own chart demonstrates a steep decline in this rate over the last four years that has hardly been slowed by the current administration)? So, when did the useful repetition of verifiable facts become “canned political talking points” that are not permitted into public discourse?

The liberal mind needs to make up its mind: Either be honest enough to admit that many who represent the liberal mind seem very intolerant of views that oppose it, and that many in the left especially abhor ideas that emanate from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Or, stop being so defensive, threatened, and “disappointed” by anyone who declares different opinions, no matter what ideas and experiences motivate those opinions. That is, either admit that you are intolerant, or genuinely be open to different ideas that clash with your own. Either way, stop opposing and rejecting free speech! We hold dearly to our views as much as you do, and we perceive our reasons for those views to be at least as legitimate as the reasons why you hold your views. We refuse to be bullied or silenced by the left’s intolerant disappointment.