SEPTEMBER 2018

    Ron DeSantis, a white candidate for Florida governor is running against black Democratic candidate Andrew Gillum. In an interview on Fox News on Tuesday, August 28, DeSantis warned Florida voters that they should not thwart economic progress and “monkey this up” by voting for someone with liberal and socialist values. “The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state.” Just a few sentences previous to this, by the way, he issued somewhat of a compliment to his rival.    But that was not enough for liberals, who deliberately twisted DeSantis’ words and asserted that he was calling Gillum a monkey. The left framed this reference to a monkey as a “dog whistle” to rally DeSantis’ allegedly-racist GOP base. No sane person, however, truly believes that DeSantis was calling Gillum a primate. But this is where the liberal inconsistency regarding free speech lies: where were these same individuals in 2008 when then-candidate Obama mentioned how some have “monkeyed around with elections in the past”?

    A similar demonization took place in January 2017 when announcer Doug Adler related Venus Williams’ aggressive style as “guerrilla” tactics. Some, longing for racism where racism doesn’t exist, accused Adler of comparing the black tennis player to a “gorilla.”

    I must sheepishly admit here that I made a similar mistake myself when I submitted written feedback to some hosts of a podcast several years ago; I discussed “gorilla marketing” rather than “guerilla marketing.” The use of the homophones in certain contexts may require simple clarification.

    In Adler’s case, he should have been given the opportunity to explain himself; many of us recognize that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” can apply in many non-legal instances, as well. Instead, liberals assumed the worst and gleefully demonized the commentator. Despite Adler’s apologies for what was at worst a slight flub, he was fired by ESPN. So much for “free” speech, especially when it can be purposefully misinterpreted in the worst way possible.

    Second, if you can’t simply say something nice, there is a problem with the way you view free expression.

    On Tuesday, July 24, a University of Georgia journalism professor named Charles Davis tweeted that Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp was a “nice guy.” That day, Kemp had defeated Casey Cagle, and Davis tweeted his kind remarks regarding his old high school buddy.

    The backlash against Davis was insane; and I don’t just mean that it was intense, I mean it literally lacked sanity; though undoubtedly a liberal, this professor was called racist. Imagine afterward him having to apologize profusely for having the nerve to just say something nice about someone who holds a different ideology.

    Norm MacDonald recently expressed sympathy for entertainers whose lives have been ruined by a variety of accusations, some of which had substance, and some of which were baseless. He merely stated his concern for what happened to individuals like Louis C.K. and Roseanne Barr, who are close friends of his, and Chris Hardwick, who was vindicated after specious accusations were leveled at him. MacDonald expressed concern with those who have been victims of sexual assault, but he also communicated sympathy with those who have been victimized – sometimes baselessly – by the disproportionately brutal social backlash.

    He later apologized for his comments. And, do you see a pattern here, specifically, that more and more, people are having to apologize for saying things that are true? We could insert here a corollary principle that if you have to apologize for stating an opinion or pointing out a legitimate problem, then there is something wrong with your understanding of free expression.

    Norm MacDonald pointed out that in such instances where entertainers have made mistakes in the past, there is little room for second chances: “There is no forgiveness.” Ironically, his Tuesday, September 11 appearance on the Tonight Show was cancelled in light of his allegedly insensitive comments.

    Many of us were told that if we can’t say something nice about someone, then don’t say anything at all. Now the politically-correct police aim to squelch our freedom even to say something nice or sympathetic about someone else. Historically, it has been the artists, the avant-garde, and the intellectual elites who championed people’s freedom to say what they want. Now the artists and the elites are nice-shaming others into apologetic silence. Again, so much for being the party of free speech.

    There are two more ways that many today attempt to squelch free speech, but we’ll deal with that in “Part 2” below. 

PROVERBS TO PONDER: The Prominence of Foolishness, Proverbs 9:14

        “She sits in the opening of her house, on a seat of prominence of the city.”

    How prominent is folly, whether in an ancient society or in a modern one?

    The first ten chapters of Proverbs discuss the need for believers of all epochs and ages to pursue wisdom. This pursuit provides rewards greater than riches (Prov 3:13-14; 8:19; 16:16) and also encourages a longer and happier life (3:2, 16; 4:10; 9:11; 10:27).

    Since men often like to pursue women, and since these kind of pursuits tend to dominate the minds of young men (especially, the brilliant and inspired author Solomon), he portrays wisdom and foolishness as women. In Proverbs 9, both Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly offer banquets to entice the reader, laying upon everyone the burden as well as the consequences for which one we chose. 

    Lady Folly, or “the woman of folly,” is introduced in Proverbs 9:13. She, however, is not some obscure individual, but apparently has attained some measure of prominence in this city, making her allure greater, and making it harder to resist her.

    It says in the next verse, Proverbs 9:14, that Lady Folly sits at the “opening” of her house. That is, rather than being in the house or somewhere else engaged in industrious activity, she is outside of her house by the door, or on her porch. From this metaphorical location, she can stay near the safety of her home, but still have a base for scouting out potential victims. 

    The second phrase literally translates that she is “upon a seat at the heights of the city.” The word “seat” (the Hebrew word kesil) is a clue to the prominence of the individual being referred to here. Usually, the word clearly indicates “throne” in narrative and prophetic literature, and is accompanied with some reference to a member of royalty, such as a king or a prince. In a few instances where kesil may not be referring to a throne, it nonetheless clearly indicates to a seat of political prominence (such as in Jeremiah 52:32). 

    In all of the places where this word is used in OT Poetic literature it also refers to a throne (Job 26:9; Ps 9:4 [5], 7 [8]; 11:4; 45:6 [7]; 47:8 [9]; 81:3 [4]; 89:4 [5], 14 [15], 29 [30], 36 [37], 44 [45]; 93:2; 94:20; 97:2; 103:19; 122:5; 132:11, 12; Prov 9:14; 16:12; 20:8, 28; 25:5; 29:14). There are only three exceptions to this; in those cases, the word refers to the “seat” of the moon, or a “full moon” (Job 26:9; Ps 81:3 [4]; Prov 7:20).

    (Some readers may be curious about why some of the references above have brackets around some of the verse numbers. We discussed some of these numbering shifts in an article here. The reason is that there is slightly different numbering in the English versions relative to the Hebrew Bible especially in the book of Psalms. For example, you will find the word “throne” in most English translations of Ps 9:4. However, that same verse, and the word kesil or “throne” will be Psalm 9:5 of the standard Hebrew edition. In most cases, all of the material that is in the Hebrew is translated into the English, but for various reasons, the numbering of these verses is shifted in the translation. Scholarly integrity compels us to include both the English references, but to also note where the word in question would be found for those who want to sleuth around in the original Hebrew. Now back to your regularly scheduled article already in progress . . . )

    Why is it significant that the word kesil refers to a throne or a place of prominence? The reason is that Lady Folly is not an obscure member of this city but has become for some reason or another very important within the city. That is, she may not be just some back-alley madam. Rather, she may be a person of eminence in the city, wanting to wield her influence to the detriment of the unsuspecting. 

    Of course, since Lady Wisdom is a personification, then Lady Folly need not be a specific individual or even a specific type of individual.  Rather, like wisdom, Lady Folly may personify, a prominent – but foolish – way of thinking or an acceptable norm in a given society. 

    In our society a lack of financial responsibility grips Washington DC, “progressive” values dominate Hollywood, and rampant crime and inner-city violence is allowed to perpetrate in Baltimore and Chicago. That is, in many cities, folly is not only welcome, but is prominent and, as with these examples, have come to characterize the city.

    This last phrase of verse 14 is meromey keret, meaning “at the heights of the city.” The word meromey does not always refer simply to a geographical height (2 Kings 19:32) but can also refer to a place of influence and social or political prominence (Eccl 10:6). Psalm 56:2 uses this word to mention how some attack the author from a stance of “pride” or supposed superiority. That is, folly is trumpeted from the most important prominent positions of fallen society. Therefore, we should not be surprised when folly is championed by its most important citizens. 

    But this exact phrase “at the heights of the city” is also used in v. 3 of the call and invitation of Lady Wisdom. That is, neither wisdom nor folly have a better place from which to invite citizens of this hypothetical city to and partake in their respective banquets.

    Wisdom and folly both vie aggressively for the attention of a society, a city, and of its individual citizens. Each individual who reads these verses, therefore, has the responsibility to shun even the most prominent and popular forms of foolishness, and to stand out by embracing wisdom.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH: Is Genesis 1-3 Poetry or History?

    We have discussed several reasons previously in this series why we believe in the “young earth” view, or the idea that the earth is somewhere between six to twenty thousand years old according a more literalistic interpretation of the timeline and genealogies in the Bible. That may sound like a pretty broad range, but it takes into account a variety of ways to understand the history and genealogies in Genesis.

    But that range is small relative to “old earth” theories that believe that the Bible allows for the earth to be millions of years old. These views include the gap theory, or the idea that there was a gigantic gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Another old earth view is the day-age theory, which asserts that the days of Genesis 1, or at least the first three days, represent ages of time and millions of years. Both of these views claim to find support from Scripture.

    The young earth view is based on a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account. The seven days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods; this renders an earth that is only thousands of years old rather than millions. We discussed some of the interpretative principles that lead us to a literalistic conclusion and in the July 2018 edition of The Eclectic Kasper we provided some exegetical arguments for the young earth theory.

    Some old earth adherents believe that Genesis shouldn’t or can’t be interpreted literally. There are often several non-exegetical reasons for doing so. Of course, most deny that the 24-hour days of Genesis 1 are literal because this does not match with the scientific perception that the earth is millions, or perhaps, billions of years old. But what do we do if we can’t see Genesis 1-3 as literal history?

    Some suggest that Genesis 1-3 is poetic, and not in any way intended to be taken literally or historically. There is repetition, patterns, and vaunted structure, especially in Genesis 1. A further assumption is made, then, that if Genesis 1 is written in some form of poetry that it must be figurative, or at least, it cannot be taken literally or seriously in any sense.

    So, what about the notion that Genesis 1-3 is poetic? Here are a few compelling reasons for treating Genesis 1 like history rather than poetry.

    First, Genesis 1-3 is written with the same literal, historical, sequential (events presented in a logical sequence) style used in the rest of Genesis. Genesis 1, for instance, uses the waw-consecutive (pronounced vav-consecutive) grammatical pattern, where almost every verse begins with the Hebrew letter “waw,” meaning “and.” This recurrent use of “and,” while lending itself to a run-on sentence in English, is typically used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate sequence and movement in narrative literature, such as in the sagas of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We don’t take the stories about Isaac or Joseph to be poetic, and yet these later chapters of Genesis use the same narrative style as the first three chapters.

    Also, there seems to be no attempt at poetic meter in Genesis 1-3. Again, they reflect the same kind of story-telling style as the rest of Genesis. Also, Genesis 1-3 is very different from OT songs that poetically depict and celebrate historical moments, such as in Exodus 15 or Judges 5. 

    This notion that Genesis 1-3 is symbolic and poetic persists, even when no evidence for that view is given. In his book The God Who is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story (2010), D. A. Carson asserts, “[T]he Genesis account is a mixed genre that feels like history and really does give some historical particulars. At the same time, however, it is full of demonstrable symbolism” (p. 15). It is easy to make these kind of statements, but far more difficult to back them up. And the fact that the Bible frequently utilizes light versus dark imagery doesn’t mean that the creation of these aspects of reality weren’t real.

    I once talked to someone who believed that Genesis 1 was poetry because of the repetition. There is a pattern, and a recurrence of ideas and phrases like “and God saw that it was good” or “there was evening and there was morning.” For this individual, the structure and repetition were clear indications that the first chapter in Genesis was poetic, and therefore, it shouldn’t be taken literally or sequentially.

    However, consider that repetition is not a indigenous only to poetry. Narrative literature—the stories of the Bible—are replete with examples of repetition (Gen 18:16-33; Judges 16:4-20; 1 Sam 3:1-10; 19:20-23; 1 Kings 18:34; Matt 26:37-46; John 21:15-19). In fact, these stories are far more vivid and compelling because of the repetition. Consider, for instance, the repeating elements in the tale of Samson and Delilah in Judges 16:4-20. Three times, Delilah urges Samson to give her the secret to his strength. Thrice, he deceives her and fends off the Philistine attackers. This repetition is critical to the story; Samson should know with certainty the fourth time that the exact same outcome would occur. When he gives away his secret this last time, he does so intentionally and to his own peril. Clearly, repetition isn’t used with effect just in poetry, but in narrative literature, as well.

    Here’s another question: If we interpret Genesis 1 analogically, metaphorically, or poetically, but we interpret the Abraham cycle beginning in Genesis 12 and the rest of Genesis literally, then where does Genesis switch from being metaphorical to historical? Is Genesis 1 figurative but the saga of Noah in Genesis 6-9 literal? Or is Genesis 3’s retelling of the expulsion from Eden metaphorical but the tower of Babel in Genesis 11 literal? If Genesis 1 is figurative, but Genesis 12 and after are clearly sequential and historical, then when from Genesis 2 through Genesis 11 does the text switch from one mode to the other? Where do we draw this line?

    Finally, what if it is written in a poetic form? Does that mean that we shouldn’t take it literally or sequentially or as literal history? Just because something is poetic doesn’t mean that it’s not literal. Several of the Psalms rehearse aspects of the history of Israel, including Psalm 78, 105, and 136. The fact that these are in a poetic genre doesn’t detract from the literal and historical nature of the content: the dichotomy between poetry and history is a false one.

    In conclusion, Genesis 1-3 should be read as literal and sequential. It depicts the actual history of the creation of the world, of humans, and the fall of humanity, as well. There is no need to take it as anything but literal history. And even if it were poetry, that doesn’t mean that we have the license to dismiss the details as metaphorical and non-historical.

BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – “I Am the Ship”

        *** WARNING: The following article contains spoilers for the Firefly episode “Objects in Space.” ***

    When Browncoats meet for the first time, they engage in social pleasantries and exchange unique greetings like “Browncoats forever!” or “I’m thinkin’ we’ll rise again.”

    The next step is to discuss which episode of Firefly is one’s favorite; and even with only fourteen options to select from, the choice is not easy. There’s just so much greatness in these fourteen episodes, it’s hard to pick a favorite!

    But when so pressed regarding my favorite episode, my answer is “Objects In Space” (though “Out of Gas” and “Serenity” the pilot are close behind). “Objects in Space” is a fascinating story with a unique antagonist, several revelations, and a fun twist.   

    And this episode also provides a fascinating “Great Firefly Moment.” 

    So, the bounty hunter Jubal Early has mysteriously boarded Serenity, restrained most of the crew and captured Simon. Jubal then begins to search the ship to find River. His very presence there, and suggestions that the reward for her is high, demonstrate that perhaps there is more to her than the crew and the audience realize.

    The teaser demonstrates River’s abilities to see into people’s minds and identify with their feelings. River sees Jayne’s penitence, Book’s hostility, and Simon’s regret. She sees the hidden currents of antagonism in Mal and Inara’s conversation and River feels the sensuality between Wash and Zoe. 

    Yet, we also see that River continues to have a tenuous grasp on reality, as demonstrated by her notion that one of Jayne’s guns is a stick, just an object in space. Of course, we should have recognized earlier that she had some unusual mental abilities; after all, she realized that, such as when she playfully threatened Jayne: “I can kill you with my brain.” Perhaps more than others on board, including her own doctor brother, she senses that she has more mental powers than they had previously understood.

    But what will she do with these powers? Indeed, nobody seems to know what she is even capable of doing.

    Early’s search for River brings him to the ship’s bridge, dragging Simon behind him. River engages Early in conversation via the comm, and one senses that she’s playing with Early’s somewhat fragile mental state. But we, the viewers, don’t really know where River is.

    Jubal doesn’t know where River is, either, and he is beginning to get frustrated. She says, “You’re wrong about River. River’s not on the ship. They didn’t want her here, but she couldn’t make herself leave. So, she melted . . . melted away. They didn’t know she could do that, but she did.” Shots of the crew in their rooms show their confusion, but Early is the one who, ironically, speaks on their behalf: “I’m not sure I take your meaning there.”

    River’s voice reverberates through the ship speakers again: “I’m not on the ship. I’m in the ship; I am the ship.” The statement is both awe-inspiring and eerie at the same time.

    The episode has built up to this climactic moment. The opening shot shows the ship, and then goes through the innards of the vessel, finally to settle on River, who can be seen in her bed through a grate, as though she is indistinguishable from the ship. But have her psychic abilities advanced to the point of allowing her to possess or merge with a ship?

    For her, the ship is a kind of freedom, a home. Throughout the series, River demonstrates a fascination with the ship. In “The Train Job” she rattles off the make and model of the ship, even impressing Mal who owns the ship. 

    But, is she so fascinated with the ship that she actually learns how to meld with it? Even others on board the ship aren’t sure what she’s capable of. The pilot Wash queries regarding River earlier in “Objects in Space”: “She just gets more colorful by the minute; what will she do next?”

    The same is true for us: we don’t know what her mental powers are or what her psychic abilities will compel her to do next. But then she declares, “I am the ship.” For the first-time watcher, we are genuinely not sure if this is true or not.

    Of course, toward the end of the episode, we learn that she didn’t actually mind-meld with the ship; it was a ruse to fool Early, while she snuck aboard his ship. We’re simultaneously amused and relieved by this revelation. But even though she fooled Jubal Early, she has fooled us, as well; by the end of the episode, we’re still not still not sure what she’s capable of, though, we’re that much more curious to find out.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have any more episodes after this to do so. We do find out about River’s powers and importance in Serenity the movie. The crew risks everything to protect River and to broadcast the secrets that have been hidden under the layers of her madness.  

    In fact, River’s relationship with the ship has fully matured by the end of the movie, and part of that trajectory was set in “Objects in Space.” In this final episode, she asserts that she has merged with the ship; “I am the ship.” At the end of the movie Serenity, she is sharing in the piloting. So, in a way, she does meld with the ship, from the perspective of being able to directly control its flight. There’s really no way that a human can be closer to a machine than to pilot that machine. In fact, she apparently learns to fly the ship more quickly than Mal expects she would.

    Perhaps River isn’t able to incorporeally possess a space ship. Nonetheless, her affection for the ship and for those onboard, forges an undeniable bond between her and Serenity. A parallel affection has forged a similar bond between many Browncoats and the ship, too. 

    What are some of your favorite Firefly moments? Let us know by sending a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish your feedback in a future edition! 

POLITICS: Using “Gorilla Tactics” to “Monkey This Up,” Part 2

    Back in Part 1 at the top of this edition, we spelled out how some on the left misunderstand free speech, and, by doing so, end up squelching free speech. We featured the first two tactics for doing that above, so we’ll tackle tactics three and four below.

    Third, if volume is your only argument, then there is a problem with the way you view free expression.