(Note: Stinger after the credits.)
Category: Culture
The Facade
This summer when I was doing my 4000 mile road trip through the South and Southwest, I visited Roswell, New Mexico–y’know, the site of the famous “UFO crash.”
While there gawking at all the alien stuff on Main Street, I looked up and saw a building with a sign saying “Alien Resistance HQ.” It turned out to be a kind of Christian coffeeshop (“Defending the Planet, One Tasty Beverage at a Time”) using the “alien resistance” schtick to draw in New Agers visiting Roswell.
I had a talk with the gentleman who owns it. He’s very nice. From Detroit. An ordained Protestant minister. He founded a Christian motorcycle club. And now he spends his days evangelizing New Agers at Alien Resistance HQ. He also believes that the earth is hollow and that that’s where UFOs come from.
While at Alien Resistance HQ, I looked over the books and DVDs he had for sale. One was the book on the left. At the time, I didn’t buy it, but I did buy a DVD of a lecture by the book’s author, Michael Heiser (not the same as the guy who runs the coffee shop).
In the lecture Heiser–who is a scholar of ancient near eastern languages–critiques Zechariah Sitchin–who is a fake scholar of ancient near eastern languages.
In case you aren’t aware, Sitchen has published a number of books that are all the rage in the UFO community. In these books, he claims to have deciphered ancient texts that show that there is a planet in the outer solar system that swings into the inner solar system in a multi-thousand-year orbit. This planet is, according to the ancient texts, the home of an advanced race that gave rise to humanity and that is the basis of various world religions. He also claims they’re mentioned in the Bible.
This is, of course, pure bunkum.
Sitchen’s claims are absurd. They are not based on textual scholarship, because Sitchen has no scholarship. He is a fraud, pure and simple.
I’ve thought about critiquing Sitchen at some point, but haven’t had the occasion yet, so I was interested to see Heiser’s lecture. Got the DVD. Watched it. And it was good! I was quite pleased. Heiser takes Sitchen to task in a very gentlemanly but very devastating manner.
The lecture was so good that I decided I wanted to read Heiser’s work, including his novel, so I ordered it and read it while I was on the way to this year’s Catholic Answers Cruise. I’d like to recommend it to those who would be interested. Here’s the scoop . . .
The Facade is a novel in which Heiser explores the modern UFO phenomenon and ideas he has been pondering about aliens and how they might be related to the Bible. At the center of the novel is a character who is basically a knock-off of the author: a (then) still-in-school scholar of ancient near eastern languages who happens to have a strong interest in UFOs and something called “the divine council” (more on that in a minute).
A lot of this character’s biography seems to overlap (or at least reasonate) with Heiser’s at the start of the novel, but then the character’s biography takes a sharp turn. He is abducted by government agents who take him to a secret base where various experts have been gathered to try to help figure out how to break the news to the public of a crisis that proves the existence of extraterrestrial life. But, the reader quickly finds out, the agents running the discussion group are lying to the experts about the situation. The questions are: What is really happening here, and what–if anything–can be done about the true crisis?
The novel starts slowly. At first the experts do what experts typically do: Sit around in conference rooms and argue with each other. These discussions perform the function of getting the reader up to speed on the concepts that the novel will involve (which many readers will find fascinating), but the first part of the novel could really use some action. There’s too much “tell” and not enough “show.”
This changes, and the plot kicks into high gear. By the end of the book dramatic reversal is piling on top of dramatic reversal in a way that keeps the reader guessing until not just the book’s final pages but–for many readers–its final sentence.
I have to commend the author on several points for which he deserves a lot of credit:
1) He has written a book that attempts to seriously grapple with the question of extraterrestrial life from a conservative Christian perspective. There are hardly any books out there that do this, particularly in the direct way that this one does. It forces the reader to think through several different scenarios about what it would mean for Christians if extraterrestrial life was discovered in our day.
2) Though the main character (representing conservative Evangelicalism) does get the best and most crucial insights, the author makes a real effort to spread the credit around to characters with different viewpoints. It isn’t as if everyone else is a bumbler who has to be corrected by the Evangelical. Characters from other perspectives–including unsympathetic characters–get to contribute important insights. The author could have gone even farther in this direction–for example by having the Evangelical only know about the Bible and ancient languages and have the UFO insights all contributed by others–but Heiser deserves credit for not having the novel simply involve a set of lectures by a know-it-all representative of his position.
3) In fact, the main character has significant flaws. He’s not in constant mortal sin or anything like that, but the effects of the Fall are clear in him. He isn’t a macho, athletic, self-confident, Doc Savage kind of scholar-hero. He’s more of an ordinary, nerdy, sincere Christian guy thrust into extraordinary circumstances.
4) The author also gives sympathetic treatment to Catholic characters. The chief ally of the Evangelical expert is a Catholic expert who happens to be a Jesuit. This character is portrayed quite sympathetically and he gets to contribute important insights (including a major one that escaped the Evangelical hero, even though it was in his own field). The author doesn’t get all of the Catholic stuff in the novel a hundred percent right (in fact, a couple of things are silly), but he’s making a serious and respectful attempt to incorporate Catholic Christians into the novel. (Also, though John Paul II doesn’t appear and is dead by the time the novel begins, he is spoken of in glowing terms.)
5) There is a conversion of sorts that occurs during the course of the novel, and it is handled far, far better than conversions typically are in novels (of this or any sort). There is no “praying the sinner’s prayer” moment, and the author shows an awareness that serious conversions usually take time and are not complete all at once. In fact, this conversion isn’t quite complete by the end of the novel, but the character in question is far down the road to redemption.
6) The author is willing to deal with subjects that would be utterly taboo in many Evangelical novels. This means, in part, that some of the subjects discussed in the novel make it not suitable for children, though that material is slight. (Also, in case you’re wondering, nobody “does it” in this novel; it wasn’t written by Andrew Greeley, after all.) It also means that he does some really cool dramatic moves. Some of these pertain to the climax of the novel, and I was delighted to see them. The last sentence, in particular, does something few Evangelical authors would have the guts to do. (It also sets up a potential sequel.)
7) The author also explores modern UFO mythology from a sympathetic but skeptical perspective. He offers conjectures about the Roswell crash, for example, that you don’t hear very often.
One of the centerpieces of the novel is the idea of “the divine council.” Before the novel began the author’s character got himself into trouble by discussing this concept in an injudicious manner among Evangelicals, and I suspect that the author has done the same thing in real life. There are a few techniques the author could use to neutralize potential criticism on this point, but he’s onto something real here.
The basic idea is that in the ancient near eastern cultures–including Israelite culture–heaven was envisioned as a divine royal court with God (or the chief god) as the king. In addition to the king, the court also contained princes, counselors, military figures, and even a prosecutor (i.e., Satan). At the bottom of the heavenly court or “divine council” were the messengers, who we know as angels (since that’s what the word angelos originally *meant* in Greek: “messenger”; the same was true of the equivalent Hebrew and Aramaic terms). Over the course of time much of this imagery faded from popular consciousness and everybody in the divine council tended to be referred to as just angels, but the traces of the original divine council metaphor are still there in the Old Testament. (This is something I wrote about a number of years ago, though I could do a better job of it now.)
The author uses the novel to introduce the concept of the divine council to his readers, and although some things in the resulting angelology he offers are quite questionable (e.g., the degree to which members of the divine council might be able to assume biological form), it is still nice to get an obscure concept being introduced to a wider audience. Up till now, it’s tended to be just scholars who have been aware of it.
All told, The Facade is a fascinating exploration of how the idea of extraterrestrial life might square with the Christian faith, and I would recommend it to anyone who would like to see this question wrestled with in fictional form.
P.S. *DO NOT* spoil the last sentence for yourself!
TV Shows I Want To See
The other day I was watching an interview program on TV, and the discussion went something like this:
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel ashamed of what your political party did the other day?
GUEST: I think that what they were really trying to do was signal their concern about this urgent problem.
INTERVIEWER: You didn’t answer my question: Do you feel ashamed of what your party did?
GUEST: I’ll tell you who should feel ashamed of what they’ve done. It’s the other party!
INTERVIEWER: Again, you didn’t answer my question: Do you feel ashamed of what your party did?
GUEST: I’m telling you that the other party need to be thoroughly ashamed of its actions!
At this point, the interviewer gave up and moved on to a new question. I must admit that what he had done thus far was pretty gutsy. He was asking a very pointed, “hardball” question of the guest, and stuck it to him three times. But ultimately, he folded and let the guest have his way in dodging the question.
So I want to give the interviewer credit for that. But by the third non-answer I was so frustrated with the guest that what I wanted the interviewer to say was: “Okay, you’re out of here. Persistent refusal to answer the question.”
That’s at the core of a TV show I would like to see on the air. I know, Bill O’Reilly has his “No Spin Zone,” in which he will reject answers that aren’t directed to the questions he’s asked, but he doesn’t eject guests who persistently refuse to cough up some kind of answer.
That’s what I’d like to see.
I’m so sick of watching political hacks (from *both* parties, though one seems to be worse than the other these days) dodge questions and refuse to give serious answers. This is something I feel particularly strongly about as someone who is called upon to give serious answers to people’s questions every week. Even when the answer is uncomfortable to give, I want to give it as a matter of principle.
But the political hacks who appear on TV these days don’t. In fact, for them doding questions is a studied art form. The better at it they are, the more they are admired in hack circles. But as Scripture says, what is praiseworthy in the eyes of men is abominable in the eyes of God. What they ware doing is a form of dehumanizing manipulation that treats the viewer as an animal to be tricked rather than a person to be persuaded. It does not elevate the discussion and deserves thoroughgoing condemnation.
Thus the idea for my show: People come on. The interviewer asks them a question, and they get three chances to give a straight answer. If they do give a straight answer (and, “I don’t know” is a straight answer) then they get a new question, up to the length of the interview segment. But if they don’t give one then the interviewer declares “You’re out of here. Persistent refusal to answer the question,” and the host brings in a new guest.
Of course, you’d need items lined up to fill the rest of the show in case of guest ejection, but I suspect there would need to be fewer filler-interviews (including pre-taped segements kept in reserve and rotated through so they stay fresh) than you might expect. If the rules are consistently enforced then guests will not make the mistake of refusing to answer. Those guests who are not prepaired to give straight answers will not come on the show, meaning that the show will have almost all quality guests who will raise rather than lower the standard of discussion and will treat the audience like people to be reasoned with instead of animals to be herded.
John Kerry’s Extra-Terrestrial Test!
SDG here with a startling clarification from John Kerry about his “global test” debate reference. As quoted in this CNN.com story, Kerry would seem to have a HIGHER authority in mind:
Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, “It’s almost sad; it’s certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans…
“And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I’m never going to allow America’s security to be outsourced. That’s the job of the president.
“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.
“If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it’s very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you.”
WOW!
John Kerry’s got a way to test the legitimacy of military action against EXTRA-GLOBAL standards?!
Do you suppose he intends to appeal all the way to the United Federation of Planets?!
If so, how much difference does he really think this will make? I hate to say it, but the Klingons have been quietly downsizing their military for decades now.
The Vulcans were in on the kickbacks for the oil-for-food program, and they automatically oppose whatever the Terrans do. They don’t care who is President of one measly super-power.
Heck, the Andorians were actively arming Saddam in the months before the war. And the Kardassians, who actually have the military capacity to make a difference, aren’t even Federation members.
So that doesn’t make sense. Hm, could Kerry possibly have an even HIGHER Court in mind…??!!!
John Kerry's Extra-Terrestrial Test!
SDG here with a startling clarification from John Kerry about his “global test” debate reference. As quoted in this CNN.com story, Kerry would seem to have a HIGHER authority in mind:
Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, “It’s almost sad; it’s certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans…
“And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I’m never going to allow America’s security to be outsourced. That’s the job of the president.
“But I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.
“If you do things that are illegitimate in the eyes of the other people, it’s very hard to get them to share the burden and risk with you.”
WOW!
John Kerry’s got a way to test the legitimacy of military action against EXTRA-GLOBAL standards?!
Do you suppose he intends to appeal all the way to the United Federation of Planets?!
If so, how much difference does he really think this will make? I hate to say it, but the Klingons have been quietly downsizing their military for decades now.
The Vulcans were in on the kickbacks for the oil-for-food program, and they automatically oppose whatever the Terrans do. They don’t care who is President of one measly super-power.
Heck, the Andorians were actively arming Saddam in the months before the war. And the Kardassians, who actually have the military capacity to make a difference, aren’t even Federation members.
So that doesn’t make sense. Hm, could Kerry possibly have an even HIGHER Court in mind…??!!!
Lord of the Rings: Buddhist Allegory?
Star Trek Rocks Found!
Okay, you know the episode (whatever it’s called) where Capt. Kirk fights the Gorn?
Thought so.
Well, in this episode they are fighting each other around some very prominent rocks that kind of jut up and to the right.
These rocks appear in *LOTS* of Star Trek episodes. Can’t tell you how many alien worlds these exact same rocks are on.
They also appear in *LOTS* of things besides Star Trek.
Last night I was talking to a friend about how I’m having a problem being distracted by continually recognizing the East and West Mitten Buttes from Monument Valley, Utah when I’m watching old John Ford westerns, and I thought about the ubiquitous “Star Trek rocks.”
So I Googled “star trek” and “rocks.”
Turns out that they’re called the Vasquez Rocks (named after an outlaw who hid there), and (according to maps.yahoo.com), they’re only two and a half hours from my house.
I SMELL ROAD TRIP!
JMS Warns Folkses of Hoaxes
This is not a hoax!
Amid controversies regarding forged memos and forged Batmans, Babylon 5 creator and Amazing Spiderman author Joe Michael Straczynski has felt the need to warn people against forged signatures of his name on various pieces of memorabilia. In a message recorded over at JMS News, he writes:
Folkses —
Several usenet folks — foremost among them Jan — have alerted me to a number
of forgeries on Ebay…comics, posters or photos that have the worst fake
signatures I’ve ever seen, supposedly from me.If you’re out there buying anything that’s allegedly signed by me…compare it
with what’s been out there before. And be careful…a number of JMS-fake
signatures look exactly the same, which leads me to conclude that a bunch of
them are being pumped out by the same guy.Sometimes it’s good to have a signature that looks like elvish script written
while drunk…harder to counterfeit.jms
Beyond its posing on JMS News, no evidence that this post actually came from JMS was offered.
Is a phony JMS warning of phony autographs?
(It reminds me of when JMS first showed up on AOL and people questioned whether he was really him. His response was to the effect that: “I am not myself and resent the suggestion that I am.”)
British Abortion Film Wins Prize In Venice
I hate to say bad things about a movie without seeing it, but the data I have on the movie Vera Drake suggests that it is a pro-abort propaganda piece.
It’s also just won a prize at an Italian film festival.
Excerpts from the story:
“Vera Drake,” Mike Leigh’s tough tale of a working-class mother who is caught performing illegal abortions in 1950s England, scooped up the prizes at the Venice Film Festival Saturday, including the coveted Golden Lion.
The film raises difficult questions about abortion in a world where the wealthy have access to discreet and legal abortions and the poor throw themselves on the mercy of practitioners like Drake.
“The audience must walk away with a debate and struggle with it. These things are not black and white,” Leigh said.
Staunton anchors the movie as a working mother who risks her close-knit family’s love after a girl on whom she performs an abortion falls seriously ill and she is jailed.
Somehow, I suspect that the film is more black-and-white than advertised. Given the plot as described, it would be easy for filmmakers to send the clear message that, as regrettable as injuries like this were, they were caused by the era’s “repressive abortion laws,” to which good riddance.
I could be wrong about that, but the odds of a British company spinning the plot in a pro-life direction (i.e., portraying the lead character as a babykiller who injures mothers, too) or even in neutral manner seem to me to be remarkably low.
The Redemption of Disney
A reader writes down yonder:
I don’t personally criticize Disney’s moves to diversify its business – ESPN, for example, is a valuable addition to the business. In addition, while perhaps Walt’s version of Disney was family-friendly, it’s a stretch of the imagination to claim that it was predominantly Christian (occultic elements run through many of Disney’s early films).
The early Disney problems weren’t limited to occult elements (though these were pretty tame by today’s standards; Mickey as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice even taught a valuable moral lesson). There was also a streak of secular humanism that runs through mid-century Disney material. Still, the company cultivated a fundamentally family-friendly image and jettisoned this as part of the Eisner Era. The company may not have been Christian, but at least it wasn’t trying to subvert family values in the way it came to in recent years.
I only hope that when the history of the Eisner Era is written a couple of years from now, it will recognize that the disaffection of family-oriented patrons contributed substantially to the decline in Disney boxoffice receipts and that, by the time Disney started to produce more family-friendly films again (like the ones Steve mentions), its family base had been so alienated that it wouldn’t come out to the theater for Disney films.
The alienation went far beyond those who formally boycotted Disney. Many who didn’t commit to the boycott still were so turned off by Disney that they would only show up for the most exciting movies (e.g., the Pixar features), passing by less exciting movies they would have turned out to see if not for a general distaste for the company (and they would have seen even more if they had a general like for the company rather than a feeling of betrayal). I know this was the case with me in numerous instances, and I’m sure that it was the case with many, many others.
The level of dissatisfaction with the company reached such levels that even many Christians who weren’t specifically boycotting would feel ashamed to admit to friends that they had been to a Disney movie, and it just wasn’t worth the effort to go.
If the scope of family alienation is recognized then the departure of Eisner will be a chance for the company to make a clean break with recent history and families may again start going to Disney films in the numbers needed to make them profitable. Disney needs to reach out to its alienated family base when Eisner goes. DRAMATICALLY SO. It needs to send a clear signal that Disney intends to serve its family-oriented customers again in a way that it hasn’t in years.
But if the role of family alienation is not recognized then the company may turn in an even more anti-family direction, having concluded that the family-oriented market is either too small to make a profit or too alienated to come back. In that case, look for its profits to continue to decline as the alienation grows worse, with family-oriented customers concluding that Disney passed by its last, best hope for redemption (i.e., the departure of Eisner).
NOTE: If any Disney employees happen to see this, please print it up and share it around.