Science fiction has no shortage of intelligent alien races.¹

Star Wars and Star Trek have hundreds between them and they only scratch the surface of the aliens that exist in worlds of fiction.

I’m not commenting here on whether aliens actually do exist (or can exist). But I think the very concept of alien intelligence can teach important truths about the nature of the God of the Bible. Because in some very important ways, the Creator of the universe does not think the way a human being thinks.

Let’s start off by talking about aliens and the various ways they are seen in science fiction. The first and only way I’ll tackle in this post is:

Science fiction often shows aliens as an exaggerated form of human being

Klingons of Star Trek are my favorite example of this.

Bumps on the forehead aside (and some other anatomical differences occasionally mentioned in Star Trek), what really distinguishes Klingons from humans is the fact that Klingons are a warrior race. Have there ever been any warrior nations in Earth history who were like Klingons in their attitudes towards war? Of course. PLENTY. From Saxon warriors to Maori to Samurai and many, many more, groups of humans have studied war and have created cultures in which either entire nations or at least a warrior sub-sect were as devoted to war as the fictional Klingons themselves.

What marks the Klingons as different from human cultures is it’s the entire species of people who are otherwise very similar to humans who are marked by a love of warfare. So Klingons in effect distill out of our race one aspect of human culture and put it on display on its own, marking Klingons as aliens who are essentially exaggerated humans.

Vulcans are also (mostly) exaggerated humans.

Die-hard Star Trek fans know there are even more physical differences between Vulcans and humans than Klingons and humans. Vulcans not only have the obvious pointed-ears, they have greater strength and speed than humans, (much) longer lives, unusual mental abilities, copper-based blood (in case you didn’t know, our blood is iron-based), and among other things, a powerful urge to mate that comes every seven years on a regular schedule.

But most people would say that the distinguishing characteristic of Vulcans is their reliance on logic, strict mental discipline, and suppression of emotion. Has that every existed among human cultures? Of course. Numerous times, though never quite to the degree of being Vulcan, and not quite as often as human cultures have embraced warfare.

Vulcan philosophy is most like the ancient Stoicism practiced in Greek and Roman culture, but has bits of transcendental meditation (or at least the claims of the practitioners of such meditation) and even pieces of Eastern religion, including especially aspects of Zen Buddhism. Again, like the Klingons, Vulcans allowed Star Trek writers to in effect purify and isolate one aspect of human behavior that already existed and make it characterize an entire species of extraterrestrials.

I would suggest the anatomical differences between Vulcans and humans (and Klingons and humans) were mostly for the purpose of making the Vulcans seem a bit more realistic as a non-human species. But the essential and vital part of what Star Trek shows a Vulcan to be is nothing more than a human sub-culture exaggerated into its own alien race.

Jabba the Hut as an archetypal gangster.

Jabba the Hutt shows how Star Wars, in contrast to Star Trek, often creates a single alien whose physical characteristics reveal his (or her) character. Jabba is monstrously huge and physically revolting. His size and grotesque form speak to his power and corruption, showing in his physical body that he’s both dangerous and disgusting.

Of course, there are no humans who look like Jabba, but a human can be every bit as revolting and equally as much a gangster kingpin. So I’d say Jabba simply exaggerates in physical form internal characteristics that certain human individuals have.

Jabba is a member of an alien race, but you see very little of his race in Star Wars. The characteristics he has are his and his alone in the movies—making it hard to imagine a member of his race as a police officer, nurse, or florist. His entire race is an exaggerated form of a certain set of human characteristics, those of a gangster.

Likewise, Chewbacca looks big, hairy, and powerful and his character shows the loyalty of a pet with the strength of sasquatch. What he looks like is who he is. Likewise, Yoda looks like a wizened master of esoteric wisdom and that’s who he is (Maz Kanata is very similar to him, though her wisdom is different). Jar Jar Binks both looks goofy and is goofy.

Star Wars does not always present alien races simply as exaggerated forms of humans—sometimes aliens are window dressing, seen in the background as scenery, with very little revealed about their character. But in general, Star Wars employs the method of showing in the physical form of an alien his or her essential characteristics—and those characteristics are something you’d find in a human being, only in exaggerated form.

What do aliens who are essentially exaggerated humans teach us about the God of the Bible?

I will explain more in later installments why, but I would say “not much.” It’s actually the gods and goddesses of Pagan religions who are in effect exaggerated human beings, whereas Jehovah is in many ways fundamentally different from us.

Though it’s in fact true that believers often understand God by looking at characteristics we have and thinking of him as having more of the same. We experience love and imagine God has more. We see justice and think of God as expressing more justice and a more perfect justice. And these observations are not entirely wrong—but they are not entirely correct either, as I will explain coming up.

What do you think about this topic? Would you agree that aliens in science fiction are often not all that alien, but are really exaggerated humans? Any thoughts on how this relates to an understanding of God?

Let’s talk about grammar.

Wait! Come back! This will be interesting, I promise. It will involve politics and controversy and barely any pop quizzes. Politics and grammar meet – let’s say clash, because I did promise controversy – in the question of pronouns. There’s an old convention in English that, when the sex of a person is unspecified, he is referred to by the male pronoun. This is probably related to the old use of “Man” as a term for all humanity: The male stands in for all.

Not surprisingly, the classic rule of he has fallen out of repute and use. Several new conventions are now fighting for the privilege of replacing it. It’s too early to project a winner, because like Tolstoy’s unhappy families, they’re all flawed in different ways. As speakers and writers of the English language, let’s consider our options.

(Pop quiz: What is a conjunction?)

Some people replace the lone he with the phrase he or she. The benefit of this formulation is that it is inclusive and all-encompassing. The downside is that it’s clunky. He or she has cluttered up many sentences with verbiage that serves no purpose beyond not being politically incorrect. The phrase has produced its own variants: he/she and, better yet, s/he. These updated versions are sleeker and more refined, but severely limited in that they are suited only for the written word. No one could speak them and still appear normal.

(Pop quiz: What is a subjective clause?)

Another common solution is to use the pronoun they in place of he. The clear advantage of this is that it avoids the clunkiness of he or she, and the android weirdness of s slash he. Unfortunately, it is also grammatically incorrect. If they were correct, it would already be used. To replace the singular he with the plural they brings the pronoun into conflict with its noun (or indefinite pronoun, which is functionally the same thing). You could say that everyone has their own opinions, but this is true only of Gollum. Everyone else has his own opinions.

Perhaps the most unique answer to this grammatical quandary comes from Charles Murray, who advocates that female writers use a generic she and male writers use a generic he. This is ingenuous and posseses certain aesthetic qualities of balance and symmetry. If it had been invented by Chaucer, it might have caught on. Such innovations are much more difficult at the language’s current stage of evolution, however, and to decide the use of the pronoun by the sex of the author can rub oddly.

(Pop quiz: What is a dental fricative?)

Now we come, at last, to the final and best solution. Some writers replace he with she – a solution that maintains elegance, simplicity, and grammatical precision. It avoids the pitfalls of other solutions but skirts on the brink of its own: Is the use of this pronoun merely political, bowing to the pressure of those who have taken it into their heads to be offended by he (and just about everything else)? Taking the question as a literary one, the classic he and the modern she are the best answers. But the question is always in danger of becoming political: He or she, to PC or not PC?

How do you grapple with the dilemma in your own literary wanderings? Remember, there is no right answer. But there are several wrong ones.

(ANSWER KEY:

1. The concomitance of two or more events.
2. The North Pole’s darkest secret.
3. A clear violation of the Geneva Convention.)

The time has come for me to take a break. In fact, a long holiday, a la Bilbo Baggins.

The reason?

To pull a Peter Parker (yes, mixing fandom metaphors), “Let me assure you, this, like any other story worth telling, is all about a girl.”

Yes, a girl.

That girl. Karisa Joy. #bestnameever

A fantastic girl who, in fact, I’m going to marry in two short months. Cue reality slamming into me like a two-ton Oliphant.

The wedding bells are ringing. Time’s a-wasting. And plans need making.

So…yeah. Busy, crazy, hectic, intense, challenging, rewarding. My current existence wrapped in a sentence.

Us and a wall, because #trendy?

A million and one things are lined up to bombard my mental capacity, not to mention all the other details already speeding along faster than Shadowfax.

Too many things.

Not. Enough. Time.

Unfortunately, that includes for blogging. So the fabulous rulers of the fair land of SpecFaith Blog have allowed me to declare my leave of absence as I traverse the exciting path stretching into the future.

My goal is to have a hiatus of six months, though life has a tricky way of not cooperating. So it’s possible I’ll be gone longer. However, I shall return once things settle down and I once again have time to wield my pen–erm keyboard–and delve into the myriad joys of speculative fiction.

Until then, Live Long and Prosper.

P. S. She likes books. And fantasy. And Doctor Who. ‘Nuff said. ?

She’s holding “The Horse and His Boy.” #perfectmatch

From all of us here at Spec Faith to all of you and yours: wishing you a Happy New Year, filled with a multitude of opportunities to praise and honor God Most High.

After this year’s “Doctor Who” Christmas special, “Twice Upon A Time,” I feel like this series is not simply regenerating again, but actively ending to be replaced by another series.

Am I wrong?

Am I being a stubborn, impossible-to-please and possibly story-idolatrous fan, like some (but not all) nitpicking critics of Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi?

I’ve asked myself these questions, starting in yesterday’s article. So now let’s continue:

Do I tire of the sexual revolution agenda moments?

Sure, Bill’s promotion as the First Lesbian Companion™ struck me as an agenda intrusion. That’s when I put the show on probation. But because I’d already been tolerating agenda moments in the series, I held tight. It turned out Moffat had so much fun poking fun at Bill’s, ah, love interests, once by having the Doctor intrude on her flirtation, and then repeating the joke but this time involving the entire entourage of the Pope. (Moffat also subverted a burgeoning same-sex plotline in “The Pilot,” only to double-subvert that by the series’ end.)

However, Whittaker’s casting doesn’t necessarily strike me as some intentional agenda intrusion. If anything, the “Doctor Who” universe has trained us to expect weird body transformations, not at all limited to the Doctor’s own regeneration. So this does not strike me as a promotion of transgenderism—although some activists may interpret it as such.

Would I prefer the Doctor remain a man?

Yes.

And no, you’re not a “hater” if you simply want women characters to stay women and men characters to stay men. No one need repent for that. I don’t want “Wonder Man” or “Avatar Kor” or “Ray” or “Black Widower.” And I don’t want a female Doctor either. It’s that simple.

That said, in theory you could cast the Doctor as a woman and it wouldn’t be stunt casting. You could want to take the Doctor to new story places. As a woman, she could think very differently than a male Doctor. She could try to solve problems differently, with different tools and skills. She could round up more than one or two companions for a fully ensemble cast aboard the TARDIS. Or she could—let’s just come right out and say it—decorate the TARDIS differently. (And then, as a wry subversion of the First Doctor’s gently parodied views in “Twice Upon A Time,” she could ask male companions to help maintain the place.)

However, and partly based on Thirteen’s quick introduction in “Twice Upon A Time,” I’m guessing “Doctor Who” will simply proceed as if the Doctor is the Doctor. Stories may not even draw a sharp contrast between this female Doctor and the previous male Doctors.

But in that case, why bother casting the Doctor as a woman at all?

It just feels like stunt casting. And unfortunately in our universe, this casting happened after years of pressure—some of it plain political pressure, not in-story pressure—for “Doctor Who” to cast a woman as The Doctor. (In 2013, I explored this pressure, especially after Capaldi’s casting, in Attack Of The ‘Cast A Woman Doctor’ Critics.) In this world of identity politics, once you’ve gone there and even seemed to let social politics run the show, instead of story needs, there will be no end to the repeated calls for particular belief systems to supersede the story.

Do I trust the new showrunner?

Finally, in a word, I’m not entirely sold on Chibnall as the new TARDIS/Time Lady architect.

Chibnall’s previous “Doctor Who” stories have been okay, but not remarkable. He wrote “42” in series 3, “The Hungry Earth” and “Cold Blood” in series 5, and “Dinosaurs on a Spaceship” and “The Power of Three” (probably his most lackluster story) in series 7.

I understand his work with other shows, especially “Broadchurch,” has been universally praised. He’s also a longtime fan of “Doctor Who,” so his “fan credentials” aren’t in doubt.

But it really does come down to story. And while Moffat has his “too clever” and paint-the-story-into-a-corner moments, he does boast an incredible pedigree of genuinely awesome stories for “Doctor Who.” His two-parter “The Empty Child” and “The Doctor Dances” (series 1) alone sold me on this weird series. With these stories, I introduced my future wife to the show and won her to the fandom I’d recently joined. Since then, we—like many fans—have used Moffat’s standalone “Blink” to introduce others to the series.

Moffat proved he could handle at least one captivating series-long arc in series 5, which ended with perhaps the best “Doctor Who” Christmas special (the first to feature a real magical snowfall), and more recently wrote the fantastic story “Heaven Sent” near the end of series 9. And the recent Christmas special marks a surprisingly quiet high point for the series, and a tribute to the truth that “Doctor Who” often works best when it’s minimalist.

If Moffat had cast a female doctor, I would have still felt ambivalent about the character’s too-far reboot, and annoyed at potential stunt casting. But I would have tried the series anyway, just in case, feeling sure his stories would have fun with the change, not ignoring gender differences, but poking fun at and celebrating gender differences.

That’s all theory. And it’s based not in fact, but in feelings—legitimate feelings.

I have positive feelings, which can’t be separated from more than ten years of overall good memories of “Doctor Who” under showrunners Russel T. Davies and then Moffat, with many good stories between and under them. Unlike some fans, I haven’t felt nearly as disenchanted with Moffat’s recent stories or the Twelfth Doctor. I’m not ready for a big Change, any Change, just so “Doctor Who” will no longer be run by that scallywag Moffat.

And I have legitimate negative feelings, because I don’t know and (benignly) cannot trust the new showrunner. He hasn’t wowed me with his stories; he hasn’t provided a good reason for a female Doctor other than (paraphrasing) “it’s time and this is Progress and et cetera.” Those simply aren’t good reasons for me. I always want to put story and characters first, and with some exceptions, I’ve felt the first two showrunners did just this.

So ultimately I’m ready to suspend my “Doctor Who” viewing, not just because I don’t prefer the character turning female, and not just because I (benignly) can’t trust the new head writer—but because it’s no longer the same show.

To me, it feels like “Doctor Who” is dead; long live “Doctor Who.” And with that, it crosses the top of my “world quota”—the maximum amount of fantastic created worlds I can keep up with. With so many stories around, I can afford to be selective. And when I feel a story is being driven, or potentially driven, not (mostly) by the story itself, but by other factors such as profit or social agenda engineering, I feel content and safe to stop watching.

However, plenty of my friends, and many SpecFaith readers, are excited for the Thirteenth Doctor. I’m glad to wish the creators and those continuing fans all the best. I don’t want the series to fail. In fact, if reviews from trusted people show “Doctor Who” is excelling even with a female Doctor—perhaps doing some of the things I expected won’t happen—I’ll be happy to rejoice in its success. I may even revisit the show, and the topic here at SpecFaith.

But for now, as for me and my house … “Doctor, I let you go.”

It’s never easy to let go of a popular-culture story that’s heading in a different direction.

Just ask fans of “Doctor Who,” whose Twelfth Doctor (Peter Capaldi) just regenerated on Christmas. Now the role of Thirteenth Doctor passes to Jodie Whittaker.¹ She’s the first woman actor to portray the Time Lord/Lady in the British sci-fi drama’s 54-year history. Naturally that’s controversial among some fans, who—despite being used to many actors playing the Doctor—feel the Doctor’s character is being changed far too much this time.

Or ask fans of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, disappointed by the new film’s apparent disregard for not only the story’s history but of the very virtues of heroism and derring-do.

Or ask me, after my own popular-culture disappointments this year with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, most of the corporate-recut theatrical version of Justice League, and lately, the entire universe of DC’s superhero shows on The CW. (More on this in a future article.)

But for Doctor Who, I feel a special sense of satisfaction accented with remorse, not as if the series is changing, but as if the series has ended and is being replaced by another series.

Peter Capaldi made a fantastic Doctor, a view evidently lost to some fans who didn’t like Capaldi as much as they liked previous Doctor actors David Tennant or Matt Smith. As Vox reviewer Todd VanDerWerff remarked, fans may have become ambivalent because “the show’s cultural cachet seems to have collapsed roughly when Capaldi took over the role.”

#PeterCapaldi is my 9 year old son’s fav #DoctorWho and he was dreading his regeneration. And then he got this letter with some words of comfort from the Doctor himself among his Santa presents. Such a kind man. pic.twitter.com/Dki37Wt6Er

— Brian McGilloway (@BrianMcGilloway) December 27, 2017

Twelve seemed to swerve from now-former “Who” showrunner Steven Moffat’s embrace of fairy-tale tropes, dark and light alike (though mostly light). Instead of mostly laughing aside angst a la Eleven, Twelve overtly pondered deep questions about the universe and his nature, complete with chalk and blackboard. He asked “Am I a good man?” and at the series’ end he found an answer. (Spoiler: no, he’s an idiot, but he’s learning and trying to do good.) He defended pre-born life, even on the moon-as-a-gryphon’s-egg. He passionately opposed meaningless conflict between humans and Zygons, giving perhaps the Doctor’s most epic defense of peace and reconciliation from which Christian fans could even learn a lot.

But now he’s regenerated, to climax the understated, slow-moving, and genuinely touching “Twice Upon a Time” Christmas special. Moffat’s final bow underscored the show’s retro past, courtesy of the returning First Doctor (David Bradley), and familiar themes of death subverted by “everybody lives!” eucastrophe. World War 1. I should have seen it coming.

Of course, the show will go on, now passing to the command of sometime “Doctor Who” episode writer and “Broadchurch” overseer Chris Chibnall. I know many fans who really look forward to the story’s new direction, especially starring Whittaker as Doctor No. 13.

Alas, I’m not among them.

How come? I keep asking myself that question and a few others. Am I a good fan? Or am I an idiot who can’t recognize when my magical traveling flatscreen box just wants to take me someplace new and exciting? Well, here’s the transcript of my conversation with myself.

Am I a misogynist who doesn’t like fictional female heroes?

Perish the thought.

I loved Wonder Woman (both DC Animated Universe and film versions) before it was cool.

I followed “The Legend of Korra” right up until it was sexual revolution-juked.

After Star Wars: The Force Awakens, my wife and I tracked down the last Rey action figure, hidden behind stacks of Finns and Kylo Rens and Poe Damerons in the Disney Store.

And as a Christian, I believe God created male and female as the ultimate human expression of His intra-Self diversity: We’re different and that’s marvelous. And within many of our relationships, especially marriage, we join our gifts to glorify Him—glorify Him better than we would if He had made us all the same, or if gifts were uniformly spread between sexes.

Am I grumpy fan who doesn’t like change?

Sometimes I feel this impulse about popular stories. But I fight it off.

Examples: I (mostly) defend The Hobbit film series. I love and defend Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I didn’t hate The Last Jedi (but understand those who do). And with “Doctor Who,” I’ve regretted each Doctor’s passing but eagerly anticipated the next actor’s arrival. If you asked me, “Who’s the best new-series Doctor?” I would say, “Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, Capaldi,” and refuse to choose my favorite child, and find you ruthless for even asking me.

Philosophy notes on blackboards are cool.

Am I simply tired of ‘Doctor Who’?

At times I’ve felt a little franchise fatigue with “Doctor Who.” When Capaldi arrived, I knew I would already appreciate him. But his debut episode, “Deep Breath,” felt half-baked, choppily edited, and laced with increasing sexual revolution agenda moments—which feel enforced by a New Hays Code Committee, rather than naturally arising from the story itself.

That aside, “Into the Dalek” and further stories powered series 8 forward. Any potential franchise fatigue faded for me. I even held tight during Capaldi’s last full season, which featured new companion Bill Potts as the First Lesbian Companion™.

We’ll pick up tomorrow, considering those potential sexual-revolution agenda moments, as well as some tougher questions against myself and my response to the first female Doctor.

2017 is drawing to a close. Some may shed a tear but most would say, “Good riddance!” Of course, it is the annual human fallacy that things will be better “next year.” While that may be true for some individuals, the world always holds fast to its course on the Doomsday Train. Some resolutions are kept, most are abandoned, and things are looking about the same as last year by, oh, February.

That’s not to say that things don’t change. The general trajectory does not but the train cars gets shuffled around, people get booted out of first class and others take their seats, and sometimes whole carriages are lost. Seismic shifts happen in the little lives of the people on board, though to a distant observer, things are chugging along as they always have.

2017 brought some substantial cultural and political shifts to the American landscape, and to the world as well. Several perplexing political leaders emerged and explosive social causes burst forth like the xenomorph from that unlucky dude’s stomach. The nation was shocked by horrific acts of violence (though also not shocked), scandals toppled entertainment and business royalty, and all of creation groaned under the generic Latin dance hit “Despacito.” It wasn’t all bad news, though. DC finally realized that copying the Marvel formula results in a hit movie, and the most divisive Star Wars movie since long, long ago wrapped up the year in a Porg-patterned bow.

Image copyright DC Entertainment

So what might next year look like for speculative entertainment? If this year was any indication, movies, books, and TV shows are going to become more political, and likely more liberal. Many may applaud this trajectory, but if you’re a Christian, don’t expect things to get more Bible-friendly (Jesus kind of promised this wouldn’t happen). Given the national backlash against conservatism (in its true and false political forms) by younger generations, urban dwellers, and especially Hollywood, I would say that the LGBTQAXYZ$&% agenda is going to become even more front-and-center in speculative entertainment. There is already a groundswell of support to couple Wonder Woman with a female love interest in the next film.

2017 was definitely the Year of the Women. Perhaps this was in reaction to Trump’s presidential victory, though who knows what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had won the election. There is a deliberate effort in the entertainment industry to put women in the spotlight, in front and behind the camera. Some may say this is a long overdue course correction, while others may say this is forced political correctness at the expense of storytelling. I suppose each case is different, but considering how successful the recent female-led Star Wars movies have been, along with Wonder Woman being the standout superhero movie of the year, most people don’t seem to mind.

That course correction will also continue with racial diversity. Black Panther will be the first nearly all black-cast superhero movie and it is going to be a smash hit whether it’s good or bad. The Last Jedi featured the debut of the first Asian-American actress in a Star Wars movie. Scarlett Johansson’s Ghost in the Shell didn’t go over so well (for a variety of reasons) but a big black mark against it was the studio’s choice to cast a white actress for a film based on Japanese anime. You can bet Hollywood won’t make that mistake again, at least for a few months.

I predict 2018 to be the year of overt identity politics in speculative politics. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it can easily become an irritating distraction. That’s not to say we should maintain the status quo and make movies with just hetero white males. It’s good to have diversity in the universes that we make from scratch. I’m not an uber-geek so I don’t cling to my fandoms as much as other people do, but I know that a lot of this rubs people the wrong way because it doesn’t feel natural. No one likes having their precious memories and imaginative properties become pawns for issues and causes they don’t care about or even oppose. The good news is that there are more choices than ever, so there’s no excuse to complain that you’re stuck with something you don’t like. And who knows…maybe Bibleman will get a blockbuster reboot!

You may or may not have read Andrew Peterson’s four-book middle grade/young adult fantasy series called The Wingfeather Saga. For two years, Andrew and a dedicated group of creatives have been at work producing a short animated film that introduces the characters and gives a hint at the plot.

It’s here!

I think this first in the Wingfeather Saga films is very well done as an animated work. The narrator does a particularly good job of capturing the seriousness and the high tension of the later books while also displaying the humor which made the first books so successful. The thing is, The Wingfeather Saga short film (15 minutes long) is free—without cost, available to everyone, available in a variety of places. The hope is that this short will prove to be so successful that demand for a full length movie will follow.

I’m excited, not just because the quality is there but because an outpouring of support for a fantasy will be the best answer to places like Wrethched and the recently voiced criticism of the fantasy genre.

The Wingfeather Saga short film is on Facebook. According to this post, it’s also available on YouTube, Vimeo, and Amazon Prime. Some fans have reported trouble with some of the links, but with so many choices, one should work.

Enjoy, and tell your friends.

The Spec Faith regular contributors want to wish you a blessed Christmas.

May you enjoy rich times with your family and wonderful worship of Christ, our Savior, Redeemer, and Lord.

The people who walk in darkness
Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
The light will shine on them.
You shall multiply the nation,
You shall increase their gladness;
They will be glad in Your presence
As with the gladness of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders,
The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.
For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult,
And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:2-7; emphasis added)