Gunpowder Heaven

Capt'n Eli's Root Beer Review

2012-09-23T10:37:00.002-07:00

Capt's Eli's is much more than just a root beer. It is an encomium to a loved father, a secret family recipe, and a series of graphic novels full of the sea and suspense.

Capt's Eli's is named after Dr. Eli Forsley, a man who grew up drinking his father's special homemade root beer. Eli served in the US Navy in WWII (where I am guessing the "Capt'n" comes from) and afterward received his doctorate in education and worked to provide homes for mentally disabled veterans. One of Eli's sons got into the brewing business and decided to begin serving the Forsley family's famous root beer at his restaurant in Maine. In 2002 he decided to begin bottling the root beer where it grew even larger in popularity.

In addition to the interesting background for this root beer, it also has a unique take on marketing. The marketing for Capt'n Eli's revolves largely around a series of comic books: The Undersea Adventures of Capt'n Eli written and illustrated by Jay Piscopo. The graphic novel is a throwback to a much older style of graphic novels, but it also adds some modern twists, making a combination that has led it to growing success. It now has three volumes out, even spawning a crossover volume with Captain Midnight, and the spin-off series The Sea Ghost. Adding to all of this, there have even been action figures released due to its popularity. For the graphic novel lovers, they can be bought at the Capt'n Eli website.

Now to the root beer itself. Immediately after opening, a dark, wintergreen smell hits you. It contains deep, rich notes, stronger than root beers like IBC or Abita.

The carbonation wears well, mixing the sugar and vanilla tastes. It also helps the pleasant wintergreen aftertaste linger longer, almost like a very mild root beer mint.

The root beer is smooth with just the right amount of flavor up front that then transfers nicely to back of the mouth and, as I said, lingers with a sweet and wintergreen flavor for the finish. The finish really is quite long-lasting here, leaving a sweet, carmely, vanilla aftertaste that is quite nice. I don't feel like I have to rush to keep drinking in order to keep the flavor in my mouth. It is nice to sit for a few minutes and let the flavor settle until I take another sip. I think it is the wintergreen oil that helps it linger nicely.

As I drink more, I realize it isn't at rich as I first thought, but is actually more balanced. It tastes light and refreshing in addition to the rich flavors. I don't find it thin or watery, however, as it has a nice feeling in the mouth.

This is my favorite root beer so far. Once I identified the wintergreen, that flavor was a little overwhelming, but when I can ignore my knowledge of the flavor, it melds nicely with the rest of the drink. For me the strongest part of Eli's is its flavor consistency throughout a draught. It starts nicely, holds on to that flavor, and then lets is linger for you to enjoy for a while. They say there is anise in this but I can hardly taste it, guessing it is masked by the wintergreen and sugar. This is one time where all the marketing is backed up by a quality product.

Score 8.5/10

Good: Fun marketing and a great backstory, consistent flavor throughout a draught, unique with the a strong wintergreen flavor that works well.

Bad: Maybe too much wintergreen?

Price: $1.69

Ingredients: Water, cane sugar, caramel color, natural and artificial flavorings including wintergreen oil, anise, vanilla, spices, herbs, citric acid, sodium benzoate as a preservative.

Abita Root Beer Review

2012-08-25T15:43:00.003-07:00

Abita Root Beer comes from the Abita Brewing Company located 30 miles north of New Orleans. It's a relatively recent company, being founded in 1986. Their main focus is beer, but they have also released this root beer. They brew their root beer with a "hot mix" process using spring water, herbs, vanilla, and yucca. They also emphasize that they use Louisiana cane sugar, giving their drink a taste reminiscent of "soft drinks made int he 1940's and 1950's." They source their water from a artesian well located near their brewery.

Immediately after opening, a strong but common root beer smell hits you (think IBC). But common doesn't mean bad - it is actually quite an enjoyable smell. So it is off to a strong start with a nice, familiar aroma.

The taste, however, is not as impressive. There is a strong vanilla flavor, but overall it lacks punch. If I had to give a general assessment I would say it tastes like watered down IBC. Also the carbonation is somewhat flat, making it taste thin. The taste hardly registers when you first drink it, noticeable only after it has filtered down around the tongue. Even then it is thin tasting, but quite sweet. Although I usually like sweeter root beers, the sweetness here just isn't appealing to me. At times it almost tastes like plain soda water on the tip of the tongue, then really sweet in the back taste buds. It has a licorice aftertaste, but not the anise flavor of White Rose. It did get better with time, letting my mouth get used to the sweetness so it could distinguish the various flavors.

This is a middle of the road root beer. Better than brands such a MUG or Barqs, but it doesn't compete well when compared with stronger brews.

Score 5/10

Good: A nice smell and it gets better with time.
Bad: Thin tasting and very sweet. The flavor just isn't that strong or interesting.

Listed Ingredients: carbonated water, cane sugar, caramel color, root beer flavor, phosphoric acid
Price: $2.05

White Rose Root Beer Review

2012-08-22T00:01:00.000-07:00

It's hard to know how to write a root beer review. My biggest worry is that an abundance of adjectives will make me sound like a pompous wine-reviewer where I talk about the various fruit flavors and how the tannins from the Bourgogne region in France are better than the low-brow California wines. My other worry is that I will write with such a breezy style that I could fit on a Tumblr hipsterific blog. Hopefully I can find a middle ground.

I decided to start with Galco's own White Rose Root Beer that was developed by John Nese. Galco's has a line of private sodas that it is beginning to develop, but I haven't tried any of the others. The owner told Laura that he wanted this to taste like old, classic root beer. Based on their blog, the name White Rose comes from an old Highland Park bottling company that used a local spring as its water source. I am not sure where it is bottled, but Galco's is advertising it as a locally developed brand.

One thing to note is that I drink my root beers straight from the bottle. None of this glass pouring stuff for me. What fun is it buying a drink in a glass bottle if all you do it pour it into a glass? Might as well just buy it in a can if that is the case. Sure, I suppose I am losing some of the experience by not being able to smell, or by not letting the root beer breathe, and I won't be able to talk about the foam head or the color. But I just like drinking from a glass bottle.

I've always thought that there is basically one important spectrum of how to classify root beers: the Root Spectrum. Some may call this the bite or the sharpness or the sassafras/Smilax regelii taste. I just call it the root taste because it is the distinctive flavor unique to root beer. White Rose falls in the middle of this spectrum. I find it to be rather smooth and easy to drink with no sharp flavors except for a light anise flavor on the back of the throat in the aftertaste. It is sweet, but not too sweet. I can't identify all the flavors here, but there is a higher amount of variety that normal for a root beer, but they are subtle. It is clear that this was crafted to be a sophisticated drink. All in all I say it works, but I think that even though it has a lot of different flavors, overall it comes off a bit thin. The flavors are light and the sweetness doesn't really mix with the other flavors. Laura liked it better than I did but overall it was an enjoyable root beer.

Rating: 7/10

Good: complex flavors, sophisticated taste, locally developed.

Bad: thin, anise isn't my favorite flavor, sweetness doesn't mix with rest of the flavors.

Price: $2.45

Made from: water, pure cane sugar, natural and artificial flavors, citric acid, and caramel color

Root Beer Review Series: Introduction

2012-08-19T14:12:00.003-07:00

Today Laura gave me a great gift: root beer! I have never really been a beer connoisseur, so I have taken up the hobby of trying different root beers whenever I get the chance. For several years I have been trying various brands whenever I could find something new. After a while I realized I wasn't keeping track of what I liked and only had general recollections of what I thought was good or not. So I have decided to try to keep track of the various root beers I try here, mostly in order to keep them straight myself. Hopefully others will find my quest for the perfect root beer interesting.

Laura picked the bottles up from Galco's Soda Pop Stop nearby in Highland Park. This is an interesting store for the sheer variety of soda and John the owner is great. He has been there every time we have been and he is always friendly and helpful. Apparently he helped her pick these out. I would highly recommend anybody going there to see his huge selection of soda - it is worth the trip just to see it and talk with John. Here is a great video showing his passion for soda:

Happily the store has enough variety that we have plenty more to check out even after I finish drinking and rating this first batch. I will publish my first review a little later today.

Review of Joe Abercrombie's The First Law Series

2011-07-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

I have realized that all but the best authors have verbal “ticks.” The most prominent example that comes to mind appears in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series. There, one of the lead female characters, Nynaeve al’Meara, constantly pulls her braid. It is almost as if Jordan, not knowing how to describe her anger (and she is angry most of the time, like everybody else in the series) falls back on this verbal tick. Luckily in the most recent books written by Brandon Sanderson, that constant refrain has slowed. The same sort of tick appears in The First Law series. Here, Logen Ninefingers, one of the main characters, often describes a dire situation with some variant of the phrase, “Say one thing about Logen Ninefingers, say he (insert clever description of the situation he finds himself in here).” If this phrase was used once or even twice, it could be passed off as Abercrombie trying to explore the dialect and sayings of the Northmen. The constant repetition of this phrase (which itself is somewhat grating due to the second “say”), however, gets annoying. The problem with verbal ticks is that although they can be defended as offering structure or familiarity to a work, frankly, they are merely distracting. Every time I came upon this tick it bothered me. It distracted me from the sentence, the paragraph, and the work as a whole. All I could think was “Why did you write that again? Couldn’t you have thought of something else to say?” Having criticized this tick, overall the writing is good -- nothing flashy or astounding, but there are some nice phrases scattered throughout. The books don’t play with language and coax out beauty, but they don’t butcher it either. One other problem did stand out. The books too often tell what is going on in a character’s head rather than showing it. One particularly grievous example of this is after Ninefingers spouts the golden rule to Jezal (another main character), Jezel has a change of heart, as is shown through the blank, verbatim repetition of his thoughts: “You get what you give, in the long run, and manners cost nothing. From now on, he would think of others first. He would treat everyone as if they were his equal.” This is not storytelling at its finest.

The First Law series falls into the same genre as George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series. I am not exactly sure what to call it, grim-reality fantasy? The problematic part of that name is “reality,” for just because something is grim doesn’t make it realistic (and aren’t these fantasy books?). And grim these books are. From the repetitive scenes of torture to the countless and pointless deaths, they constantly remind the reader that reality is recounted here – with all its blood and grime and horror and pointlessness. In reality everyone is selfish, all have severe flaws, nobody is who they seem, and life isn’t fair and doesn’t have a happy ending. Just when a character seems to have grown or changed, the story swoops in to disabuse the reader of that notion. Just when there seems to be hope that a character may be happy, “real life” comes by and squelches that hope. Come now, Abercrombie seems to say in another one of his verbal ticks, “you have to be realistic.”

From here out, there will be spoilers. Skip to the final paragraph for my unspoilerish rating.

This realism stretches to the characters themselves. Let us start with Bayaz. When he first appears Abercrombie signals, somewhat obviously, that this is not your normal wizard, as he is not the old man with a beard and a hat (as the reader is meant to suspect), but the man who has his head shaved and looks like a blacksmith. Fooled you! the narrative seems to say -- things are not always as they appear! But then the wizard acts and speaks like the wizards we are all familiar with: wise, kind, friendly, and knowing. Little by little, however, the familiarity of this wizard is undermined as hints and allusions are made to an underlying unsavory character, and by the end, this wizard is not at all like Gandalf or Dumbledore. There is real life for you again! This pattern of setting up an expectation and then undermining it becomes banal. The witless swordsman goes through a harsh trial, maturing all the while only to remain a spineless lackey. The bloody warrior tries to change his ways and life peacefully only to be thrust back into war and become bloodier than ever. The wounded woman finds love only to remain wounded and alone. The nitwit apprentice shows signs of progress only to be unmasked as something evil. The only person to buck this trend is, unsurprisingly, the darkest and most tortured character of all. The one who is shown to do the most evil, to cause the most death, to be the most selfish – he is the one who ends up being the hero of the series. But this is just reality!

Even though the character development is predictable, two characters rise above the others. I enjoyed reading about Logen Ninefinger’s endeavor to unite his hostile party on the epic journey to find the seed (which ended up turning out to be not so epic). Ferro is a second interesting character. Her toughness, aloofness, and wounds make her compelling. Her interest in Ninefingers also proves entertaining. But even here, with these two characters, reality come crashing in and stops them from developing beyond the beginnings of greatness. The material for great characters is there, it just never blossoms.

Aside from these problems, there are also minor issues. The major battle in the second book reminds me too much of Tolkein’s Helms Deep. The early discussion of magic in The Sword Itself seems similar to Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earthsea magic. The journey in the second book which unites the characters reads like a cheap plot technique, leaving the reader unfulfilled at its end. Ferro’s purpose in the books appears at the end but is weak. Ninefinger’s ability to speak to spirits is underdeveloped. Finally, the reader gets to the end and hopes there will be an exciting climax, drawing the strings together in some unknown way, showing the author knew what he was doing all along, but there is only a puttering out, a slow, soft whimper across the final pages.

I give this series a Read this or not - it doesn't matter. I think that rating encapsulates this series perfectly. If you love dark, grim, reality fantasy, then you will enjoy these books. If you are just a connoisseur of fantasy novels, read other works first and come back to these when you have run out of options.

A Post PC World? I'll Keep My Mouse

2011-06-03T02:06:00.000-07:00

I feel like I am no longer on the cool team. It used to be cool to build your own PC, get a nice mouse and keyboard, and round out the system with three beautiful, large monitors. But today, and especially after the Windows 8 promotional video, all the cool kids are reporting the death of the PC (Apple's post-PC world), the mouse, and Windows itself. It's beginning to appear that anybody who knows anything about technology has to love touch, trackpads, and intuitive UIs. If you want to be current, forward looking, and relevant, then it is time to abandon the PC.

As I sit here using a quad-core processor with copious amounts of memory, typing on a keyboard and using a mouse while looking at my sources stretched across three screens -- I feel like a Luddite. I have no screens to touch, no zooms to pinch, and no apps to swipe away. I am using the web, but apparently I am not doing it correctly because I am still working with a PC paradigm. If only I had an app to tell me how to be technologically cool again.

I agree we are in a non-PC world for mobile devices, but really, there was never a PC world there to begin with. Touch and intuitive UIs have been great developments in the mobile space (phones and tablets). But for my everyday workhorse computer, I just can't get excited about the touching, swiping, and trackpading. With this in mind, the Windows 8 video did intrigue me in some ways. Obviously Microsoft is trying to combine these two paradigms, and it seems they might be successful in part. I especially liked the move from lifeless icons to smart tiles, making the desktop environment more interactive and useful. Some of the other new features that lean towards a touch interface could be interesting from a mouse/keyboard perspective, but I will have to see how they feel when I can test them. Overall, Microsoft came out with an impressive peek into the future of Windows 8, a future that tries to combine the best of their Metro interface with the familiarity of Windows, the keyboard, and the good old mouse. As one who hasn't yet accepted the rule of touch for my everyday computing, I thank them. And who knows, maybe the touch aspects will grow on me.

Apple Privacy Concerns

2011-04-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

Over at BYTE we have been discussing Apples creation of a file on certain iOS devices that stores geolocation data over a long period of time. The business side of this discussion is very interesting, but I am going to focus on the consumer aspects. In order to understand the type of information being stored, here is an application that lets you read the data on your iPhone. Also, here is an article on how you can encrypt that information, at least on your computer.

First, although I know many don't care that this information is known because they freely give it out via social media, that should not be the expectation for everyone. Some choose to broadcast locations, some do not. To let Apple off the hook here by saying that the world is moving in this direction seems to be in error. Not everyone wants the world to move in that direction, and it doing so has not yet been proved to be a good thing.

Second, why is Apple creating this file? I know all the evidence is that they are not receiving the information, but John C. Dvorak obviously isn't accepting that at face value. Hopefully Dvorak is wrong and this is a programming mistake. Alex Levinson in the above link argues that location-based apps need this type of information. I personally can't think of any apps that need my location over a years length of time. Until somebody points out an actual app that uses this information, I am skeptical about this argument.

Third, even if we trust Apple, the creation of the file alone, especially without the user's knowledge, is not good. As others have said, any computer-savy person with access to the phone or iTunes can now know the general location of a person for the past year. Spouses, employers, and lawyers may find that information extremely interesting. Now that this file is known to exist, people will be looking for it and using it in ways that will only hurt the person being tracked. How can the existence of this information in any way aid the person being tracked?

Fourth, Is Apple the only company doing this? Others have said being tracked is now a way of life, but I can only think of the government and the phone company that has access to this information. Adding Apple to this short list doesn't make me happy.

My hope in this whole thing is that Apple realizes some engineer coded something wrong and this file is a mistake. I also hope that all the reports of Apple not collecting this information are true. My final hope is that this makes us all more aware of how we are being tracked by the technology we use and let companies know that some forms of tracking are not yet acceptable.

UPDATE: The WSJ has a great article on how Google and Apple are storing certain types of information to their databases. Google, however, is opt-in.

RIM's PlayBook a Failure?

2011-04-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

I haven't had any hands-on time with the PlayBook, but I have read many of the recent reviews. Many of them landed late April 13th, and I was surprised to see a narrative developing the next morning that the reviews were largely negative and RIM's stock was dropping accordingly. That isn't what I understood the reviews to be saying.

The reviews mostly agree on:
1. The hardware is wonderful, although the power button is a problem.
2. The software has a great core similar to webOS, but it appears rushed. Aside from the unique ability to connect to a BlackBerry over bluetooth, it is missing many essential applications. This is a glaring mistake, but also one that we have known about for a long time.
3. There is a lack of apps.
4. It will get better with future software updates and the addition of Android-app capability. But for now, nobody recommends it unless you are a BlackBerry user and want to connect the two.

I don't see these by any means reflecting "poor" reviews full of "jeers" as many of the larger websites are reporting. Instead, they reflect that this is a 1.0 version of a product. Android wasn't this polished when it first launched. Does the PlayBook currently compete with the iPad? No. Will it? Maybe. The tablet wars are just beginning.

These reviews together bring up the same question for RIM: What is this tablet? RIM is trying to do too many things. On the one hand it is for BlackBerry users, on the other it someday will have the capabilities to be a great tablet for all. On the one hand it had its own SDK and app environment, on the other hand it will be able to run Android apps. I do not know if consumers will like this fence-sitting. But then again, if they can pull it all off, and quickly, maybe having the best of all worlds is really what consumers want.

UPDATE: See Gina's great article on the playbook that incorporates a few of my ideas.

Book Review: Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained

2009-05-29T10:36:00.000-07:00

Continuing my science fiction run of late, I recently picked up two books in the Commonwealth Saga by Peter F. Hamilton: Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained. Hamilton is best known for his lengthy space operas with most books approaching 1,000 pages.
In a universe connected by a giant rail-network in the sky, the Commonwealth series is focused around wormhole technology that allows instantaneous travel across great distances. The trains riding these wormholes travel from world to world as if they were subway stops on the local line. Mixing this technology with alien races, regenerative and memory-transfer technology, and the threat of intergalactic annihilation leads to an engaging, but at times slow-moving, story.

Since I am reviewing both books here, I will try to signal anything that gives away too much of the plot of the first book. In Pandora's Star, a purposeful word-play with the tale "Pandora's Box," the astronomer Dudley Bose sees a distant star disappear. It is discovered that the star has been surrounded by a strange enclosure, making the ever-curious humans mount an exploratory expedition. What they find and its ramifications bring the book to its cliff-hanging conclusion.

(Warning: this paragraph reveals the plot of the first book) In Judas Unchained the narrative picks up again with the Commonwealth rushing to recover from the attack of the Prime aliens released from the enclosure. In addition, the Starflyer alien, a religious-like myth that is propagated by fanatics on the world of Far Away, begins to become more real for those investigating strange occurrences in the Commonwealth. How this alien is connected to the Prime invasion and the means by which humanity bands together to fight their impending destruction are the main plot questions driving the second novel.

Hamilton's style of writing weaves characters in and out of the narrative. For instance, at times we can follow a character and story for a hundred pages and then not see her again for 300 more. Another element of this style is a huge cast of characters that can become confusing at times. I found myself flipping back in the book, randomly looking for a name that I could not place with any particular plot line. Another feature of his writing style is that at times the plot slows to a crawl. We find ourselves following mundane trips between planets where little happens but a lengthy description of the flora and fauna that each planet offers. An easy fix to these slowdowns is to skim these parts and pick up again where the main plot resumes. I recommend this tactic because while the descriptions can be interesting at times, they are not spectacular or particularly unique.

A unique feature of this universe that gives grist to the plot is the technological ability for everlasting life. Human bodies can be reversed aged, leaving the option to return to one's 20's whenever he wants. Also, if a death should occur accidentally, memories are stored in secure storage facilities and also in a chip inserted in the brain. A clone is made, memories are inserted, and viola! - resurrection. One interesting result of this ability is the difference between "first-lifers" and those who have been rejuvenated. Hamilton works with the adage that wisdom and stability come with age -- leaving the "first-lifers" as being saddled with unbridled passion and naivety. It is clear, however, that the passions of the first life are looked at with nostalgia by those who have lived more than once.

One of the odder parts of these books is how marriage and sex are portrayed. First, with the invention of everlasting life, marriage is now seen as a temporary arrangement. It is assumed that all marriages will end within a lifetime (two at most) when the partners get bored and move on. There is also a focus on sex's use as a tool to gain power and prestige. While such a use of sex in a book wouldn't strike me as odd, its continual reappearance in endless but repetitive variety made we wonder what was driving the author to do so.

(If you plan on reading the books, you will want to skip the next two paragraphs.) The final aspect that interested me was the religious-like cult that ends up being right in the end. These fanatics blow up buildings, terrorize, and cause much trouble for the Commonwealth. They are the only people in the universe who believe in their cause. They live in the remote mountains on the remotest planet on all the Commonwealth, giving them limited freedom to further their goals and plans. In the end, however, they are portrayed as the saviors of humanity and deserving of gratitude. While I do not believe Hamilton was trying to make any sort of religious or political statement with this group, it was interesting to see the fanatics be right for a change.

The parts of these two books I enjoyed most was when the narrative entered the thought process of MorningLightMountani, the Prime alien threatening humanity. This creative exploration of a thought process and perspective quite alien to humanity was fresh. The contrast between the individuality of humans and singularity of the one mind ruling all Prime life made for an engaging motif. I found those sections as reminders of how much our view of the world is shaped by who we are and where we reside.

I give both of these books a Recommended. They open an interesting world where strange and wonderful things are possible. They are not deep reflections on philosophy or ethics, but they do offer a pleasurable escape for those who enjoy reading about the stars.

Continued Conversation with D. Christopher Spinks

2009-05-27T17:25:00.000-07:00

D. Christopher Spinks has graciously responded to my previous post with one of his own that engages with me and Dr. Greg Cary, a professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary.

First, I need to thank him for a great conversation! I hope we are enacting, in some sense, his fourth "hue." Second, some admissions. He is right about the Watson correction, I thought his interaction lasted farther into the paragraph, and now I see that I was mistaken. He is also right to correct my use of "pre-critical" rather than "pre-modern." I actually agree with him that interpreters before modernism were still critical -- I wrote too hastily. Finally, I did not catch his second "l" in "faith-full," it was not a purposeful omission. Thanks to Dr. Spinks for drawing my attention to these errors.

Third, some quick explanations on my post in conversation with his (quotations are from his post):

My problem with the way it’s all set up is that Seth continues to work with the theology/biblical studies dichotomy and creates four concoctions with various amounts of each ingredient.

I was not clear enough as to the dichotomy I wanted to push in my post. I wanted to push the historical-critical paradigm vs. theology dichotomy, not biblical studies vs. theology. I do in fact think biblical studies and theology need to be combined, hopefully removing the distinction to some extent. By laying out the four options in terms of mixing "scientific exegesis" and "theology," I meant the historical-critical paradigm and theology. I see those two as being unmixable as they now stand due to the basic tenants of the historical-critical paradigm. As some argue, I do not see the problem with the historical-critical paradigm being that its practitioners have "naturalistic" or "positivistic" presuppositions; rather, I think the whole method is inherently naturalistic and positivistic. When Christians do "history," how do they do it aside from using the principles of doubt, analogy, and cause and effect? I know Wolfhart Pannenberg and N.T. Wright offer some alternative proposals, but much "faith-full" biblical scholarship assumes that it can add the historical-critical paradigm (sans its atheism) to its study of the Bible, as long as it bring the right presuppositions (theism). The purpose of my four options was to help make clear how different people navigate the interaction of the historical-critical paradigm and theology. I meant to be descriptive in the categories, not prescriptive.

Seth is pressing interesting and important points, but I see them as beholden to the categories and language established by a couple hundred years of the predominance of a particular methodology, namely historical criticism, and the division of disciplines that came out of that methodological hegemony.

I agree that it is hard to discuss these matters without appealing to historical-critical categories. My discussion about the proper mixture of historical-criticism and theology came from Spinks's claim (I think) that theological interpretation is both modern and postmodern (hence my original guess as putting him in the HC+ model). In his final section, "Transcending Polarities," he says, "Theological interpretation has a distinct dependence on certain postmodern perspectives" and later "theological interpretation, as featured here . . . does not, however, wholly find its rooting in postmodernity. It still maintains certain ties to traditionally modern styles of reading." I interpreted "postmodernity" here as a position that allows faith (theology) into exegesis and "modern styles of reading" as the historical-critical paradigm -- thus some sort of mixture of the two.

Fourth, I would like to interact on some intriguing points he made that were not directly related to my post:

For theological interpretation, scientific exegesis is neither an end in itself, nor something to be abandoned, nor an ingredient in a programmatic recipe; but rather, it is a tool sometimes used to assist the body of readers who read for broadly theological reasons. Theological interpretation, thus, puts scientific exegesis in its proper place.

I think these sentences put our discussion in sharpest contrast (as long as by "scientific exegesis" he means the historical-critical paradigm). I agree with the sentiment that wants to keep history connected to exegesis and in its proper place. The issue arises when we ask whether the historical-critical paradigm is helpful in this task. I would argue that theological interpretation needs an entirely new view of history, a different "historical paradigm" than the one given by the historical-critical paradigm. It is not enough for theological interpretation to have HC+God (nor God + HC) but instead needs something else. I do not believe God and any use of the historical-critical paradigm are compatible. I admit I do not yet have answers to what this "something else" may be, but that is something I hope to work on.

I conceptualize theological interpretation as a constellation of conversations (historical, theological, ethical, etc.) centered on the community’s reading(s) of its sacred text. No paradigm required.

This move away from "paradigm" language is a very helpful one for theological interpretation taken as a whole. Theological interpretation is not a method or a paradigm but something different. "Constellation" is a term worth exploring more regarding its ability to engage multiple conversations. The focus on the community (Body of Christ as Spinks calls it elsewhere) is also spot on. Theological interpretation is done for the church, with the church, and in the church. I would like to think that Spinks and I agree on much, disagreeing mainly upon the role of historical-criticism in the "historical" part of the "constellation" of theological interpretation.

D. Christopher Spinks on Theological Interpretation

2009-05-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

D. Christopher Spinks, a Fuller Ph.D. graduate who did his dissertation on theological interpretation, has written an article entitled "Theological Interpretation: Some Traits, A Key, and a List" for the April 2009 issue of the Methodist publication Catalyst. It is an insightful article that explains some of the essential moves informing theological interpretation.

Drawing on Francis Watson's Text and Truth Spinks points out four important "hues" that theological interpretation practices:

1. Takes the biblical text as Scripture: he posits that recognizing the theological nature of texts and their readers is the "primary factor leading to all others." A problem, however, arises when examining this recognition of the text's sacredness. Is the text sacred in itself or is it sacred because the church makes it so? He paints this question in light of a "modernism and postmodernism" dilemma.

2. Accounts for the role of faith: he argues that "the issue of faith that influences one's perspective on the biblical text is at the very center of the emergence of theological interpretation." Modernist interpretations, described as being hostile to faith, sought a sense of objectivity that faith disallowed. Postmodernism, however, has "created space" for faith- informed readings by "acknowledging the situatedness of the readers as well as the writer." Such readings have allowed "interpretive schemes" that 1) stop the assumption that God speaks unfiltered in the Bible, 2) recognize church readings do more than textual archeology, and 3) keep interpretation from giving all the authority to the reader. These schemes, while exhibiting a rising focus on theology, also keep the pursuits of history, grammar, and literature, but in a secondary role. The theological character of the texts themselves, in addition, must be recognized for proper interpretation.

3. Recalls the practices of historical interpretation: he establishes a link between the postmodern turn to "faith-ful" readings and the pre-critical readings of church history.

4. Participates in a dialogue: reading Luke 10:25-28 he interprets Jesus' "What is written in the law?" as "How do you read?" These two questions show the dialogical nature of theological interpretation that allows for disagreements and conversation. It is a "constellation of conversations striving to answer both of Jesus' questions."

My Discussion:

Spinks rightly identifies one of the crucial questions of theological interpretation as the role of faith in reading. This question is buried in the "theology" of theological interpretation. While Spinks cites a divide on how theology and exegesis should interact along modern/postmodern lines, I would like to offer a different rubric that posits four ways of seeing their interaction. The first, which fits with his modernist category, separates faith and theology out of scientific exegesis (William Wrede and Heikki Raisanen). The second is exhibited by Peter Balla who argues that one can study the theology contained within the NT without making any truth claims about that theology. This position is very similar to that of Wrede and Raisanen, however, it severely narrows its focus to the genre of "orthodox literature" contained in the canon. Such narrowing is argued for purely on a historical basis. The third method is done by most New Testament theologies today. It mixes scientific exegesis (think historical-critical paradigm) and theology in an unsystematic fashion. The benefit of this method is that it allows faithful scholars to participate in academic discussions while upholding faith commitments. The detriment is that the mixing of scientific exegesis and theology is never(?) satisfactorily justified. Historical study is kept while undermining the historical-critical method by ignoring its principles of doubt, analogy, and cause-effect relations. I call this the "historical-critical+" method - meaning "historical-criticism + God." The fourth method casts scientific exegesis overboard in pursuit of theology. Stanley Hauerwas's Matthew commentary, while not arguing for this position, is nonetheless a good example of it in exegetical form. He does not ask any text-critical questions nor is interested in moving "behind" the text. The text is what matters and its basis on historical-critical grounds is left unexplored.

Having laid out those four options, I wonder where Spinks sees theological interpretation falling? Maybe he has a paradigm I have not identified? Statements such as

From an epistemological stance, interpretation must continue to engage questions of history, grammar, culture, and the like because of the conviction that at every stage, from writing to collecting to reading, humans and their history are involved.

and

It is difficult, therefore, for [the] theological interpreter to deny the inevitability of the historical-critical methods long associated with 'modern' approaches to the text. To jettison modern methods completely would be as destructive to the development of theological interpretation as wholesale reliance on them.

lead me to preliminarily see him as falling under the third category. My concern with the third category is that I am unsure that it is possible to use the historical-critical method only partially. As Ernst Troeltsch is famous for pointing out, the historical-critical method is like leaven, seeping into everything it touches. I know Spinks was limited in space and such questions are beyond the purview of this article, however, this question is a major one for theological interpretation.

Can Subjectivity Be Chosen?

2009-05-23T18:02:00.000-07:00

John Lukacs wrote a fascinating article for the the Winter 2009 Exhortation of the American Scholar entitled "Putting Man Before Descartes." In it he argues three main things: 1) the modern turn to subjectivity in history is dangerous, 2) the subject-object model of thought needs to be overturned by a participatory model, and 3) humanity should once again see itself as the center of the universe.

Despite the wide acceptance of subjectivity in scholarship as a given, Lukacs sees it as dangerous because it is "merely the obverse side of objectivism and objectivity; there is something wrong with the entire Cartesian coin, of a world divided into object and subject, because subjectivism as much as objectivism is determinist." This divided world makes subjectivism deterministic because people cannot control their perspectives. Against this idea he argues that subjectivity is not deterministic because the structure of human seeing and thinking can and must be chosen. Humanity has choice "because thinking and seeing are creative acts coming from the inside, not the outside."

For his second point he argues that subjectivism has its root in the subject-object distinction. This distinction is alive and well in both post-modernism and structuralism. Instead of thinking in subject-object terms, he argues that we need to think in personal and participatory terms. The knower is involved with the known when writing or reading history. Despite conceding that matter does exist outside of the human mind, he pushes back by pointing out that without the mind, "matter" . . . does not matter. The human mind structures matter in ways that overcome mechanistic causality. It intrudes upon the world and "complicates the very structure of events." Yet, this indeterminism introduced by the mind has also now been corroborated in science when physics examines the behavior of small particles. Science today has shown our understanding of the world isn't as settled as was once thought.

The voluntary (chosen) structuring of the world by the human mind leads him to posit as his third point that:

We must recognize, contrary to all accepted ideas, that we and our earth are at the center of our universe. We did not create the universe, but the universe is our invention, and it is, as are all human and mental inventions, time-bound, relative, and potentially fallible.

Taking this claim even further he speculates about the human position in relation to God:

Our consciousness, our central situation in space, cannot be separated from our consciousness of time. Does it not, for example, behoove Christian believers to think that the coming of Christ to this earth may have been the central event of the universe, that the most consequential event in the entire universe occurred here, on this earth 2,000 years ago? Has the Son of God visited this earth during a tour of stars and planets, making a spectacular command performance for different audiences, arriving from some other place and—perhaps—going off to some other place?

The question that must be asked after this fascinating discussion of subjectivity in history is how it affects theological interpretation of Scripture? I will try to respond to each of his three points:

I share his worry that the modern focus on subjectivity as seen in many narrative approaches to Scripture stops humanity from fighting against their determined perspectives. I wonder, however, if the choosing of perspectives is actually possible? Can one choose, by the power of their will, to "see" the narrative of Scripture as true? It seems that such change needs a power greater than human mind: the Holy Spirit. It is a question worth asking to what extent human perspectives are chosen.
The participatory model of history is a helpful move for biblical interpretation away from the historical-critical paradigm. Interpretation is thereby allowed to be of and for the church without being relegated to a secondary status. While this model helps in the fight against phantom objectivity and the historical-critical method, it does not help in debates over radical textual indeterminacy. All participate in different ways and with different ends. The "object" is in danger of being overwhelmed by the "subject."
His final point about humanity being the center of the universe is a theologically insightful observation. I have heard multiple pastors/theologians point to the vastness of the heavens to illustrate the glory of God. Lukacs gives a helpful inverse lens to this position by pointing out that despite the vastness of the universe, God has become incarnate on earth within the past 2,000 years. Time and God seem to be centered around humanity. While the danger of this observation is to make God centered on humanity, the benefit is to point out the importance of humanity to God in that God chose to interact with us here and now. Christians would additionally point to our being created in the image of God as part of why history is centered here.

While Lukacs does not offer the definitive view of history for theological interpretation, he is a helpful dialogue partner where a Christian view of history is being developed.

Update on Kevin Vanhoozer to Wheaton

2009-05-22T13:06:00.000-07:00

Dr. Vanhoozer has graciously posted in the comments to my last post to inform us that he is going to keep mentoring his current students until they finish their program at Trinity - the "Golden Rule put into higher education." I need to apologize for assuming that professors were unable to do this when they left a school. My assumption was in no way directed at Dr. Vanhoozer personally, I just thought such a thing was not possible. I think it is wonderful that he has made the commitment to keep his Trinity students while at Wheaton - it does show great dedication to his students. I would also like to thank Dr. Vanhoozer for the update and wish him blessings at Wheaton! I am very looking forward to his upcoming Remythologizing Theology and Brazos commentary on Jeremiah.

Kevin Vanhoozer to Wheaton

2009-05-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

Phew! That is all I can say right now. I just heard that Kevin Vanhoozer is leaving Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and becoming the Blanchard Professor of Theology at Wheaton College and Graduate School. The reason this particular bit of news is hitting me hard is because I almost decided to go to Trinity mainly to study with Dr. Vanhoozer. In the end, I made the (right) decision to go to Fuller and study with Joel Green, but at the time, the decision was not as obvious as it is now.

If I had gone to Trinity and this happened out of the blue (he gave me no indication it was a possibility when I spoke with him about a year ago), I would be in a world of hurt right now. My main mentor would have left, leaving me with few other theologians interested specifically in my field at Trinity. I also would have lost the respectability that comes with being one of his students. All of that combined would have made for a tough few years. I really do have to thank the Lord (literally, I have already prayed and will continue to do so) that he led (some won't like that word) me in the decision to come here to Fuller. Joel has been a wonderful mentor, surpassing all of my expectations. I am learning a ton and being pushed to succeed.

What does this move mean for Wheaton and Trinity? First, it is an absolutely huge loss for Trinity. Vanhoozer was sort of an ace-in-the-hole for them that gave them academic respectability with the broader academic world. Now, I for one think that many people at Trinity do fine work, but their "street cred" with the academic world has been severely hurt by this move.

For Wheaton this is a wonderful pickup. Their Ph.D. program is actually in Biblical and Theological Studies, making this a wonderful for both Vanhoozer and Wheaton. Vanohoozer also gets to work with one of his students, Daniel Treier. While Vanhoozer was at Trinity, Treier was the main voice at Wheaton for theological interpretation. I wonder if having Vanhoozer around will overshadow him? Nonetheless, Wheaton's theology department, with this pickup, has become a major player in the theological interpretation of Scripture. If only one could combine Wheaton's theology faculty with Fuller's New Testament faculty - then one would have a great school for the theological interpretation of Scripture.

Update: See Dr. Vanhoozer's response in the comments section. He will stay as the mentor for his current students, something which I am sure they all greatly appreciate. It is great to see a scholar care for his students.

Book Review Rating

2009-05-07T23:57:00.000-07:00

I figured if I am going to be reviewing books, I had better come up with a rating system. Stars seemed to impersonal and boring.

Read this! - this is the highest recommendation I can give. If you don't read this, you are missing out on something epic.

Highly recommended - you will survive if you don't read this, but your life will be less enjoyable.

Recommended - If you enjoy reading, you should read this book. If not, go fishing.

Read this or not - it doesn't matter - If you like books of this sort, it's not the worst.

Waste of your time - If you like books like this - don't. Read all the books in Read this! and Highly recommended then try again.

Book Review: Little Brother

2009-05-07T23:01:00.000-07:00

My most recent foray into literature has been Little Brother by Cory Doctorow. It is a book geared toward teenagers yet engaging enough for adults. The title is an allusion to Orwell's famous dystopian 1984 - an allusion made even clearer by the nature of the book.

Set in scarily realistic San Francisco (presumably a few years into the future as shown by the reference of Xbox Universal, a free-for-the-taking console whose purpose is to encourage people to buy games), Little Brother details a 17-year old's struggle against an oppressive Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After the Bay Bridge had been blown up by terrorists, Marcus Yallow and three of his friends are detained for days and eventually released under the threat of further action if they tell their story to the press. The plot progresses from there as Marcus develops ways to undermine the DHS while developing new friendships, breaking old ones, and ruminating on the meaning of freedom and security.

One unique aspect to this book is that it gives a fascinating look into hacker culture. It even has afterwards by famous hackers endorsing the book and its author. While some of its explanations of hacking are simplistic, others, such as its description of cryptography, are insightful to the non-specialist. After reading it one can't help but pay more attention to the monitoring and security all around.

The book also does not shy away from making obvious allusions to contemporary political events. Waterboarding, surreptitious extradition of prisoners, and racial profiling are all made to look evil within the narrative. Airport security, police checkpoints, and the electronic flagging of suspicious people are silly and ineffective means of deterring terrorists. The crusading investigative journalist and the UCLA are heroes in the story. Anyone in authority ("Don't trust anyone over 25!") is seen as cherishing safety over freedom and being complacent and complicit in oppression. Aside from some obvious aggrandizing, the story does make one consider at length the trade off between freedom and safety. The book gives no clear answers (it in fact admits to not having answers) but it weighs in heavily by narratively arguing that we should error on the side of freedom. Whatever one's position on these issues, the book is worth reading for making us, for a long period of time, consider how we would want our government to act in a similar situation. It would be worth reading for that alone.

I do have a few criticisms. The book gets preachy at times (attacks on Foxnews, the war in Iraq, and authority in general). It also lionizes hippies of the 60's and 70's in terms that are too rosy to be realistic. On the Road and the Declaration of Independence are the two most cited works. Also, there are some odd plot movements. Marcus' friends, whom we are introduced to early on, disappear without much explanation. A different girl squeezes in with just as little. There is also a sexual component that makes one feel as if the author has watched a few too many teen dramas. The style is enjoyable but nothing beautiful. Language is used well, not masterfully.

The final question is whether this book should take its desired place as a successor to 1984. In this aspect, "Little" is surely the correct adjective for the title. Orwell creates a world where the government "creates" reality on a whim, controlling minds and wills at its leisure. That government is truly terrifying. Doctorow's oppressive government does seem to be the "little brother" to Orwell's. Orwell allows hope to bloom throughout the book only to be crushed under the weight of the omniscient government. Doctorow, however, allows hope to bloom and reach fruition. 1984 is truly scary; Little Brother is unsettling. While Little Brother loses in both the grandness of the story and its literary quality, it does win in contemporary realism. 1984 loses some power because it seems so removed from current life; Little Brother gains power because it seems possible. Therefore, while Little Brother will not overtake 1984 on lists of great literature, it helpfully modernizes, plausibilzes, and technologizes the danger of oppressive governments.

I give it a "highly recommended" because it narratively forces us into deep engagement with extremely important and relevant issues. At the same time it is a fun read that makes one glad to have learned and enjoyed at the same time.

New Initiative: Read Fiction

2009-02-20T22:02:00.000-08:00

I recently started a new initiative to keep active my pleasure reading amidst my studies. In fact, I have probably gone a little too far in this direction lately. Oh well, at least now I can justify pleasurable reading by giving a grandiloquent answer like the following as to why I read fiction:

In today's academic circles, reading articles and books is like eating rice cakes. Sure, they fill you up, strengthen you, and do the job they were intended to do. I, however, want variety. I'm not just talking about chocolate flavored rice cakes - or even the caramel apple crunch. No, no matter how much you doll them up, they still taste like old shoe. While a great book or article will excite the mind and feed the soul, it still tastes like old shoe. Now, I am sure that almost everything I write will also taste like old shoe (hopefully the original Air Jordans), but I also hope that every once in a while a hint of crème brûlée or pecan pie will waft in. For instance, my recent reading of Ray Bradbuy (Fahrenheit 451 and Martian Chronicles) was a fashion show of different tastes (see, I am still mixing metaphors...need to read more). Poetry was mixed painlessly into the narrative, like garlic into the soy sauce of a marinade. Humor and tragedy were sprinkled strikingly unevenly, like the slabs of chocolate in an un-chippy cookie. Worthy philosophy and moralizing were hidden under beautiful phrasing like green beans under a blanket of cheese. In short, I want to have a flavorful old shoe, one that at least has marinated in the juices of great literature for a few hours.

Kierk's Works of Love

2007-09-26T18:27:00.000-07:00

I am reading a section of Kierkegaard's Works of Love for Dr. Verhey's class. Had to remember this quote:

"Think of the most cultured person, one of whom we all admiringly say, 'he is so cultured!' Then think of Christianity, which says to him, 'You shall love the neighbor!' Of course, a certain social courtesy, a politeness toward all people, a friendly condescension toward inferiors, a boldly confident attitude before the mighty, a beautifully controlled freedom of spirit, yes, this is culture -- do you believe that it is also loving the neighbor?"

What a great thought on the danger of the appeal of popularity, fame, and culture. Pride has no place in God's command to love the neighbor. I am still wrestling with Kierk's idea that preference doesn't either. In a sense I think he is correct, but its hard to want to say that loving a friend more than an enemy is not wrong.

Another Luther Quote on Suffering

2007-09-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

By testing and trying a man's patience, tribulation takes everything away from him and leaves him bare and naked; moreover, it does not let him find help and salvation in physical or spiritual merits, but it causes him to despair of everything created, to forsaken all creatures and himself, and, outside himself and everything else, to seek help in God alone and to sing the verse of the Psalm, 'But thou, O Lord, are a shiled for me, and my glory'(PS 3:3) This is what it means to hope and to become hopeful through testing trials." Lectures on Romans 5:5

Luther on Suffering

2007-09-25T10:57:00.000-07:00

Luther in his lectures to the Romans makes an interesting argument about suffering. He says that suffering is the way in which God tests us, but that this testing is for our sake and not for God's. I am assuming the reason is because God will already know how the test will turn out, but the test itself changes us for the better. Here is an interesting quotation:

"Thus (with suffering soon after salvation) man learns to love and worship God unconditionally, ie, to worship him not for the sake of grace and its gifts but solely for his own sake." (160, Rom 5:4)

I find this an interesting and convicting idea. Why do we love God? Do we love him for the sake of his gifts? If cancer is discovered in our bodies tomorrow, will we still love God or will we reject him because he has no longer been good to us. I Luther has a point here that suffering does help purify our love for God, for it is in suffering where we see what it is about God that we love. Do we love God and his being and his character, or do we love God's benefits to us.

Luther also has another thread that is interesting. He says that suffering somehow keeps the flesh from controlling us. He sees a danger in that if we have too much pleasure, too easy of access to what we want, then the world will become appealing to us and lure us away from God. Again I think there is insight here. In our current context of America with easy access to food, shelter, and pleasure (entertainment) the lure of the world is strong. This is partly why I agree with the move that Christians need to give most of their possessions away (at least above a certain level of responsibility to family and self). If suffering is not imposed upon us by God, I would argue that it is a good idea to allow the things that would tempt us to still flow away from us to the world in a form of a blessing to those in need. That solves multiple problems. It removes our temptation, meets the needs of the world, and all of this is done in the name of God.

Seth Heringer

2007-09-01T00:14:00.000-07:00

Seth Heringer is a Ph.D. candidate working on the practice of theological interpretation of Scripture. Questions about the nature of history and the role of the historical-critical method in exegesis also feature prominently in his studies.

When not working on his dissertation. he serves as a freelance writer on technology. This interest in technology also appears in his choice of pleasure reading: mostly science fiction and fantasy. Aside from these, he enjoys getting outside to backpack and hike with his wife.

For more information you can view his Google Profile, follow him on Twitter @sethheringer, or contact him at gunpowderheaven@gmail.com