AUGUST 2011

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the August 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. This is a highly focused web journal about all kinds of stuff! We hope that you can find something you enjoy reading about. We would love to hear back from you; you can send us your responses and input at feedback@eclectickasper.com and give us a “like” on our Facebook page to post comments there.

This month we begin one series entitled, “Dimensions of Worship,” and we also begin an occasional feature called, “Momentous Moments,” explaining the greater background and impact of historical events. We also have some politics, some of my favorite “Firefilk,” as well as more about the Emergent movement and Intertestamental history.

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Never Say, “I Can’t!,” 2 Peter 1:3

Second only to “Amen,” the phrase “I can’t. . . ”, which begins many sentences, may be the most frequently uttered words in Christendom. Believers often fail to see the power that they have to pray, to witness, to teach, to give.

Peter makes an astonishing statement in 2 Peter 1:3 when he claims that God, “has given to us from his divine power everything pertaining to life and godliness through the understanding of him who called us by his own glory and moral excellence.” At the very beginning of his second letter Peter emphasizes that “everything” is given “to us,” i.e., believers. We have everything necessary to life, virtue, and our ability to accomplish what he has prepared for us (Eph 2:10).

This serves as the premise of 2 Peter’s message: that doctrine and practice flow from God granting to believers all that they need to accomplish what they are called to do. Everything that a believer needs comes from the source of God’s “divine power” (theios, in the Greek). This word is also used in v. 4 as well as Acts 17:29, where Paul is speaking in general terms to an Athenian audience of the “divine nature.”

God gives all things “relative to,” “for the purpose of” or “pertaining to” (the Greek preposition pros) “life” and “godliness.” These resources are available through “understanding” and through the believing community’s “calling.” This refers to God’s selection of people for salvation and the believer’s trust in Christ. It is this “in Christ” relationship to God that provides the believer access to all that God’s nature has to offer. The result is that the believer may have resources to excel in “glory” and “moral excellence.” In this case “glory” may refer to the expression of God’s own purity and holiness in the world, which believers are called to reflect now. Peter, however, also implies an eschatological (end times) aspect of the believer’s glory by saying that a Christian “will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” in 1 Peter 5:4. The Greek word aretē refers to “moral excellence” or “goodness” and is almost exclusively a Petrine word (1 Pet 2:9; 2 Pet 1:3, 5) with the exception of one use by Paul in Phil. 4:8.

Summarily, God has given from the boundless storehouse of his own character everything necessary for the believer to excel in worship, facing adversity, skillful Christian living, evangelism, suffering without complaint, and purity. The believer has no reason to every say that she or he “can’t” do something in light of the awesome abilities and resources that are available for every Christian to do God’s will.

POLITICS: Not Halfway There?

I felt convinced that I would take a month off from political articles. However, something that I heard shocked me out of that conviction, and my editorial pen simply could not stay silent.

It seems nobody feels too optimistic about Washington after the budget and debt ceiling debates and compromises that took us all to the very edge of sanity. One person in this country, however, seems clueless enough about the problems America is facing to still be optimistic and full of hope. At President Obama’s birthday/ fundraising bash in Chicago on Wednesday, August 3, 2011, the Orator-in-Chief declared: “It’s been a long, tough journey. But we have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we . . . we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said ‘change we can believe in’ I didn’t say ‘change we could believe in tomorrow.’ Not change we can believe in next week. We knew this was going to take time because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”

I will for the moment let slide Obama’s insatiable Bush-blaming (“we were inheriting so many challenges”), and even his pot shots at the Founding Fathers, who bequeathed to us the system of “big, messy, tough, democracy” (he apparently prefers oligarchy or monarchy). I will even resist remarking on the naivety and inexperience that shines through this declaration. All of that would be too fun, and thus, distract us from the statement that is truly scary.

The scariest part of Obama’s sentiments is the assertion that, from his perspective, “We’re not even halfway there yet.” This of course, begs the question, “Halfway where?” We are not even like children in the backseat asking daddy, “Are we there yet?” Rather, we hang on with white-knuckled panic and ask, “Where exactly in [insert your favorite expletive here] are we going!?!”

So, I ask, Sir, Where are you taking us? Are we halfway toward a completely divided nation that stews with partisan demagoguery spearheaded by perhaps the most radical and unsuccessful president that we’ve ever had? Does halfway toward economic equality mean that at the end of his program the rich would have to pay twice as much in federal income taxes and the poor would have to be pay twice as little. (This is, of course, impossible since about 45% U.S. of households paid nothing in federal income tax in 2010 according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center; since “we’re not halfway there yet,” does Obama want to see that number jump to 90%?)

Obama has already passed his useless stimulus package (remember all those “shovel-ready” jobs?) and his monstrous Obamacare plan. He has assailed the market with regulation, especially the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and signed the New START treaty with an increasingly untrustworthy Russia.

If this is halfway, does the President mean that he will pump a few more billion dollars into the economy in ways that have no positive effect on markets or job growth? If we are halfway to a government that forces most Americans to buy healthcare, what will the other half of this government force us to do or buy? Will he shackle free-enterprise with twice as many bureaucratic encumbrances? Should we be twice as naïve and trusting toward Russia by minimizing our defenses when we are already in the middle of three wars (which will apparently double to six by the time Obama is done)?

I could say a lot more about this; in fact, I’m not even halfway there yet! But I’ll stop and let you have your say. So, what do you think? Send your comments to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We would love to get your thoughts on where you think Obama wants us to go if, indeed, “We’re not even halfway there yet.”

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 1, Introduction

To borrow from the statements of the nuns in The Sound of Music: How do you solve a problem like worship? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? . . . How do you keep a wave upon the sand? . . . How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? Although the need to explain and understand worship is becoming increasingly necessary for the evangelical community, worship is nonetheless notoriously obstinate when one tries to assign to it a functional and comprehensive definition. Thus, there are as many definitions for worship as there are theologians, each designation laden with its own perspectives and agendas. Worship is initiated by God, but accomplished by man. It includes the mind as well as the emotions; the body as well as the will. It is personal and it is corporate. It is what is received as well as what is given. It may be planned or it may be spontaneous. It is a Sunday service and it is a lifestyle. Ultimately, the concept of worshiping the triune God defies any focused definition.

Perhaps it would be easier, not to mention more helpful, to explain worship not by establishing an exact definition, but rather by referring to parameters. To illustrate this approach, it may be preferable to think of worship not as a precise point in a room, but as the room itself. This series on “Dimensions of Worship” will attempt to establish the Biblical boundaries of that room and suggest that anywhere that one exists in that room, that is, whatever definition or practice they use, is worship as long as it is within acceptable Scriptural guidelines. However, to go beyond those parameters, even if an explanation or practice of worship retains many of the traits of the room, is to go outside of the orthodox bounds of worship. An easy example is that to be “in the room,” or within acceptable bounds of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, worship must be directed to the Creator alone, and not to any creature. The issue, however, becomes supremely more difficult in case-by-case examples dealing with instruments, tempo, content, and the employment of technology. Regardless, we will attempt to create Biblical parameters for worship, and look at these other issues through that grid.

Ideally, the goal of the theologian, pastor, or worship director is not just to be safely within the Biblical boundaries of worship, but to simultaneously be as far away as possible from the egresses of the room, or to be far as possible from potential errors regarding worship. This will usually involve striving for as much equilibrium as one can attain. As with many other spiritual matters, the issue is not just precision but balance between extremes.

While an exhaustive survey of issues related to worship throughout Scripture and church history is a trifle beyond the scope of this series, we do hope to address key theological and biblical issues relative to parameters of worship. Descriptive and prescriptive statements from Scripture pertaining to worship will serve as the primary authority for accomplishing this task. “Descriptive” statements refer to how the Bible describes someone doing something, and “prescriptive” statements are a command in Scripture regarding how something is to be done. For instance, a “descriptive” statement is that believers in the early church met daily (Acts 2:46) and then weekly (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2), while a “prescriptive” command is that believers are to meet together on a regular basis (Heb 10:25). Descriptive statements are tricky; sometimes they describe negative examples to avoid, and sometimes they portray positive acts that obviously serve as commands to do likewise.

Also, discussions about worship from church history serve as a secondary, though certainly not infallible nor inspired, authority. Concerns about how worship is done on the local church level date back to the early centuries of the church (and those concerns haven't stopped yet!). Incidents and writings from the past assist us in refining our understanding of the Biblical parameters of worship; it would be arrogance and foolhardy for a modern person or community to disregard the wisdom of those churchmen and churchwomen in whose footsteps we follow.

In the next entry of this series, we will discuss how Scripture clearly portrays worship as being Theocentric (focused on God the Father) as well as Christocentric (frequently focusing on God the Son) and how these two foci are complementary and not contradictory.

This article and those that follow in this series are adapted from chapter 2, “An Overview of the Biblical Theology of Worship,” from my Master’s Thesis, Schleiermacher’s Influence on Contemporary Worship Music (Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002).

BROWNCOAT BAY: Firefilk Focus – The Persephone Pickers

For those who missed our first “Browncoat Bay” articles back in either the January 2011 or the April 2011 editions, a Browncoat is a self-designation for fans of the Joss Whedon’s Firefly franchise. As a big sci-fi junkie, I can guarantee you that the short-lived TV show Firefly and the follow-up movie Serenity is among the best that the sci-fi genre has to offer.

In fact, the appreciation and contribution of the fans (who call themselves “Browncoats”) are so overwhelming that it is no longer just a Hollywood driven franchise, but a fan-driven franchise (a fan-chise?), complete with podcasts, art, conventions, fan-made movies, and even an entire genre of music known as “Firefilk.” It is a style of music that captures both the aesthetic variety of the ‘Verse as well as the literary themes and motifs of the franchise. The Persephone Picker’s only (so far!) album, “Sounds of the Verse” (you can listen to samples or purchase through CD Baby by clicking here) captures this diverse essence fabulously. The music is enjoyable even if you aren’t a Firefly fan; it is a blend of folk, bluegrass, and Western styles, as well as a few other eclectic elements occasionally mixed in.

The opening song “Outer Rim” is delightful and folksy, communicating a frontier feel that would be at home a in pioneer town or on one of the planets far from the Core. The very charming “A Jig For River” appropriately merges Western and Celtic styles. Once can also discern this combination in “Persephone,” except that this song adds a few oriental and orchestral elements as well.

“Air Through the Engine” and “St Albans” are also charming, yet the latter is laden with a weighty sadness. It is as though these songs portray the rigors, difficulties, and disappointments of life on the frontier, whether the American West, or the Outer Planets of the ‘Verse. The songs “Still Flying” and, of course, “Serenity Valley” go even farther in terms of incarnating this disillusionment and heartache.

“Kaylee’s Theme” doesn’t attempt to shun its folksy style, and it’s hard not to picture Kaylee’s unsophisticated grin as one listens. “Triumph” also reflects a folksy appeal, but the low note held by the strings through most of the song injects a measure of sobriety and depth, even when the tempo and instrumentation picks up. The subtle snare drums and fife (actually, probably, a piccolo) introduced in the latter half of the song provide an additional colonial-style charm.

Some songs are much more folk-country, like “See You In The World” and “Whitefall.” Some of the songs are simple and airy, like, “Haven” and “Just Floating,” while others are fuller in terms of the use of instrumentation such as “Trading Post” and “Outer Rim.” Meanwhile, “Mudder’s Milk” and “Settlers Shindig” possess the unrefined liveliness one would expect from folk on the Rim.

“Sihnon” is, frankly, just strange, but in an understandable way. It is using a variety of Rim World and Westerny instruments to reflect a sometimes impressionistic and sometimes dissonant Asian sound, since the planet Sihnon is primarily based on Chinese culture. And while I don’t like just sitting down and listening to this piece as I do any other song on this album, I understand and appreciate that the artists are trying to achieve this Asian-fusion kind of sound. What I don’t understand is why “Sihnon,” weighing in at a whopping seven minutes and forty seconds, is so much longer than all of the other songs on this album!

It is really hard to pick favorites from this CD, but if I were forced to do, I would probably go with “See You in the World,” “Air Though the Engine,” “St Albans,” and “Mudders Milk” as being the most enjoyable and most representative selections.

There is a lot of really good Firefilk out there, and we will highlight different artists and projects as we go. But the Persephone Picker’s “Sounds of the ‘Verse” ranks at the top of the fan-driven Firefilk genre. I truly hope that they will come out with another album, and with additional material from Those Left Behind and Better Days, as well as the fan movies Browncoats Redemption and Bellflower there are many more songs yet to be made. Whether you’re sittin’ by the campfire or soaring through the black, the Persephone Pickers will not disappoint.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: The Difficulty with Diversity

Diversity may be beneficial in many instances. I have been encouraged to see churches that reflect a diversity in ethnicity and race, as well as those which incorporate a variety of age ranges and evangelical perspectives. Additionally, diversity of opinions that are held humbly, discussed profitably, and debated civilly should be welcome in church, as long as there is, as The Eclectic Kasper has strenuously argued, unity in the essentials of the faith. However, unrestrained diversity can lead to dangerous divergence. In this article, I want to present the danger of unrestrained diversity in the Emergent movement and some of the dangerous divergences that are already popping up as a result.

The Emergent church not only embraces culture’s methods, as megachurches often do, but actually accepts culture’s, and specifically postmodern culture’s, way of thinking. They prize individual opinion, distrust absolute truth, and value diversity. Diversity is, of course, an increasingly adored virtue in an increasingly postmodern society. One who decries unbridled diversity and pluralism could be vilified as backwater, dogmatic, or exclusivistic. Ironically, postmodernism sometimes neuters free thought by both demanding that everyone has to be equally diverse and by exhibiting intolerance to those who are not.

However, I do not see anywhere in Scripture where theological diversity is held up as a virtue. Believers are not adjured to be creative with doctrine or innovative in their theologizing. Believers are to rally around apostolic doctrine as revealed in Scripture and to remain within the strictures of the Christian metanarrative (1 Cor 11:2; 16:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; Jude 1:3).

The Emergent movement represents a dangerous diversity of theological opinion. There is not a singular cohesive voice that represents Emergent beliefs, but an unmanageably diverse range of Emergent prophets. By their own admission they often utilize exaggeration (Scot McKnight, “Five Streams of the Emerging Church,” Christianity Today, February 2007, p. 36), especially in terms of criticizing mainline evangelicalism. One of their own declares: “The rhetoric of emerging Christians can be shocking, alarming and hyperbolic. They are frequently given to dramatic overstatement” (Kevin Corcoran, Church in the Present Tense, p. xiv.). Several concede that this is a problem and that such Emergent rhetoric, “Can be sloppy, unnecessarily misleading, obnoxiously jargon laden, and incoherent” (ibid.). David Kowalski’s illustration of the diversity of thought in the Emergent movement is helpful: “If we think of this distinctive essence of Emergent as a lake, we can observe that some people, such as Brian McLaren, are swimming in its deepest spot, while others, such as Scott McKnight, are wading in the lake at a shallower depth. Still others (perhaps John Ortberg and Rick Warren fit this description), seem to enjoy boating on the lake and occasionally drinking its water, enjoying friendship with the movement while maintaining a distinctly Evangelical identity (David Kowalski, “Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church Movement,” http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church).

The most radical Emergents, who also tend to be the most published (such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell), express the Emergent diversity of thought by questioning or minimizing fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the authority of the Bible, the Trinity, and the substitutionary atonement. Rob Bell takes a slap at the one of the “Fundamentals” of the faith, specifically, the virgin birth of Christ, when he hypothesizes: “What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in . . . . Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? (Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27). Though he personally affirms the truth of the virgin birth himself, Bell’s insinuation is that Christianity can survive without the virgin birth, and an individual can find meaning in the Christian faith without it. Of course, historic Christianity would emphatically disagree with Bell’s minimizing of this crucial doctrine and its implications, especially its implications on the deity of Christ.

Bell takes a more distressing blast at the historic evangelical perception of the Bible: “This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that ‘Scripture alone’ is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. . . . When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true” (Velvet Elvis, pp. 67-68). This kind of de-emphasis on the centrality of Scripture feeds a mystical (and imprecise) sense of ongoing revelation. “Emerging Christians believe God is still revealing himself in the ordinary and earthly” (Corcoran, p. xv.).

Worse yet, under the guise of diversity, some of the most high profile Emergent leaders encourage inter-religious dialogue that minimizes the exclusivity of Biblical Christianity. McLaren comments, “Jesus did not come to create another exclusive religion” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 109). This is again where one sees their rejection of an exclusively Christian metanarrative: “Complex understandings meant for all people, in all places, for all times, are simply not possible” (Doug Pagitt, “The Emerging Church and Embodied Theology,” Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, ed. Robert Webber, p. 137.). This acceptance of diversity affects how the Emergent movement explains theology relative to evangelism and global missions. Again, McLaren: “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260). Some even strongly recommend not just reading, but, apparently, meditating on literature from other religions. Rob Bell suggests: “For a mind blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine creativity, set aside three months and read Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, p. 192, note 143). Ken Wilber is an expert in eastern mystical (especially Buddhist) philosophies, yet hailed here by Bell as though he were a revolutionary evangelical. However, there is little room for religious tolerance in Scripture (Ex 34:14; Deut 6:13; Acts 4:12; Rev 2:14-16), and, as Mark Driscoll asserts, “To bring all religions together, Emergent Liberals will need to compromise the doctrinal truths of Christianity even further” (Mark Driscoll, “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway,” Christian Research Journal, Volume 31, No. 04, p. 20.).

Religious diversity and tolerance slide fretfully close to universalism. McLaren suggests that “Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue . . . . the future of our planet may depend on such dialog” (Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 7). Rob Bell has frequently been accused of flirting with universalism by chastising Christianity for its emphasis on the affirmation of Heaven and Hell: “A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear” (Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, p. viii). The distinctiveness of Christianity ridicules the craze of diversity. In the OT, worship of the one true God was a system of exclusivity; no divine competition, even if imaginary, nor any form of allegiance to such was tolerated (Ex 20:3-5; Deut 6:14; 32:39; 2 Kings 17:35; Is 45:5-6; 47:8, 10; Jer 25:6). Christianity takes its cue from the OT and emphasizes the exclusivity of Christ for salvation (John 10:9; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Eph 2:18; 3:12; 1 Tim 2:5). It is hard to argue for the validity of a diversity of thought systems in light of these texts. After all, if one has the truth, anything else would be a dilution of that truth.

MOMENTOUS MOMENTS: Sailing Toward Columbus, 1492

When you were in school, you probably learned the rhyme: “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.”

But from the way this event is popularly portrayed, one senses that Columbus suddenly up and decided to sail into dangerous and uncharted water. Some in Columbus’s day presumed that anyone sailing too far west would encounter unspeakably hideous sea creatures, or worse, fall off the edge of the earth. Columbus’s reasons for undertaking this voyage, therefore, must have been extraordinary in the face of such allegedly potential risks. In some cases Columbus’s motives have been vilified, and in other instances, his exploits have been heroized. It seems that every generation reads their own visionary or vindictive intentions into his expeditions (John Noble Wilford, “Columbus and the Labyrinth of History” The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 [Autumn, 1991], p. 66). What is certain, is that centuries of necessary prerequisite events and circumstances preceded Columbus’s 1492 voyage, which subsequently became perhaps the most successful failure in human history.

To understand what motivated Columbus to make his historic voyage – and Ferdinand and Isabella to fund it – we must go back several centuries before Columbus to the periodic “Crusades.” The Crusades between the 1090s and the late-1200s were fought in the middle east between Europeans and Muslims mainly over the possession of Jerusalem. In their Crusading exploits, European noblemen and knights discovered and enjoyed the luxuries of both the middle-east, but especially of the far east, and would bring these goods back with them to their European homes. This magnified a hunger among Europeans for the luxuries that the far east had to offer, especially spices, silk, perfume, and draperies. Marco Polo’s travels to China in the 1270s through 1290s further whetted Europe’s appetite for these commodities.

These luxuries were prohibitively expensive, however. The first reason was because of the distance that they needed to travel. Also, land travel was dangerous; trade routes like the Silk Road or the Spice Route were often blocked by Ottomans, or Mongols, or common robbers. Additionally, unsympathetic Muslims imposed heavy tolls on merchants who passed through their lands. Once past Muslim territory, many of the goods passed through Italian cities that charged additional distribution fees. A shorter, water-based mode of transport was needed that minimized the danger and the excessive tolls of land travel, and that broke the monopoly that Italian cities had on the distribution of Eastern goods (Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy, The American Pageant, Eighth Edition [Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1987], p. 3).

Other factors in Europe contributed to Columbus’s daring voyage. The European Renaissance of the early 1400’s bread an optimism and “venturesomeness” (ibid.) among European leaders. As medieval feudal lands coalesced into nations, these nations could better afford to sponsor the explorational programs of ambitious monarchs. Better maps and improved maritime technology such as the navigational compass and the sternpost rudder, made farther seafaring possible.

Rivalry also motivated explorational endeavors in the late 1400s. Portugal’s exploration program was booming; the Portuguese explorer Bartholomew Diaz was the first European to sail around the tip of Africa in 1488. And, not long after Columbus set sail, the Portuguese-sponsored explorer Vasco da Gama led the first fleet to sail from Europe around Africa to India, arriving in Calicut in 1498. Both for economic and nationalistic reasons, other lagging countries wanted to catch up, especially Portugal’s neighbor and nemesis, Spain. Spain had united under Ferdinand II, King of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, and thus was able to pool its resources and compete with Portugal’s seafaring endeavors. Spain’s growing nationalism resulted in the capitulation of Muslims in Moorish-held lands on the Iberian peninsula, the strengthening of Catholicism, and the sending of Italian-born Christopher Columbus west in 1492.

The goal, of course, for Columbus, was to head west from Europe and land in Asia. This would provide for non-Italian European countries a direct route to procure goods from the far east. This was a flawless plan, to be sure, except for the gigantic land mass that innocently stood in the way of this endeavor. Columbus landed in the Bahamas later in 1492, persuaded that he had reached Asia. He took a total of four voyages to the Americas between 1492 and 1504, and remained convinced to his death in 1506 that he had reached the East Indies. In fact, he was so certain of this, that he named the inhabitants of the New World “Indians,” an inaccuracy that we repeat to the present day. In his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith observed, “The discovery of America, and that of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, are the two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind” (Wealth of Nations, Penn State Electronic Classics edition [1776], republished 2005, p.508). While somewhat of an overstatement, this tip o’ the hat to Columbus propagates a historical misnomer that academic honesty cannot allow. Columbus, in fact, did not “discover America,” for it had already been seen by Vikings, perhaps by seafaring Asians and Africans, and had already (for millennia!) been inhabited by native Americans. What he did do, however, was popularize the Americas to a Europe that was poised and eager to expand and conquer. As some historians have noted, Columbus simply put “two old worlds into permanent contact” (“AHA Endorses Quincentenary Statement,” Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 8, November 1991). But this is, of course, his abiding legacy: he connected the Eastern hemisphere of Europe, Africa and Asia with the Western hemisphere of North and South America in a way that they hadn’t been connected before, primarily through trade and conquest.

There were, of course, negative and surely unintended consequences of these voyages. As a result of too much new land and not enough hands, the adolescent African-European slave market blossomed when the Americas were added to this triangle. And another unfortunate ethnological effect of the voyages of Columbus, as well as those of later explorers to the Americas, was the devastation of the Native American population. Some died as a result of the introduction of alcohol, and many by superior European military might (sometimes in conflicts started or sustained by Europeans, and sometimes in those started or sustained by Indians). However, most Indians died by exposure to European diseases for which the Native Americans had developed no immunity.

The voyage of Columbus in 1492 was based on a variety of motivations, from conquest to capitalism; from a desire to encourage foreign trade to a desire to disentangle from foreign tolls. It was an array of multi-layered reasons that led to Columbus’s sea-faring adventures, and, as with most momentous moments, there were multi-dimensional results that ensued.

The painting above is John Vanderlyn’s, “Columbus Landing at Guanahani, 1492” (1847) currently in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

EXPLAINING THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD: Part 5, Philo and Josephus

Philo the philosopher and Josephus the historian are two Jewish men who contributed profoundly to our understanding of the intertestamental period, a 400 year era that spans the writing of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Philo Judaeus (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE), also called Philo of Alexandria, lived in Alexandria early in the first century CE. He used Greek philosophical language and images to interpret Jewish biblical traditions. He interprets Moses not only as a lawgiver but also a philosopher who is the source of all later philosophy. Philo is best known for his allegorical approach to Scriptural interpretation. For instance, in his commentary on Genesis, Philo describes Abraham’s journeys as symbolic of the moral journeys of life.

His allegorical approach was widely accepted by many early church fathers, most notably, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Following Philo’s precedent, Augustine interprets Genesis 1-3 symbolically: The four rivers represent the four cardinal sins, the fig leaves signify hypocrisy, and the skins with which Adam and Eve were clothed symbolize their humanity.

Philo also popularized the idea of the divine logos, or “word.” Greek philosophy saw the logos, as both a spoken word, but also the ordering principle of the universe and the capacity of reason. Philo took this idea of logos one step further to describe the link between the creator God and the created reality. He sees it as an entity separate from and yet subordinate to God. The Apostle John uses this idea of the divine logos, or “the Word” to describe Christ as the revealer of the Creator to the creation as well as the assisting force of creation (John 1:1, 14; 14:7; 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). To John, the logos is “the divine word, a self-communicating divine presence that existed with God and was uniquely manifested in Jesus Christ” (William, A. Beardslee, “Logos,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, p. 463).

Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – 100 CE) is the most important Jewish historian from the first century CE. He was born in Jerusalem as Yosef ben Mattityahu. He spent his teen years as a member of the Essenes and he later had connections with the Pharisees. He was appointed as a general at the beginning of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66 CE. He was captured by the Romans in what was seen by his compatriots to be an questionable and unpatriotic act. He predicted that the Roman general Vespasian would become an emperor. When this came true, he became an important part of Vespasian’s entourage, as well as that of his successor, Titus. His writings The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities provide a great deal of information about the history of the Intertestamental period and the first century CE. Later in his life he wrote a work entitled Against Apion which was a defense of the Jews in light of the strong anti-Semitism of his day.

Josephus was somewhat of a tragic figure. While he attained some fame and prominence, he was viewed as a traitor by the Jews, and perceived as too Jewish-leaning by his Roman associates. He just didn’t seem to have an accepting audience save for future scholars. While not always perfectly accurate, and sometimes writing with a discernibly pro-Rome slant, Josephus’ history is relatively reliable. It gives us a glimpse into intertestamental events and it is extremely important for understanding the historical and cultural milieu of first century Judaism and Christianity. Early Christians and church fathers devoured Josephus, both his historical insights as well as his perspectives on Old Testament texts.

While not easy reads, Philo and Josephus are of inestimable value for understanding the Intertestamental period.

READER FEEDBACK

More feedback about the Open Letter to Sarah Palin: “Right on the money with the letter to Sarah Palin. I agree wholeheartedly!”

Also, some feedback on our series on the “Essentials of the Faith”: “For some great reading re[garding] the five ‘fundamentals’ of the Christian faith, The Fundamentals for Today (Charles Feinberg, ed., Kregel, 1958) is an anthology of scholarly essays by men who stood against modernism at the beginning of the last century. Their writing is anything but outmoded, however—these insightful articles will help any believer sort out some critical theological issues in an interesting and inspiring fashion. I highly recommend this book.”

And, regarding our article on John William’s soundtrack for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, one reader confirmed that there is a more complete release of the soundtrack for Episode 1, which you can find at Amazon by clicking here. And it looks to me like most of the soundtrack is in its proper movie order, which as we discussed in the article, was a criticism of the original release soundtrack. This extended release also comes complete with a cover that is bound to scare little kids!

Come give our Facebook page a “like” and chime in our some of our “Eclectic Questions” under the discussions tab, like, “What About the Budget, Deux?” and “How Important Are The Social Implications of the Gospel?”

Note: Since this was written the “Eclectic Questions” and “discussions tab” functionality has been removed from Facebook pages (drat you, Facebook!). Anyway, we don't have these questions listed anymore like we used to, but if you want to sound off on any of these issues feel free to simply post your reply on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.