SEPTEMBER 2011

    Welcome to The Eclectic Kasper, a web journal about all kinds of topics! My forte is religion and history, but I like to dabble in music, pop-culture, politics, and other fields, too. If you see anything below that you enjoy, come and give us a "like" at our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page and you can leave a comment there.      If you have any thoughts or suggestions for the web journal or about any of our articles, feel free to send a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com.  We want your input, and we welcome any different opinions and perspectives that you may have.  We look forward to having you join this eclectic conversation!

    The erhu, similar to a violin but with only two strings, is a uniquely Asian instrument producing an ethereal and soulful sound. The CD insert describes it like this: “The bow is fashioned out of horsehair, the two strings are from steel, and the resonator is covered with snakeskin—usually python—which gives the erhu its mystical, voice-like quality.” This “voice-like quality” is what makes erhu music so compelling; even in some of the lighter melodies, the erhu sounds philosophical and sober.    The CD begins with “Muleteer” which is exotic and multi-layered, while remaining earthy and accessible. The intermix of string and percussion instruments with the flute creates a distinctive sound.

    In terms of the songs that appear the most “authentic,” I would go with “The Four Seasons,” “Flower Drum,” “Dating,” and “Rendevous in the Yurt.” In many of these songs, I enjoy the interchange between the erhu and the flute (probably a dizi) as they sometimes trade the melody back-and-forth, sometimes carry the melody together, and sometimes dance harmoniously around one another. And, again, the music is discernibly foreign, but without being screechy and unapproachable.

    The erhu-playing on this CD is very unpretentious. While there is the occasional trill, the music is not dominated with runs and slides only to show off the artist’s talent. Rather, the goal seems to be the blend of the instruments, and not letting any of them stand out too prominently, nor burying any of them, either. I especially sensed this when listening to “The Hill Looks Like a Bottle.” Similarly, the seeming effortlessness with which Lei Qiang makes the erhu slide silkily from note to note, as in “The Faraway Place” and “The Faraway Voice,” is surely more enjoyable than if he were merely showing off technical aspects of erhu-playing expertise.

    The tone of some of the songs is contemplative and impressionistic, like “Song from Shandong,” “Lullaby,” and “The Far Away Place,” and “Crescent Moon Before Dawn.” They flow along smoothly, but unpredictably, and lead the listener with ageless profundity. “The Menjiang Girl,” almost sounds Celtic and pastoral at points, while “Amazing Red Sun” and “Morning Star Lily” are playful and dancing. In contrast, “Nostalgia” is pining and sad, and yet rediscovers a lightheartedness toward the end of the song. My favorites on this CD are probably “Muleteer,” “Picking Flowers,” and “Crescent Moon Before Dawn.”

    Again, this album is a great entry point to expand your appreciation of Chinese music and culture and to overcome the awkward transition that sometimes occurs when trying to do so.

EMERGENT CONCERNS: Epistemology And Burgers

    “Epistemology” is a big deal to postmodern thinkers, and therefore, to those in the Emergent church movement. While science, philosophy, and theology generally encompass the question, What do you know?, epistemology asks the question, How do you know what you know? Epistemology describes the nature of knowledge and deals with questions like, How do you really know that what you think is real is really real? and How do you know that you can trust the things that you believe?

    Epistemological distrust is increasingly significant in popular media. The Matrix franchise and, more recently, the movie Inception dabble with the idea that reality is not as real as you think, but rather, bendable, like a spoon.  In The Matrix, for instance, the basic predominant understanding (not “belief,” but understanding and perception) is that people are living in the prosperous late twentieth century, when, in fact, this turns out to not be the case at all.  In reality, “There is no spoon.”     Modernists, on the other hand, broadly affirm philosophical realism, the idea that something is real independently of whether or not I perceive it to be real (this is similar, but not synonymous, to the correspondence theory of truth). The fact that many people perceive an object in similar ways affirms the objectivity and intrinsic character of that object. Post-moderns, however, trust nothing, because they perceive no basis for knowing if what can be seen and what they perceive as real, is, in fact, real. This coincides with a postmodern distrust in any metanarrative, or system of thought, that claims to be knowable and that purports to have foundational answers for life’s questions. Similarly, Emergents find it fashionable to discuss epistemology and to employ skepticism regarding if what we believe is true and real. The irony, is that in an attempt to incarnate “epistemological humility” (Kevin Corcoran, “Who’s Afraid of Philosophical Realism?”, Church in the Present Tense, p. 3), they reflect a deep disdain for pre-modern and modern metanarratives and methods.

    I believe that discussions about epistemology potentially skew the simplicity of language and faith and makes the perception of reality and the apprehension of truth more complicated than it really is.

    For instance, when I sit down to consume a burger, I don’t consider my a posteriori response to the burger (as might Aristotle), nor do I consider it a mere shadow of the ideal burger (à la, Plato). I don’t question whether the burger is real or not (as with philosophical anti-realism), and I have no basis on which to assume that the burger is not real (as does Cypher with his steak in The Matrix). I simply consume it, devour it, with little or no thought to the metaphysics of or my epistemological relationship to the burger. I suspect that even postmoderns and Emergents approach their burgers with this same philosophical realism that unquestioningly trusts in the objective qualities of their meals.

    Nor should epistemology be skewed by subjectivism. Subjectivism, focuses on the individual’s perception of an experience, and when taken to the extreme, emphasizes how these perceptions give reality to an object. For instance, you may say that my perception of the burger is only one person’s subjective (or prejudiced) observation: That burger means something unique to me. However, if thousands or millions of people the world over have perceptions of burgers that are akin to mine, than subjectivism fades quickly into objectivism, and epistemology concretizes. My subjective perception that burgers are tasty is so commonly shared that there are a variety of global burger chains (McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, etc.); a veritable international market based on the fact that most people think that burgers are tasty. And while various chains can peddle variations of the ideal burger (oops, we’re slipping back toward Plato again!), we know that the industry would not be so wide-spread if the tastiness of burgers were not objectified by the masses.

    I’m using a trite example here, of course, to prove a much bigger point; namely that life and reality is not as unknowable and subjective as post-moderns or Emergents want us to believe. If an astounding majority of people on the globe have the subjective experience that thorns are sharp, or that rainbows are colorful, or that burgers are tasty, this verifies the objective (mind-independent) nature and character of these phenomenon. Those opinions cease to be based merely on subjective perceptions and anecdotal evidence. There is something about thorns and rainbows and burgers which innately reflects real qualities.

    Similarly, Christian truth is objective and absolute whether the post-modern perceives it to be or not. It doesn’t matter how many people know it, or agree with it. However, “Postmodern epistemology does not recognize a discernable, objective meaning to any biblical text, so what a text ‘means’ to one reader it may not ‘mean’ to another” (David Kowalski, “Surrender is not an Option: An Evaluation of Emergent Epistemology”). This postmodern approach has slithered into the way Emergent believers perceive the Bible.  Emergent blogster Tony Jones claims: “Emergent doesn’t have a position on absolute truth, or on anything for that matter. Do you show up at a dinner party with your neighbors and ask, ‘What’s this dinner party’s position on absolute truth?’ No, you don't, because it’s a non-sensical question” (Tony Jones, http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2005/11/national-youth-workers-convention.html).

    The distrust of realism also breeds a distrust of language with which we describe reality. Evangelicals affirm either explicitly or in practice, a referential theory of language, or the idea that words refer to reality rather than create reality. Thus, language is more objective in meaning, rather than ambiguous, and subjective to each individual person. In fact, I imagine that when the postmodern-thinking emergent turns to his emergent friend and says that the burger that he has just consumed was “good,” “tasty,” “meaty” or “zesty,” he is utilizing the modernist referential theory of language. He expects his counterpart to recognize his assessment of the burger based on the straight-forward use of language.

    Evangelicals affirm that the cognitive content of Scripture is based on straight-forward Scriptural assertions. I can read the Bible and interpret it normally, by which I mean that I can interpret it in a uncomplicated, non-metaphorical fashion unless the use of a figure of speech is obvious. The meaning is inherent in the text, and not created by the reader. Evangelicals often say that the text means one thing to one person and something different to another, but this is sloppy epistemology. What we mean to say (and probably should say) is that the text means only one thing and this singular meaning has multiple applications to different people in different circumstance.

    Emergents perceive that language is too subjective to be meaningful between two audiences, especially if those audiences are separated geographically, temporally, or socio-politically. Emergent poster boy Rob Bell suggests: “The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can’t be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, p. 32.).

    There is so much about this statement that is wrong, so I’ll try to keep my comments brief. First, I reject the postmodern fetish with “mystery,” and I propose that at the core of Christianity is not “mystery” but rather, “mystery revealed” (Dan 2:18-19; Mark 4:11; Rom 11:25; Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:4-5; Col 1:26-27; 1 Tim 3:9; Rev 1:20; 17:7).  Scripture is not about obscuring and hiding truth, but rather, revealing truth that people would not have been able to know otherwise. Second, nobody disagrees that the fullness of God cannot be explained by human language. On the other hand, however, significant aspects of God's actions and attributes cannot be communicated without it. Language does not fail, but rather, it is God’s chosen medium for revelation of God and of Christ (who is, meaningfully, referred to as the “Word” of God in John 1:1, 1:14; 1 John 1:1 and Rev 19:13!). We don’t have to emphasize the “mysterious unknown” about God given how much there is about God that we can know.

    By the way, I find it ironic that an Emergent like Bell would use language as a means of communicating how insufficient language is to communicate truth!  (Yes, I'm pretty sure that sentence made sense!) This distrust of language is all the more disturbing coming from someone who makes mega-coin by speaking and by selling books!! If Bell believes that Christian spirituality really “can’t be put into words,” then I suggest he stop writing and speaking about spiritual matters, and try communicating via interpretative dance instead.

    The goal of Scripture is “to know” God, and to be able to achieve an adequate certainty of him through language and verbal imagery. In fact, we can have knowledge of God and of our salvation with a high level of assurance and certainty (note the use of the word “full assurance” or “complete understanding” [plerophoria in the Greek] in Col 2:2, 1 Thess 1:5, Heb 6:11 and 10:22). We may be bullied or coerced (usually by means of language!) into a sense that language is not sufficient to appreciate the fullness of faith. Brian McLaren has stated of proclaimed Christian truth that, “Life isn’t that simple, answers aren’t that clear, and nothing is that sure” (A New Kind of Christian, 14). Such mystical malarkey may sound sacerdotal, but it is simply wrong. We may be perceived as simple-minded and even naïve when we proclaim that the foundation of our beliefs is sure simply because, “The Bible tells me so.” And, emergent epistemology has provided no surer framework for establishing faith than in the unambiguous revelation of God through the Bible.

POLITICS: Jefferson vs. Hamilton on Federal and State Rights

    I had the privilege of doing a candid interview with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton recently. I didn’t want to bring in modern video equipment or a recording apparatus, as I thought that such modern technology would startle them both. However, these men of tremendous intelligence dialogued with such velocity and dexterity, that I had a hard time keeping up, so I have had to reconstruct their debate from my disheveled notes. In this series, I will attempt to represent this discussion as best as I can over the different topics that were discussed.

    I had hardly sat down at the elegant oak table with Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton before they started bickering. No pleasantries were exchanged; they picked up as though already steeped into heavy debate. I tried to interject a few questions over the long course of the discussion. However, these men, both fierce political rivals, hardly noticed my presence in the room – a mere child to these magnificent minds.

    The topic at first was the rights of states verses the power of the “common,” or federal government. The shrewd Mr. Hamilton quickly unsheathed his agenda for a strong central government that bound the states together. “A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”<1>  With Independency from Britain still fresh in the minds of the founding fathers, I found his comments on the strength of the federal government compelling. Mr. Hamilton expressed concerns about the growing influence of certain states and their individual agendas: “I see that influence already penetrating into the national councils and preventing their direction.”<2>  From his perspective, the trajectory of the national government could easily be skewed in favor of larger states.

    Mr. Jefferson dexterously countered in favor of individuals’ and states’ rights. “I am not a friend to a very energetic government.” By “energetic” I believed him to imply a government that was too intrusive into the affairs of states and individuals. He calmly continued, that a central government is: “Always oppressive. It places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people.”<3>  After citing several examples at rapid-fire speed, he summarized, “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption.”<4>

    Mr. Hamilton parried that he was not insensitive to the rights of individuals and states, and thus proposed a matrix for whether a federal law is Constitutional or not: “Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any state or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favor of its constitutionality.”<5>  I recall thinking, however, that this approach opens the door perhaps more than Mr. Hamilton realizes for the federal government to intrude on the rights of the states.

    Mr. Hamilton’s control over the discussion slipped in deference to Mr. Jefferson at this point. Mr. Jefferson was concerned that the country was too large geographically to allow central government to have too much power: “What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general [central] government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best—that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.”<6>

    The two sparred for some time over this issue and many other facts and figures flew back and forth. However, Mr. Jefferson contended strenuously for a limited central government, for minimal federal regulations especially over free enterprise, and for avoiding excessive entanglement with foreign countries. In one lunge, he summarized these issues relative to a limited central government in a way that resonated deeply with me: “Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage themselves. . . . Our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one: a few plain duties to be performed by a few [public] servants.”<7>

    The conversation inevitably drove deeper into a discussion about the interpretation of the U. S. Constitution, a discussion I found to be hauntingly germane to my own day. I shall deliver their amazing insights in the next installment of “Jefferson vs. Hamilton.”

Footnotes: 

1. Alexander Hamilton, “The Federalist No. 9,” Independent Journal, Wednesday, November 21, 1787.

2. Alexander Hamilton, in a Letter to Edward Carrington, May 26, 1792.

3. Thomas Jefferson, in a Letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787.

4. Thomas Jefferson, in a Letter to W. T. Barry, 1822.

5. Alexander Hamilton, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank,” Feb 23, 1791.

6. Thomas Jefferson, in a Letter to Gideon Granger of Connecticut, August 13, 1800.

7. Ibid.

EXPLAINING THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD: Part 6, The Dead Sea Scrolls

    This is the last installment in our series on Intertestamental History. Hopefully you have seen that the four hundred years between the Old and New Testaments were filled with significant events, origins, and writings (such as the Septuagint, the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha). This political, military and documentary history contributes greatly to our understanding of first century religious and philosophical milieu in which the New Testament documents were written. We conclude this study with one of the greatest archeological and textual finds of the twentieth century, namely, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls (hereafter, DSS) are several collections of ancient writings from the 2nd century BCE to the mid first century CE. They comprise the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found. They were discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves near the northwest shores of the Dead Sea near the ruins at Khirbet Qumran. Qumran is associated with the Essenes, a monastic group that had separated from the Jerusalem priesthood, though the precious nature and function of the Qumran settlement is still hotly debated. It is thought that the members of the community hid these documents in the caves before the Roman invasion of the region in 68 CE.