I started this blog on a whim last fall, posted a couple of posts, and gave up on blogging.  I do enjoy reading others’ blogs, and I do think that there are people out there writing some really valuable posts.  However, there are really only a few blogs I read, and I feel that a significant amount of blogs that are essentially meaningless.  Which has made me think, what is purpose of me blogging? Is there any worth to this blog, any value that it offers to anyone? to me?

Well, a lot has changed for me since a year ago.  I’ve graduated from college, left Seattle, and moved to San Diego to embark on graduate education in biochemistry.  These past few years I have been thinking quite a bit about Science and Christian theology and the relationship between the two.  Now that I’m starting a Ph.D. program, I’ve been wondering: what does it mean for me to be a scientist? A Christian scientist? What kind of voice can I be and perspectives can I bring to the Christian community? To the Scientific community? So in light of all this, I’m going to attempt to make this blog about current issues in Science, Theology, and the relationship between.  Maybe it will be nothing more than a glorified excuse for a journal, but so be it. Hopefully someone will read it every once in a while.

Jars of Clay was my first favorite band, and has continued to be one of my favorite bands (along with U2).  Dan Haseltine is perhaps one of the best lyrical writers today.  So I may be a little biased to their music, but their new release – Christmas Songs – is both fresh and reminiscent of their earlier sounds (think title album).  In fact, I can’t think of a better pop/rock Christmas album than Christmas Songs.  So, when I saw an article in Christianity Today giving Christmas Songs 3.5 stars, I was extremely surprised. How they heck could Josh Groban get more stars on a Christmas album? Is this a joke?

The CCM is in a sad state, stuck in recycled sounds, unauthentic, overused lyrics, and consumerism, and Jars of Clay has seemed to never be apart of this. So its sad to see Christianity Today not even giving a little respect to the best authentically Christian band in contemporary history. 

It seems that everybody loves this place, so I decided to give it a try when I was walking by it.  I got a double espresso.  Considering how hyped this place is, I was really disappointed.  The espresso was okay – a little bit tangy, but mostly a slightly charred flavor.  It was watery and too hot.  Bauhaus had a neat feeling, and there was a ton of people there, but the coffee was mediocre.

John Piper’s new book, The Future of Justification, is now available to purchase or download.

Flipping through the pdf for a couple minutes, its pretty obvious that Piper disagrees quite a bit with Wright, but seems to still be respectful of him, which is good to see. Basically, Piper argues that God’s righteousness is imputed to believers through Christ’s sacrifice, and Paul’s understanding of the gospel is primarily how people get saved (i.e., through justification). Wright argues differently on both points here, which is why Piper wrote the book.

It seems the primary reason Piper wrote this book is because he thinks Wright’s ideas are bad for the Church. Since I haven’t read the entire book, I can’t comment on his full perspective. But, I wonder, how detrimental could Wright’s perspective be? Piper seems to have a very individualistic perspective on the Christian life – couldn’t Wright’s view, which may lead to more community, actually be a good thing? Wright’s view leans toward a community and covenantal understanding of our relationships with God, where as Piper’s tend to be more spiritually individualistic. Which one is actually more detrimental?

As I read Piper’s perspectives on multiple issues, it seems a lot of his theology stems from a judgmental “Father” of the trinity. In Piper’s view, the “Father” God is totally against us – until Jesus comes along and saves us. And unless you are a part of God’s chosen people, the “Father” will be totally against you, you will be predestined to hell. There seems to be a division between the Father and Son in Piper’s view. It’s actually quite confusing. In Wright’s perspective, there is no predestination – God’s entire interaction with people (through Israel, through Christ) can be understood in covenantal terms. Taking the two side by side, Wright’s perspective tells of a trinity that is harmony with one another – the Son carrying out the works of the Father. In Piper’s view, the Father and the Son are separated and seem to have different motives. Perhaps this is not the best interpretation of Piper’s words (especially with the relatively limited amount of Piper’s writing I have read), but when it really comes down to it, which perspective is more detrimental? I would argue that in fact, it’s Piper’s views that are more detrimental – not Wright’s. I’ll continue to read Piper’s book and his other writings in order to understand it better – but I hope people don’t just through Wright out the window because the big name of Piper doesn’t like his non-Reformed perspectives.

On an entirely different note, and not to resort to Piper bashing (because he has reached many people for Christ through his ministry in Minnesota), but what is up with Piper’s views of men and women? It seems that in his view, men are suppose to do all of the important stuff, while women need to know their place. All of his views of manhood and womanhood are more societal than they are scriptural. He constantly reads his own view into scripture to make it seem that the Bible supports his views. But seriously, what does the Church have to gain from suppressing 50% of the Church from being full sisters in Christ? In his perspective, the entire definition of womanhood is in relation to manhood; Whatever he thinks “manhood” is – courageous, leaders/pastors, etc, women cannot be that – they just need to support men. Obviously, he is against women preaching – but he even goes as far to suggest that female preaching is “simply casual and conversational” while male preaching is strong and forceful. How is this not detrimental to the Church? Why do Christian leaders continue to oppress women and use the Bible to justify it? Can the Holy Spirit not work through women to give spiritual insight in the same way as men? Yes, men and women are different. But if we look at pre-fall humanity, the way God created humanity and intended it to be, we see not a complementarian relationship, but an equal partnership. Read more on Piper’s so called “Biblical Manhood” here.

Another review of a coffee shop! This time, another Greenwood/Phinney Ridge location. 

Herkimer Coffee (http://www.herkimercoffee.com/)

Herkimer Coffee’s main location is located in Phinney Ridge on Greenwood Ave, with another location in Ravenna. The roast on-site – something they started doing relatively recently. The Phinney Ridge location has ample seating, with a very contemporary feeling – like Victrola of Caffe Vita.

Espresso: Herkimer Espresso

Bean Origin: NA

Straight Shot: Very surprising – it reminded me of Stumptown’s Hair Bender espresso (not a bad thing!). The double had a medium body with a deep brown crema and chocolate flavors. It was rich, complex, smooth, and a little bit sweet. Overall, a pretty good shot.

In Milk: Intensity diminished in milk, but not to the point that it wasn’t recognizable. Thankfully, it was still smooth and sweet.

Overall, I was surprised at how good Herkimer Coffee ended up being. The environment was comfortable, with enough area to hang out or study. Their espresso was also very good – better than a lot of places in Seattle. It seems that they only had two types of coffee available – “espresso” and “drip”, so it would be nice to see more coffee offerings in the future. If you’re in the area, make sure to give it a try!

Like I said earlier, I love trying new coffee shops, and Seattle has a plethora of them – which is great.  However, not everyone you try can be good.  Unfortunately that was the case with Diva Espresso.  Shortly after leaving 7 Coffee Roasters, I saw Diva Espresso on the corner of 80th and Greenwood Ave.  Why not give it a try too, I thought.  So here it is. 

Diva Espresso – (http://www.divaespresso.com/)

The shop is tiny, with a quirky Victorian age feel. Lots of pictures of princesses and queens. Nice people working.

Espresso: Highlands Blend

Bean Origin: No ideaStraight Shot: Ugh. Thats what comes to mind when I tasted this. The crema had a good medium body, but didn’t really taste like much. The body didn’t have much consistency, no complexity, and just tasted burnt. The double was extremely hot – I think their machine was running way to hot, and it just burned the shot. I really can’t describe what it tasted like…couldn’t make much out other than carbon, overwhelming, and burning.

In Milk: I didn’t even bother. Hopefully the milk would mask some of the bad espresso.

This is really a bummer post to make. It’s no fun to knock on independent coffee shops – especially those that roast their own beans locally. Diva Espresso even helps support bean growers families. But….the coffee was just plain terrible. You can get better coffee at Peet’s, possibly Tully’s, and (gasp) maybe even Starbucks. I hate to say it, but it just was not good. If you’re in the area, just go to 7 Coffee Roasters – its much better. Sorry if you’re reading this and you love Diva Espresso. Maybe I just had a bad experience, and its actually decent. I hope that’s the case.

I love trying new cafe/roasteries – shops that not only serve espresso but roast their own. Seattle seems to have a lot of these – not necessarily all are good, but its fun to visit new places.  I randomly came across an article about a relatively new micro-roaster in Seattle (as of Jan 2007) in Greenwood, so I thought I would give it a try.

7 Coffee Roasters – (http://www.7roasters.com/)

7 Coffee roasters is located on the corners of 78th and Greenwood Ave in the Greenwood district of Seattle. I haven’t really ventured to this part of Seattle, well, ever, so its new to me. The cafe/roastery is located in an old brick building – and the store itself isn’t upscale or even much to look at. It feels like a larger version of Blue Bottle Coffee’s Hayes Valley kiosk in SF, with some seating. But they roast their beans at the site – so its fresh.

Espresso: Espresso Huli

Bean Origin: Brazil, Sumatra, Guatemala, and Ethopia

Straight Shot: Bright, sweet, and light crema. The body had chocolate and berry notes, with good complexity. While it had a good finish, it left a little to be desired in overall body and intensity. There was a long line and only one person working, and she didn’t really get a chance to dial into her grinder, so this could have been part of the problem. Given another try, I think the blend might have a little more to give. Overall, pretty good shot.

In Milk: Chocolate flavors persist, with considerable persistence of intensity. Does very well.

Overall, my 7 Coffee Roasters experience was very good. The espresso was good – not quite at the level of Victrola/Vita/Vivace/etc., but much better than Cafe Ladro or Uptown Espresso, and closely approaching Caffe Fiore. Thats a pretty good accomplishment for a place that opened up 8 months ago. If you are in Greenwood, or just like coffee, make sure to give 7 Coffee Roasters a try.

The Christian doctrine of “Justification” is one that I feel is less understood by Christians in America.  Ask a Christian about salvation and they will likely be able to give you a relatively accurate description (depending on their Christian tradition).  However, it seems that this justification thing is much more confusing and difficult to understand.  What exactly do the NT writer, specifically Paul, mean by justification? How has the Church historically interpreted it? And what does the Church (and contemporary theologians) think of it now? N.T. Wright and John Piper are two very popular voices in Christian communities today, however they have very different perspectives on some issues.

John Piper is a more conservative Reformed Calvinist and caters to many protestants in the US.  He has written many books, including Desiring God, along with a ministry of the same name.  He is a pastor at a very popular church in Minnesota.

N.T. Wright has a moderate evangelical perspective, and is the Bishop of Durham in the Anglican church.  He is one of the premier NT scholars, especially on Paul and Pauline letters.  While he is involved with the New Perspective on Paul, a wave on new interpretations of Paul which has developed in the past few decades, he has a more traditional and conservative perspective than many of the liberal theologians involved in the New Perspective.  He has become very popular with younger, more moderate Christians and theologians, particularly the emerging church (although he doesn’t agree with many emerging ideas). 

So, whats the big deal about these guys – and what do they have to do with the doctrine of justification? Well, they both have very differing interpretations of what justification is and means for us today.  N.T. Wright has written considerably on justification, with a perspective that is different from post-reformation and modern thinking (a la John Piper), but (as Wright thinks) much closer to the 1st Century Judaism Paul was writing from.  In response, Piper has been very critical of N.T. Wright’s views (as have other US conservative Reformed theologians) and is writing an upcoming book adressing Wright’s view of justification specifically, titled The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. So, how do their perspectives differ – and what does it hold for the Church?

N.T. Wright – You can find an overview of his perspective here.  Basically, he argues that justification is based on the Jewish understanding of the law court.  God, based on Christ’s past accomplishment, rightly finds favor in those who believe in Christ in the present, in expectation of the future resurrection.  Justification is the declaration by God that someone is righteous and a part of the covenant community.  Justification isn’t about how someone becomes part of the covenant community (those to be resurrected in the future), but that they are a part of the covenant community.  Wright argues that “the Gospel” is the good news that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, has been crucified and rose from the dead, and is Lord; its not a formula for how people get saved.  Salvation, the gospel, and justification are all intertwined, but they are not the same thing or the same event.

Piper disagrees with pretty much all of this, arguing that God’s righteousness is imputed to people (not a declaration as Wright thinks). Piper thinks “the Gospel” is primarily how people get saved, and salvation and justification occur at the same moment – when God turns from being against the person to being totally for the person.

It will be interesting to see what Piper has to say in his book.  He has been very respectful of N.T. Wright, although he claims that his perspective on justification is not inline with post-reformation thinking, and is detrimental to the doctrine of justification.  But really, what is more important: hanging on to the tradition of reformation thinking, or genuinely trying to understand what justification meant in a 1st Century Jewish setting? I’m not saying the reformation thinking is wrong – but just because it has been around for 400 years, does that make it right? Couldn’t Wright’s view possibly be good for the Church? It surely is “fresh”.

Although I may be partial to Wright’s view, both Piper and Wright have said that their view makes more sense of Paul’s intent and the 1st Century Jewish setting.  Who is right – or is either right?

More on N.T. Wright.

More on John Piper’s critique of N.T. Wright.

To date, I haven’t found any decent reviews of Seattle’s coffee microroaster/cafes (If you have found one, let me know).  So, I thought I might do a small review of what I think are the best coffee shops in the Seattle area.

Since there are hundreds of coffee shops in Seattle, I only focused on those places that roast their own beans.  Major chains such as Starbucks, Peet’s, and Tully’s were left out because it is obvious better coffee can be found elsewhere.  Places like Cafe D’Arte, Caffe Ladro, and El Diablo Coffee were left out because I don’t think they are great.  Others are absent because I haven’t been there.  I based the rankings primarily on how good their espresso, but also the cafe itself. So, here are the top 6:

6.  Cafe Fiore (http://www.caffefiore.com/)

I really like this place, even though it is lesser known (the rest of the places here are all known of throughout the country).  There are three locations, two in Ballard and another on Queen Anne, which is pretty close to SPU.  This location is definitely a plus.  Additionally, all of the coffees they are offer are organic, so they are definitely conscious and concerned about where they get their beans.

Espresso: Rosetta Blend

Bean Origin: Unknown.  Likely a blend of Africans and Latin Americans.

Straight shot: Fiore’s espresso is nice to look at, with a golden brown crema.  The first taste of the crema is good too, with a sweet, carmel taste.  After the crema is gone, the shot mellows out and doesn’t have the same taste.  It is still very good, but leaves a little to be desired.

In milk: It maintains a lot of the same character, bringing out some nutty flavors.  Overall, a very good espresso.

Cafe: The baristas are always friendly, and decently knowledgeable of their coffee.  The Queen Anne location is small, but sometimes you can find a place to study.

4 (tied).  Espresso Vivace (http://www.espressovivace.com/)

Vivace is considered by some as one of the best espressos not only in Seattle, but in the whole country.  I agree – it is one of the finest espressos you will find.  The owner, David Schomer, has probably done more for modern espresso than anyone out there.  The reason why its tied for fourth is because while their espresso is great, thats all they have to offer – espresso.  No other types of roasts or single origin coffees.  Some places have 10-20 types of beans besides their espressos to offer.  Vivace is a little more specialized, so doesn’t have as much to offer.  There are two locations: one across the street from the flagship REI, and the original right off Broadway on Capitol Hill.

Espresso: Dolce (for straight shots) and Vita (for milk-based drinks)

Bean Origin: Unknown.

Straight shot: Vivace uses their Dolce blend when they serve double ristrettos.  The crema is golden-red, but light and sweet in taste.  The body of the espresso is the best part – a sweet, chocolate elixir.  This taste lingers throughout the whole shot, finishing amazingly.

In milk: Vivace uses their Vita blend when they serve milk-based drinks.  This espresso maintains a intense flavor dominated by carmel notes.

Cafe: Very knowledgeable baristas with awesome Synesso machines.  More and more, it seems that Synesso is become the new standard for the ultimate espresso machine.  Really unique decoration style, with lots of old and Italian pictures.

4 (tied).  Zoka Coffee Roaster and Tea Co. (http://www.zokacoffee.com/)

With two locations (in Greenlake and behind UVillage), Zoka is a well known and popular in Seattle.  The two cafes are large with lots of tables, and are always packed with people studying, working, or meeting.  Its really a toss up between Zoka and Vivace – I think Vivace has a slightly better straight shot, but Zoka’s espresso goes really well in milk and they offer a wide variety of blends and single origins.  Zoka annually sends baristas to the USBC and WBC (US Barista Championship, World Barista Championship), and has even taken a few first place finishes (if I remember correctly).

Espresso: Paladino (USBC/WBC winning espresso blend)

Bean Origin: South American, Indonesia, and African.

Straight shot:  Somewhat inconsistent (although, this could just be difference in how good the barista is).  I have had an awesome double of Paladino, as well as a mediocre shot.  I guess it really depends.  When its on, though, its up there with the best of them.  The crema is like honey, with a chocolate and fruity flavor.  A medium-dark roast, so a little darker than most espressos on this list (although, nothing near Starbucks, Peet’s, or Cafe D’arte).

In Milk: Surprisingly good.  Carries over the chocolate and nutty flavors into the milk, and does not lose too much intensity.

Cafe: Really neat place to study or meet larger groups.  Baristas are friendly and knowledgeable.  Make sure to try the homemade chocolate – its really good.  

3. Stumptown Coffee Roasters (http://www.stumptowncoffee.com/)

Yes, as of yesterday, Stumptown is now in Seattle.  Portland’s best has opened up a roastery/cafe on 12th Ave in Capitol Hill near Seattle University. The only reason I didn’t rank it as highly as Cafe Vita is because its a newcomer to Seattle – Caffe Vita has been a staple of the Seattle coffee scene for over a decade.  Stumptown is a worthy competitor as Seattle’s best coffee roaster, but you’ve got to give the props to the places that started in Seattle.  They have an amazing selection of single origin coffees.

Espresso: Hair Bender

Bean Origin: 5 different coffees from 3 different regions (I’m guessing Africa, Indonesia, and Latin America)

Straight shot: Wow! They really mean “hair bender”.  Crema is medium in body, with a sweet tangy/fruity taste, with some smoky undertones.  A good bit of acidity, which isn’t a bad thing.  The espresso finishes very well – carrying the rich and fruity flavor throughout.  Amazing throughout.

In milk: Bright, fruity, with chocolate notes, while keeping a considerable amount of its intensity in milk.

Cafe: Bright, airy, and authentic interior with the roaster downstairs.  Make sure to check it out if you get a chance!  Stumptown uses a really neat La Marzocco Mistral machine, which is cool to look at.  The baristas are very knowledgeable and friendly.  Make sure to check this place out if you haven’t had it already!

2. Caffe Vita ( http://www.caffevita.com/) This place has been around for over a decade, and is always fun to go to.  There are three locations in Seattle (Fremont, lower Queen Anne, and Capitol Hill) as well as one in Olympia.  They offer many single-origin coffees and blends.

Espresso: Caffe Del Sol

Bean Origin: Latin American, African, and Indonesian coffees.

Single Shot:  The crema is golden-amber in color and rich and heavy.  There is considerable complexity to the shot as a whole, with chocolate, carmel, and nutty flavors.  The consistency is thick, and the flavor continues throughout the entire shot.  Always amazing.

In milk: Performs just as well in milk as it does as a straight shot.  Slighty toned down in intensity, it still carries the wonderful nutty and chocolate flavors.

Cafe: The cafes are dimly lit and comfortable, although the Queen Anne location is slightly cramped.  Probably the best pastries of any of the coffee shops – however, sometimes the baristas are aloof and are not nearly as knowledgeable as their counterparts at these other cafes.  Like traditional pizza? Make sure to visit owner Mike McConnell’s other chain, Via Tribunali.

1. Victrola Coffee Roasters (http://www.victrolacoffee.com/)

While they have not been around as long as Vivace or Caffe Vita, Victrola is the best coffee shop that I have ever been to – anywhere.  There are two locations on Capitol Hill – one on 15th and the other on Pike, just east of I-5.

Espresso: Streamline

Origin: 6 coffees, locations unknown.  Definitely contains some Africans and Latin Americans – possibly some Indonesians as well.

Straight shot: The quintessential double ristretto.  The crema is thick and red-brown with a wonderful aroma.  The shot has the delicious taste of fruity berries, with hints of chocolate and nuts.  It finishes fantastically – with a rich consistency and flavor.

In milk:  While it mellows out a little more than the other espressos here, it still tastes amazing.  The fruit, chocolate, and nut flavors carry through into the milk, making for a great latte or mocha.  

So, there it is! The best six coffee roasters in Seattle (in my opinion).  Let me know if you have any good places I didn’t mention!

Stumptown Coffee Roasters, consensus as the best microroaster in Portland (and considered one of the best in the nation) has just opened up a cafe/roastery in Capitol Hill, located near Seattle University on 12th Ave.  I am sure its going to be really good. With Victrola Coffee Roasters, Cafe Vita, Espresso Vivace, and now Stumptown Coffee Roasters all located in the central part of Capitol Hill, it may have the highest concentration of amazing coffee anywhere.