Biblical Landmarks

Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

If a Thief Hands You Stolen Money, What Should You Do?

Returning to Australia for my son’s wedding, it did not take long to be reminded of many of the issues that dropped out of sight while living in America.

At the top of the list is the Australian concept of socialism. Socialism is the idea that the government takes control of all resources within the nation and allocates them in some fashion. Frederick Hayek drew the distinction between communism and socialism when he observed that in communism, the government owns everything and allocates according to government plan. Under socialism, ownership remains in the hands of individuals, but the government determines the allocation of the privately-held resources. The Australian government pretends it is neither socialistic nor communistic. But as Ludwig von Mises argued so clearly, the middle-of-the-road policy is the road to full socialism. You cannot control part of the economy without controlling all of it.

The key issue here is one of ownership and the meaning of the idea of ownership. “Thou shalt not steal” establishes the right of private ownership, ownership being the right of dispossession. This is the key. If you cannot dispose the things you own in the manner in which you would like, you don’t own the thing. Whoever controls the dispossession is the real owner, even though there may be official papers giving title to the individual.

In the modern world, it is taxation, perhaps more than anything else, that determines the biblical framework of ownership. The government not only takes for itself the right to tax, but it also allocates to itself the right to determine how much tax it might be entitled to. This is important because it raises the question of property ownership in money. It doesn’t exist any more. But it did exist at one time, when the Bible provided the prevailing philosophy.

Read the rest of this entry »

The copyright in music debate creates an opportunity to re-think the purpose of copyright and similar laws, such as patent protection. Neither copyright nor patents have an illustrious beginning. Used by the powers in authority as an attempt to either limit free speech or raise money, the laws had a purpose to protect the position of those in authority. In other words, they were used to protect a monopoly.

More recently laws such as copyright, patents and trademarks are used to create monopolies not of political power but of economic power. Music writers sell their compositions to music publishers who invest the time and money in print and marketing to create sales. The publishers and shareholders want a return on their investment. They are clearly not happy if someone gets access to the same product without paying for it. Book writers do the same.

So do hamburger suppliers. If you want to buy a McDonald’s hamburger, you have no choice but to go to the licensed McDonalds monopoly somewhere and buy. As much as this might be an inconvenience, you cannot go to the Burger King outlet and buy a McDonald’s hamburger, just as you cannot buy Taco Bell at McDonald’s. They each protect their property by insisting only approved sales outlets can sell their food, for which the parent company receives a percentage of the sale. This is just as much a monopoly as is the publishing of songs, so the attack on the publishing industry for protecting its monopoly could be construed at the same time as an attack on all forms of endeavor to protect the fruit of one’s labor and capitalize on it by creating a monopoly selling outlet.
Read the rest of this entry »

In a previous series, “Why I am Not (Always) A Calvinist” I quoted from Calvin’s Institutes concerning his view about the Old Testament. He spoke disparagingly of the Old Testament, putting it on a lower level than the New Testament. This view immediately creates a problem with the unity of God’s Word.

Later in his Institutes, Calvin made these comments about the Old Testament law and its place in the life of any nation in the New Testament period. “For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false”(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 20:14).

Calvin wrote at a time when it was common to speak clearly, unlike today where misleading and obfuscation are the order of the day. The idea that any commonwealth is to be ruled by the law of Moses is a “stupid and false” idea. Now Calvin is not completely denying the law of Moses, or is he?
Read the rest of this entry »

“All You Need is Love, Love, Love.” - The Beatles, 1967

The Romantic movement, following on the heels of the Enlightenment, brought a revitalized message about love. There’s not enough of it.

And Romantic art of all kinds – poetry, music, painting, etc. – indicates that the lack of love is the significant problem in the world. If only this girl or that man would love me, all my problems would go away. Romanticism in this vein, however, is even more likely to have the three-way love affair, with adultery mixed in the midst of it. There was a reason composer Richard Wagner used Tristan and Isolde as a key part of his operatic works with music designed to undermine Christian culture, for the story is a key representative of Romanticism. Hollywood, in our generation, perpetuates this belief about love.

Enter our churches and you hear the gospel of love. “Honk if you love Jesus” was an old bumper sticker. Music, now the controlling influence in the contemporary church, is the music of the Romantic era. The use of melody and harmony are governed by the rules of the post-Baroque period, and when played on guitar and drums, the rhythm is highlighted and it becomes the dominant aspect of the contemporary worship service.

Now listen to the sermon that follows this kind of music.

Read the rest of this entry »

HOW TO EXCEED THE PHARISEES

The words of Jesus create problems for many people. The reason? They don’t like them.

Consider this from Matt.12: 36-37: “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Everyone hopes that these words are somehow and somewhere modified elsewhere in Scripture. Justified by our words? No way. We’ll never make it, that’s for sure. Yet the words of Jesus are there to deal with.

Now consider this passage earlier in the book of Matthew: “For I say unto you that unless your righteousness exceeds he righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

For many, that sounds like a great dose of legalism.
Read the rest of this entry »

Think about words. Without them you’d find it difficult to communicate with others (even though some people are quite articulate with their hands). What do words mean? Who decides what they mean? What is the origin of language? If language comes from God, as our doctrine of creation implies, then it follows that the meaning of words must also come from God. Our basic definitions thus should come from God and not from man himself.
Read the rest of this entry »

Proverbs 6:1-3 says the following: “My son, if you become surety for your friend, If you have shaken hands in pledge for a stranger, You are snared by the words of your mouth; You are taken by the words of your mouth. So do this, my son, and deliver yourself; For you have come into the hand of your friend: Go and humble yourself; Plead with your friend.” These words are an encouragement to anyone who has taken the position as guarantor for any debts that he should do everything in his power to get out of this obligation. While this is not so much a specific command against debt, it is certainly an instruction from God that makes borrowing much more difficult.
Read the rest of this entry »

In chapter six I discussed inflation and its causes. I argued that monetary inflation, an expansion of the money supply, causes price inflation. Monetary inflation, I also argued, was immoral, since it devalues the purchasing power of money as prices in the community rise. I pointed out that the two primary means of monetary inflation were using the presses to manufacture notes and coin and the creation of money through credit. It is this latter method of monetary inflation that we need to understand in relation to debt as well as in relation to biblical morality.
Read the rest of this entry »

In the first three chapters on this topic of debt, I described the wealth creation process. Mankind was created with the mandate to be fruitful, to be innovative, to be productive, to look after God’s garden, preserve it, husband it, and in so doing create wealth for all to enjoy.

More importantly, however, it was seen that the process of putting aside for future use (savings) was the necessary step for economic advancement. Without savings there can be no process of ongoing economic development.

Debt is the opposite to the idea of saving. Read the rest of this entry »

There is another argument against debt — or if not against debt as such, it at least requires a very careful self-analysis to make sure we are not guilty of simple greed. Debt can do at least two things for people. First, it permits them to buy goods for which they do not have sufficient cash right now. They don’t have the funds right now and don’t want to wait until they can save it. Or they think they’ll never be able to save the required amount, and don’t want to miss out on the goods. This has nothing to do with sound management at all. Rather, it is the manifestation of greed in the heart of man. This impatience, a refusal to wait until the funds are saved, is founded on an attitude of laziness and lack of self-discipline, often an inability to save for the future. Neither attitude provides a proper excuse to borrow money.
Read the rest of this entry »