Biblical Landmarks

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 »

Ten Commandments and Limited Government

I keep thinking of my time with Buddy and Sandy in Alabama earlier this year. Both attorneys at law, helping people in bankruptcy.

But Alabama is also famous for another lawman, Judge Roy Moore. Now there are not too many people who like getting fired from their job. But Judge Roy Moore of Alabama seems to have accepted his firing with some enthusiasm. And a challenge.

Now the challenge, he says, goes something like this. In his attempts to honor both his Christian convictions and the laws of the state of Alabama, he had placed in the State courthouse the Ten Commandments. Some say he did it sneakily under the cover of darkness, but Judge Moore says the timing was determined by the installers — who were running late. Anyway, that is not a real issue.

One of the real issues is the ability of federal judges to intervene in state affairs. According to some, the whole purpose of a Constitution is to limit the federal government. One only needs to read the wording of the U.S. Constitution and look at the Constitutional debates to see there is strong evidence for this approach to the Constitution and the powers of the federal government.
Read the rest of this entry »

When is Education Not Education?

This is a complaint. A complaint about teachers. In particular, teachers of musical instruments, especially piano, but more than that.

Here’s the nature of my complaint. But before I give you the basis of the complaint, answer this question:

Which group of teachers has the highest failure rate?

If you answered public school teachers, you’d be close, but not close enough.

If you answered Seminary professors you might also be close, but again, not close enough.

Maybe you thought of college professors in general. And while you might have some basis for this, you would not even be close.

Here’s my answer. Music teachers!

These are the teachers who offer to teach your child an instrument – piano, violin, flute, cello, clarinet, guitar, harp – you name it.

But look at how many students take music lessons then quit as soon as they are teenagers.

Now they would probably quit Math and English classes if they could, too. But music is one subject that mom and dad say is optional.

But the fact that it’s optional is not why the kids quit.

They quit because they can’t play the instrument.
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 Big Is Your Faith?

In 1980 a book appeared that addressed a problem of mathematics: the quest for certainty. The author, Morris Kline, entitled his book, Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty.

In it he outlines how the philosophy and use of mathematics went beyond its capabilities. Newton, for example, in his science abandoned physical explanation of phenomena, and instead employed mathematical concepts. “Newton’s crowning work presented mankind with a set of only mathematically expressible physical principles. . . . The Newtonian scheme was decisive in convincing the world that nature is mathematically designed and that the true laws of nature are mathematical” (p. 57).

Anyone who thinks that nature can only be explained mathematically soon finds themselves with some unanswered questions. And it is easy to see how this kind of rationalism has contributed to a lack of faith in the world in which we live.
Read the rest of this entry »

DO YOU THINK LIKE A HEBREW?

The first part of commentary raised questions about the biblical manuscripts and the way we view them. We must have, it seems, a “scientific” approach to textual purity in order to be secure that we actually have the Word of God. Yet the more we search for certainty, the more elusive it seems.

Dr. Marvin R. Wilson makes this interesting contrast between Hebrew and our modern thought patterns.

The biblical authors never argue the existence of God; they only assume it. God is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrews primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving God” (i.e., a God who loves), rather than “God is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture.

The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was “under the sun” (Eccl. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to oversystematize or force harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what God has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sizes of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand.

In an attempt to formulate the idea of inspiration to preserve an infallible Bible, Christians may have gone just a little overboard by operating on non-Hebraic assumptions. The influence of Greek thought in our culture is pervasive, and helps explain many of the issues that have driven Christendom underground and almost caused its complete demise.

If you’re really interested in finding out more, read Wilson’s essay, “The Contour of Hebrew Thought.” It should be compulsory reading for all seminary students and serious Christians. You will find it here: The Contour of Hebrew Thought

The Search For Certainty – 3.

FAITH OR LOGIC? WHICH IS IT?

In the quest for certainty, some biblical scholars are willing to give up all logic to prove a point.

At the heart of the certainty debate is this issue. It’s syllogistic in form, two premises followed by a conclusion.

Premise 1: God gave his Word through inspired writers who wrote down what God intended for them to write down. These are the original manuscripts of the Bible, of which we have none.

Premise 2: In order for us to have God’s word today, the words in the original manuscripts must be preserved by God so that they still exist.

Conclusion: ?
Read the rest of this entry »

I have a question for you. No, it’s not a trick question. But hopefully it will get you thinking.

Manufacturing business has a goal and objective to make more money. The prevailing philosophy of business says by lowering the price you sell more.

This has been proven over and over again to be true. Computers, pocket calculators, are just some examples.

But now we move to a service business. Here the business owner makes his money primarily from his own labor, not from employing machines and other people to produce saleable items.
Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve just returned from the movies: Russel Crowe and Cate Blanchett in “Robin Hood.” Alright, I confess, I’m a Russel Crowe fan, and Jessie and I are in Boulder, Colorado, celebrating our 36th wedding anniversary. Both Australians give what I consider a great performance.

But there is a scene at the end of the movie that is provocative. King John declares he is appointed by Divine Right, and he’s not about to let a bunch of barons tell him what to do.
Read the rest of this entry »