Author: empower

Bob LaRochelle: The Value of Raising Serious Questions

Response #1 to Philosophy for Believers.
I very much appreciated the way in which Dr. Vick begins what I think is a wonderful book. With the simple statement, ‘We all have many and varied beliefs’, he opens up for us an in-depth philosophical exploration of the nature and dynamics of faith and belief. In my view, he leads us into a process of serious self examination on both the intellectual and the spiritual levels.
The statement itself expresses a simple reality. Whether one looks at the wider world around us or at our local communities, one cannot help but recognize that there is a pluralism of belief systems that coexist with one another. Some might be inclined to bemoan this reality and would prefer to help lead people to the ‘truth’ as they understand it, usually posited by them as objective reality from a source outside of themselves.
In my view, the simple fact is that when we are born, we are thrust into a world which is mysterious to us. As we grow and develop, the specifics of that mystery unfold. Simply because we are human and are capable of thinking, many questions come into our minds as we experience life. We wonder about how life began and who or what might have been there at its beginning. Facing the simple fact that such a thing as death exists, we ask questions about what happens to us individually and collectively after we die. Recognizing the fact of our finite limitedness, we wonder about the inherent meaning to be found in how we live our days.
As I see it, that which we call RELIGION is our personal response to the mysteries of life as set within the wider context of the MYSTERY that is life itself. Within the world as we know it, there exist many and varied responses to these mysteries of ORIGIN (Where did I and we come from?), DESTINY (where am/are I/we going?), and MEANING (what is the purpose of it all while we are here?).

I can gladly claim that in honest response to that mystery, faith emerges, faith in the One whose greatness cannot be fully grasped or explained over the course of our mortal existence.

The different approaches to this mystery are evidenced in a variety of different ways. They certainly shape the theologies that are part and parcel of the multiplicity of world religions. They also emerge in the various creative processes in which human beings engage. Profound philosophical positions on life’s greatest mysteries are to be found in literary works, dramatic performances and the art work and music of different cultures. Whether one explores Shakespeare’s great soliloquies, the absurdist dialogue in Beckett or Ionesco, or the lyrics of a Bob Dylan, one sees human beings responding to life’s mysteries in many and varied ways.
Writing as a believing Christian and as a pastor in the church, I find myself observing this multiplicity of responses within the Christian community as well. The fact that there is some diversity of approaches within Christianity is troublesome to those who are convinced that the objective answers are clear and that the work of the church involves presenting that objective truth to others so that they accept it for their own well being and salvation. Sadly, there are some in the churches who dismiss honest intellectual inquiry and the value of raising serious questions. They see this as antithetical to the the practice of religion and even to faith itself.
Over the course of church history, some church communities have focused on the church itself as the definer of objective truth. They have encouraged their adherents to look to the church for the specific answers to the great mysteries of life and thus to the important decisions they must make in their own personal lives.
In reaction to this, other church communities, concerned that the institutional church had strayed too far from the Word of God as found in Scripture, have focused on turning to the Bible as the source of objective reality and truth.
Thus historically, within the Christian church, there has been tension between those who have advocated that truth may be found in turning to the Bible without benefit of church teaching and others who have argued that Scripture must be interpreted in light of ongoing tradition.
Simply put, some Christians believe that one can find objective truth by turning to specific interpretations of faith by the church. Others believe that truth is found by simply looking inside the Bible. Both positions emerge from the deeper position that God has intended either the church or the Bible to be the vehicle by which objective truth is conveyed.
As I see it, both views assume that mystery can be defined clearly either through interaction with the sacred text or by adherence to the rules and doctrine of the community. Ongoing tensions exist within the Christian community between these adherents and those who see these issues and questions as far more complex, involving the use of intellect (God given, I would contend) and the exercise of human conscience.
These brief comments are not intended as a fully developed commentary on the place of Scripture and tradition in the life of the individual believer. Instead I am attempting to state how Dr. Vick’s simple assertion that there exists in our world a diversity and multiplicity of beliefs resonates with the core reality of human experience- that we are thrust into the world and, as we grow, we ask questions, questions about the BIG QUESTIONS- life, death, the meaning of it all…..
As a result of people coming up with different answers to these questions, there has emerged a wide variety of philosophical approaches and systems throughout the course of human history. We have seen the work of an Aquinas who has spelled out specific proofs for the existence of God and the actual qualities of that deity. On the other end, we note the work of those existentialists for whom the presence of the divine has essentially been dismissed.
These differing philosophical positions have led to diverse theologies as there is a fine line between the two disciplines. Within the rather large continuum of positions, we each take our stands, philosophically and theologically.
In essence, Dr. Vick’s opening remarks state the obvious. In my view, there is a relationship between the fact that there are different beliefs and that life itself is a mystery. Having said that, I can gladly claim that in honest response to that mystery, faith emerges, faith in the One whose greatness cannot be fully grasped or explained over the course of our mortal existence.

Dr. Bob LaRochelle is a pastor, educator and an author. His Energion titles are Crossing the Street, So Much Older Then …, and the forthcoming What Protestants Need to Know about Roman Catholics. Early next year, there will be a companion volume to the last book, What Roman Catholics Need to Know about Protestants.

November 1, 2013
Responding to Philosophy for Believers
I have asked two Energion authors for an extended response to our recent release, Philosophy for Believers by Edward W. H. Vick. These responses will be posted once each month for the next 13 months, covering all thirteen chapters of the book.
There are two purposes for these responses. The first is to discuss and respond to the approach taken in the book. But the second is more important. It is to see how to people who are in the trenches, so to speak, apply this material in their work.
Dr. Bob LaRochelle is a pastor, educator and an author. His Energion titles are Crossing the Street, So Much Older Then …, and the forthcoming What Protestants Need to Know about Roman Catholics. Early next year, there will be a companion volume to the last book, What Roman Catholics Need to Know about Protestants.
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. is both a Christian apologist and a businessman. He is author of Energion titles Evidence for the Bible, Christianity and Secularism, and Preserving Democracy.
Each response will be published as a separate post using the category Philosophy for Believers. They will be posted near the end of each month.
Feel free to comment on these topics. We’d love discussion. If you blog about the topic at or around the same time, we will be happy to post a link here to your post. Join the discussion in whatever way works best for you.

Publication Dates:

Nov. 1

Nov. 29

Jan. 31

Feb. 28

Mar. 28

May 2

May 30

June 27

Aug. 1

Aug. 29

Oct. 3

Oct. 31

Nov. 28

Topics
1. The first sentence is: We all have many and varied beliefs. Dr. Vick builds the book around this point, saying there is a difference in the meaning of various types of beliefs and how they are justified, but they are nonetheless “beliefs.” Many skeptics, on the other hand, would maintain that there is a much greater distinction between belief in a scientific and a religious context. Since this is a fundamental idea for the entire book, how do you respond to this? Do you find Vick’s approach to this topic viable? Helpful? (Elgin Husbheck’s Response, Bob LaRochelle’s Response)
2. The crucial question for a Christian in the second chapter is the relationship between testimony, belief, and knowledge. How important is historical testimony to your beliefs as a Christian? What about contemporary testimony, for example, claims of a miracle? (I note here that I can no longer see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue with liberal author Bruce Epperly maintaining that Jesus did, in fact, heal [Healing Marks, Energion, 2013], and also that God can and does act in the world. So I’m not asking “Do you believe in miracle stories in the Bible?” but rather “How does the testimony of others relate to your belief, whatever that belief is?”) (Bob LaRochelle’s Response, Elgin Hushbeck’s Response)
3. There are a number of crucial issues in this chapter, but I think the best place to respond is on the issue of “proof” and “belief,” question #19 in the book exercises. “Fred believes that he can prove the existence of God. He believes that to believe in God you have to be able to prove that God exists. Frederica believes neither of these. What is the issue between them?” (Bob LaRochelle’s Response, Elgin Hushbeck’s Response)
4. I’m taking question #4 from the exercises: “What is a ‘world-view’? Do you have a world-view? Is there a common modern world-view about the cosmos?” Then I would add, “How important is “world-view” to the way we respond to new information?
5. Again, from the exercises, this time question #6: “Should we distinguish between different kinds of explanation, for example: common sense explanation, ad hoc explanation, scientific explanation, historical explanation? Do these or some of them have anything in common? Do different subject matters require different kinds of explanation?” I would be most interested in looking at the difference (if any) between explanation of a religious claim, a historical claim based (potentially) on the supernatural, and scientific claims.
6. This time building from question 3, though you may want to include 4: “Does religious experience provide us with a reason for believing in God? Specify an argument from religious experience to the existence and activity of God.” The handling of religious experience is key to Dr. Vick’s thinking, not only in this book, but in others, such as his From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully (Energion, 2012). If you have not, and would like to read that, I’ll be happy to send a copy.
7. I’m going to use question #1 from the exercises: “Relate the doctrine of God’s providence to the conviction of the uniformity of nature, and the consistency of natural law.” I use this because it is one I hear rather frequently, and there are a number of different explanations.
8. I don’t have a specific question to raise, but rather a section, #8, pp. 167-168 on open theism. Relate open theism, process theology, and more traditional understandings of God’s foreknowledge. This might get too broad, but if you try to stick to understanding providence in connection with the apparent uniformity of nature (if that is correct), it should narrow things down a bit. You probably should avoid getting into the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, though perhaps you can’t!
9. I’m taking the question from the chapter summary: “But is it possible to tell ourselves a lie and then believe the lie we tell ourselves? Is such irrationality a feature of human life?”
10. From the chapter summary: “An explanation of how to account for mental activity cannot speak only in biological terms of brain activity. We may not neglect the fact that our experiences have a particular quality of ‘feeling’.” Does Dr. Vick successfully take us to the conclusion that the mind is more than biological function?
11. Does the concept of “identity” matter to you in your understanding of the afterlife, resurrection, or similar concepts?
12. I’d almost like to make up another question, but the one asked in the chapter summary is too classic to ignore: “How does the occurrence of miracles relate to well established natural or scientific laws?”
13. State your basic understanding of how faith and science relate, if they do. Can there be conflict if both are done properly? How should it be resolved.
November 1, 2013

Introduction to the Psalter

by Bob MacDonald
What can I assume when I say introduction? I have met many who do a double take when I say the word Psalter. What is the Psalter? The Psalter is a set of 150 poems that were created between 2200 and 3000 years ago, and collected between 2200 and 2500 years ago. We call the poems ‘psalms’ but only 57 of them have this title in their inscription (in the Hebrew). The Jewish term is Tehillim, or ‘praises’.
I have met one who asked if the Jews have the same Psalter as the Christians. From an introductory point of view, the answer is yes. If you worship in a Synagogue, you probably would recognize many of the psalms since they are the foundation of the opening of the Sabbath service. If you worship in a Christian congregation, you may, depending on your denomination, know several psalms from the Sunday services. But what do we mean by ‘the same’ Psalter?

The Prayer Book leaves out several sections of the poems.

The first translation of the Psalms from Hebrew was into Greek around the second century BCE. From that time, there were significant differences in interpretation. The Psalms were carried into the churches for over a millennium and even to today by Jerome’s Latin translation(s) from the 4^th century CE. There are now for the English, so many different translations and presentations of the psalms that it is hard to begin to describe how different they are from each other. My Anglican colleagues will know the Psalms from the Prayer Book in a translation from the 15^th century by Miles Coverdale. The Prayer Book leaves out several sections of the poems (see e.g. Psalms 109, 137). The Canadian 1959 Prayer Book leaves out Psalm 58 entirely. Psalm 58? The 58^th psalm? If you were using the Greek or Latin translation, this would be the 57^th psalm! So the differing Psalters even have different chapter numbers. And the English translations have differing verse numbers from the Hebrew.

The Psalms teach us how to live with the multiplicity of troubles we encounter.

How then can we begin to know this book? Do we even want to? The answer must be that we do want to but we won’t get there too easily. If we are Jewish, the psalms define for us our canonical history and lead us to our prayer for the nation, for the land, and for all peoples. If we identify with Jesus, the psalms teach us how ‘he learned obedience’.[1] Also they teach us how to live with the multiplicity of troubles we encounter. If we look at all the psalms used in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament, we could come to the conclusion that the Psalter is ‘the book of Scripture that represents the conversation between the Father and the Son’.[2] Christians particularly will want to learn the psalms for this reason alone.
If we are of other traditions or none, these poems still represent an old and significant body of poetry that has been loved by many human beings. The Psalter is the most quoted of any Old Testament book in the New Testament. ‘Over one third of the 360 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament come from the psalms.’[3] Peter Flint at the Oxford Conference in 2010 listed for us the top 10 Qumran count of distinct scrolls as follows: Jeremiah – 6, Ezekiel and Numbers – 8 each, Daniel – 9, Leviticus – 16, Exodus – 17, Genesis – 20, Isaiah – 21, Deuteronomy – 31, and Psalms – 37. In the book arising from this conference,[4] his essay cites 43 psalms scrolls or manuscripts that incorporate psalms. Just these two statistics show us that the psalms were loved by the society of that inter-testamental period from the second century BCE to the end of the first century CE.
An introduction must have some poetry – not just talk about it. Let’s read Psalm 3 first. The musicians among you will recognize that this is set by Henry Purcell in his verse anthem, Jehova, Quam Multi Sunt Hostes Mei. Here is the Coverdale version in modern English.[5]

Psalm 3 Coverdale

Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! Many are they that rise against me. Many there be that say of my soul, There is no help for him in his God. But thou, O Lord, art my defender; thou art my worship, and the lifter up of my head. I did call upon the Lord with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. I laid me down and slept, and rose up again; for the Lord sustained me. I will not be afraid for ten thousands of the people that have set themselves against me round about. Up, Lord, and help me, O my God, for thou smitest all mine enemies upon the cheek-bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly. Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; and thy blessing is upon thy people.
You will notice immediately that it looks like prose. A few carefully placed carriage returns will make this easier to read. Note that in the Hebrew, verse 1 is the inscription. The presence of an inscription often results in different verse numbering between the Hebrew (in parentheses) and English editions. Psalm 3 is the first psalm with an inscription.
(1) A psalm: for David when he fled from his son, Absalom.[6]
1 (2) Lord, how are they increased that trouble me!
Many are they that rise against me.
2 (3) Many there be that say of my soul,
There is no help for him in his God.
3 (4) But thou, O Lord, art my defender;
thou art my worship, and the lifter up of my head.
4 (5) I did call upon the Lord with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill.
5 (6) I laid me down and slept, and rose up again; for the Lord sustained me.
6 (7) I will not be afraid for ten thousands of the people
that have set themselves against me round about.
7 (8) Up, Lord, and help me, O my God,
for thou smitest all mine enemies upon the cheek-bone;
thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.
8 (9) Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; and thy blessing is upon thy people.
Coverdale ‘that trouble me’ is different from the translation that Purcell uses where ‘hostes’ would be translated as enemies. Yes, those who trouble me may well be my enemies, but they may well be just our own troubles, constraints, or worrisome thoughts too.[7]
The repetition of ‘many’ underlines word recurrence, a common aspect of Hebrew poetry. Also to be noted is the parallel thought of verse 1 in the form a-b, a-b. Recurrence and parallelism are two techniques that are keys to reading and hearing the poem. These aspects of Hebrew poetry are often and sometimes unavoidably obscured by translation. In this case, what is obscured is the recurrence of ‘increased’ and ‘ten thousands’ that are from the same root and therefore have similar sounds in Hebrew, but not in translation. There are many translations in English, in Latin, and even in Greek. In the next section, the poem is from the Hebrew with a close translation.[8]

Psalm 3 from Seeing the Psalter

1	A psalm of David, when he ran away from the face of Absalom his son
2	יהוה, how multiplied my straits! Many arise over me
3	Many say of me There is no salvation for him in God Selah
4	But you, יהוה, a shield about me my glory, and lifting high my head
5	My voice, to יהוה I call and he answers me from his holy hill Selah
6	I lie down and I sleep I awakefor יהוה supports me
7	I will not fear the multiplicity of people that surround set over me
8	Arise יהוה save me my God for you strike all my enemies on the cheek the teeth of the wicked you break
9	Of יהוה is the salvation On your people your blessing Selah

Hebrew words: 70. Percentage of Hebrew words that recur in this psalm: 39%. Average recurring words per verse: 3.

2	straits, צר (cr) or trouble, foe related to צרה (crh), צרר (crr), trouble, adversary, also part of the word for Egypt מִצְרַיִם (mitsraim lit. double straits). Straits imply a narrow space limiting or constricting movement. The Vulgate Jehova quam multi sunt hostes mei would imply that the straits are only external enemies. In this case, I think that is slipping from cause to effect.
3	salvation ישׁע (ysh`) Note the related word הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי אֱלֹהַי (hoshieni elohai) save me, my God, in verse 8. in God, בֵאלֹהִים (b’lhym) Note that God is a frame in the poem. This is the first time we have seen this word Elohim. The preposition in is full of promise. It is possible that one could use an agency preposition, like by or even phrase the translation God won’t save him avoiding the preposition altogether. But doing this would impoverish our experience, for God is not the last minute cavalry in a Western film. Nor is God a distant hero who rides off in the dust after effecting salvation.
8	strike – enemies – cheek, teeth – wicked – break is a reverse parallel, a-b-c, c-b-a.

יהוה recurs six times in this poem, linking all three stanzas. God occurs twice and this is the first time this word is used in the Psalter. Multiplied – arise – salvation – God link the first and third stanzas. Verses 4 to 6, the second stanza, are linked to the outer stanzas only by the words יהוה, the connector כי (ky), and the word of unknown meaning, סלה (selah), often thought of as an interlude or pause, or even a change of pitch,[9] or da capo instruction (HALOT[10]), or weigh this (Vantoura[11]), but as will be seen repeatedly, not necessarily marking a sectional boundary. Many is the tie for the first stanza, verses 2 and 3. People frames the last stanza, verses 7 to 9.
In this first psalm of David, the poet speaks in verses 2, 3, and 4 to יהוה, but in verses 5, 6, and 7, the point of view changes and the reader is addressed directly. Then in verse 8, יהוה is again addressed, with verse 9a perhaps for the reader’s ears also. Verse 9b may be the editor speaking to us. The point of view spans the stanzas determined by recurrence.
Note the five repeated words in sequence that highlight the contrast expressed in the psalm between verses 2 and 3 and verses 7 and 8. The sequence highlights what it frames: verses 4 to 6. Rendtorff[12] (p. 323) notes how each verse of this psalm is Midrash on the story of David from 2 Samuel. One could imagine the poet meditating on his own or David’s life. Given also the effect of these psalms on an individual, one can imagine David’s writing this psalm from reflection on his own experience. Yet the psalm has people as a frame, so that we might not forget that wider context in which we live. The last frame in a psalm often acts as a focal point.
Selected recurring words

Some of the most touching music of the early polyphony of the 15^th and 16^th century comes from the story of David’s grief over Absalom (2 Samuel 18:33). It is perhaps significant that this first psalm of David begins with this inscription.

Approaching the text

The Psalter is not just a hymn book. It is also a story.

There are so many possible questions. The one I have asked in Seeing the Psalter is this one: Is the Psalter a hymn book or is it a story? There are (only) 150 psalms in the Psalter. In many modern hymnbooks there are seven or eight hundred. No one would read a modern hymnbook in sequence. But the Psalter is not just a hymn book. It is also a story. Was the Psalter written all at once? No. Hymn books are collected over centuries and so is this collection of psalms. So – it is both hymn book and story, written over centuries and collected into a specific sequence.[13]
The story in the psalms is the story of the history of Israel, a story meant to teach, a story with a purpose, a story that underlines Jesus’ statement from John 15:1: I am the vine. Before I began my study of the psalms, they were a jumble of ancient hymns to me. Goulder[14] has an apt phrase. The Psalms have been treated as so many independent units, flotsam washed up by the tides of the late centuries before our time. One of my objectives in my book is to see coherence in their organization.
People often approach the psalms as if one could divide them by category or genre. This is a very difficult approach. For instance, there are traditionally 7 penitential psalms. In my summary of Book 2 of the Psalter, I note these 7 with a caveat that they are more than fits into the ‘penitential’ category.
Perhaps the most remembered Psalm of Book 2 is Psalm 51, made famous by Gregorio Allegri in the sublime polyphony of his Miserere. Psalm 51, like Psalms 6 and 38, is a penitential psalm. Traditionally seven psalms are so named (6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143). Psalms 6, 38, and 51 are penitential. Each of these psalms, however, plays its role in the story of the Psalter in a way that this genre, as name, does not reveal. So Psalms 6, 38, 70, and 137 underscore a theme relating to remembering. Psalm 51, following Psalm 50, confirms that blood sacrifice is not the priority, but rather the offering of thanksgiving (Psalm 50), and the new spirit and clean heart (Psalm 51). Psalm 102, prior to the entr’acte of Book 4 is part of the frame for Book 4, balancing Psalm 90. Psalm 130 is one of the Songs of Ascent. Psalm 143 is part of the Davidic closing bracket for the Psalter.[15]

A psalm reaches more deeply than can be encompassed in a one word summary.

The terms ‘royal’ and ‘lament’ are equally problematic. They are too reductionist. A psalm reaches more deeply than can be encompassed in a one word summary.
If we begin at the beginning, Psalms 1 and 2 are a pair framed by ‘Happy’:

1.1	Happy the person who does not walk in the advice of the wicked and in the way of sinners does not stand and in the seat of the scornful does not sit …
2.11	serve יהוה in fear and rejoice in trembling
2.12	Kiss, each of you – pure lest he be angry and you perish in the way for he kindles as a hint of his anger Happy! all who take refuge in him

If we move on to Psalms 3 to 6, we can observe the shape of the story. All these are psalms of David. David is in trouble (3.2); he makes demands and is answered with a one-verse rebuke (4.2-3); he makes promises and demands and describes his Lord (5); and then suffers a sharp rebuke for an unstated reason, but the result is known in that first penitential psalm 6. Psalm 7 reflects on the struggle, a shiggaion, a wild dance or a mistake. Psalm 8 celebrates the life of the children of humanity as a gift. Psalms 9 and 10 are the first of four acrostics in Book 1.
Alphabetic acrostics are poems in which the initial letters of the verse or of sets of verses are sequenced by the letters of the alphabet. These occur only in Books 1 and 5. Psalms 9 and 10 taken together are a broken alphabetical acrostic. Seven of the twenty-two letters are missing or out of sequence.
I say a great deal about the acrostics in Seeing the Psalter. They are the organizing principle of Books 1 and 5. They are marked in their places as play and as celebration, each one following a significant psalm. They mark the whole of the Psalter as a book collected and formed during or after the exile of Judea to Babylon.
When we move on to Psalms 11-15, the stage is set with the question: who will guest in your tent, O Lord? Who will live with you? This question can serve as our approach to the Holy. The Psalter forms an approach to the Holy through the formation of a people who know mercy. Holiness is not then fully unapproachable, but it is to be approached through the covenant of mercy, a mercy that creates its own guest.[16] Book 1 continues with 8 poems leading to Psalm 24 which is followed by the second acrostic. Why these 8 poems? 16 – the claim that the one under mercy will not be abandoned; that the elect is ‘the apple of God’s eye’ (17), that there is a deep compassion going both ways (18); that the Torah is declared by the created order (19); that the king will triumph through great adversity, (20-23) and enter the Holy place (24). The people reach the Holy place in Book 5. The approach is long and difficult, yet only (in an image) a short distance up the 15 steps of the temple (the songs of Ascent, Psalms 120 to 134). One could see Psalm 120 as defining the movement from blackness and charade to the place of the Holy. You may remember Meshech and Kedar[17]. I recall many a chorister wondering where these places are.
Woe is me, that I am constrained to dwell with Meshech,
and to have my habitation among the tents of Kedar!
woe to me for I am guest in a charade
I dwell in tents of blackness
I cannot say it is easy. Holiness has a reality that impurity cannot bear. But it is certainly not impossible and it is an invitation. We are instructed, again in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to approach the Holy place and to enter through the veil, that is to say, the flesh of Jesus, into the presence of God.[18] Here there is as our end, as shown at the end of the Psalter, continuous praise.

[1] Hebrews 5:8, Revised English Bible.

[2] Seeing the Psalter, Bob MacDonald, p. 5.

[3] The Psalms through the Centuries, Susan Gillingham, p. 14.

[4] Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms, ed. Susan Gillingham, p. 11 ff.

[5] http://www.lutheransonline.com/lo/675/FSLO-1059011476-804675.pdf

[6] Revised English Bible.

[7] The other Vulgate is more like Coverdale: Domine quid multiplicati sunt qui tribulant me. Oh, how the translations multiply against me!

[8] From Seeing the Psalter, pages 28 and 29.

[9] Change of pitch would be inconsistent with the interpretation of the music proposed by Suzanne Haik-Vantoura.

[10] Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

[11] The Music of the Bible Revealed: The Deciphering of a Millenary Notation, Suzanne Haik Vantoura.

[12] The Canonical Hebrew Bible, A Theology of the Old Testament, Rolf Rentdorf.

[13] But note that some scrolls found at Qumran show differing orders especially in psalms from Books 4 and 5. See Flint (op. cit.) and Psalms dwelling together in unity, JBL Vol. 131, No.3 Ryan Armstrong p 502.

[14] The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, Michael Goulder, p. 10.

[15] Seeing the Psalter, op. cit. p. 228.

[16] Come, my way, my truth, my life (3^rd verse), George Herbert.

[17] Psalm 120:5.

[18] Hebrews 10:20.

October 26, 2013

Useless Biblical Knowledge

by Greg May, reposted from Greg’s Watering Hole and used by permission.
A while back a guy, upon finding out I was a Believer, said to me: “I didn’t know you were religious.” Nowadays that word “religious” doesn’t necessarily mean “Jesus follower” to me. Yet I knew what he meant and I was disappointed in myself that I had been around this fellow for so long and he had no idea of my faith. That said something about my lack of living it out in front of him.

Anyway, that’s another blog. The topic of the short conversation that ensued about the Bible led me to tell him of a Men’s group I have had at my house. He was interested and told me to let him know if I had another group because he wanted to study the Bible. I said I would and explained that we studied the Word and how to apply it in our lives. He informed me that he didn’t care about the application part, he just wanted to study the Bible to gain knowledge.
The Bible tells us to seek out and gain knowledge. It also tells us the reason for gaining knowledge is to apply it in our lives. Jesus taught His disciples and others who heard Him teach how to apply the Word in their daily lives. Knowledge should be gained and then applied or it is useless! What good is unapplied knowledge? The Bible may as well be a paper weight on our coffee table if we won’t apply the knowledge gained from it to our lives.
I installed a laminate floor in my living room a week or so ago. I’m a pretty handy guy but I had never installed flooring. I read the instructions first to gain the knowledge I would need. I ask plenty of questions of people experienced in actually installing laminate. There is a lot of info and instruction that I received that made the project go much smoother than it might have gone otherwise.
Life can be so much smoother if we will just take the time to gain knowledge by “reading the instructions” and listening to an instructor that’s “been there and done that.”
In life we need knowledge. Then we need to know how to apply that knowledge. We have the Word of God (His instructions) for knowledge. Whenever possible we need to seek out those who can help us apply that knowledge in our lives. The disciples had Jesus in the flesh to teach them how to apply the things of God to their lives. Timothy had Paul, and all through the Bible people had teachers prophets, leaders and family members who taught them how to apply the knowledge they had gained.
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. (James 1:22)
We should read the Word to gain knowledge. We should also seek out someone who has applied that Biblical knowledge to their own lives to guide us in applying it in ours.
Drop me a line,
Greg

October 22, 2013
DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

A reflection on the Meaning of Communion
Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle
It was a Sunday morning just a couple of weeks ago. As a matter of fact, it was the day on the worship calendar of many Protestant churches that goes by the name World Communion Sunday. My sermon was aptly entitled ‘IS IT REALLY COMMUNION?’ and in it I tried to examine as best as could what Communion might really mean for those of us who come to worship and partake of it, at least on occasion.

… the sacrament of Communion, by the very fact that it is considered a sacrament, has to be seen as an outward sign that both signifies something very important and also serves as the cause of that which it signifies.

My sermon had made its foray into history, including the long history of separate Communion wherein the usual practice has been that Protestants and Catholics not receive Communion in each others’ churches. Though I resisted the tendency to speak at great length about any of the questions involved, by the time the sermon was drawing to its end, I could not resist finishing up by explaining that the sacrament of Communion, by the very fact that it is considered a sacrament, has to be seen as an outward sign that both signifies something very important and also serves as the cause of that which it signifies.
Now, I knew in my head and at least as importantly in my heart what I meant by saying this. But something dawned on me then and later on in the day and then during the week as I reflected back on that sermon. It struck me that the sheer emotional investment I had made in speaking the right words from the pulpit and in articulating as best I could what the essence of Holy Communion might mean might very well not mean all that much to many of those people in the pews that day who had little choice but to sit in their pews and listen to my sermon.

Is it really a sign of what we are supposed to be when some of us might sit on our comfortable pews and want nothing at all to do with others who are sitting around us?

Is it really a sign of unity?, I wondered, when a few hundred yards down the street Roman Catholics were holding their own Communion ritual with no invitation to Protestant Christians to come join them at table? In fact, in some of those churches the suggestion that one NOT partake is explicitly advertised in the worship materials that are used or the words spoken by the priest from that very table.
Is it really a sign of what we are supposed to be when some of us might sit on our comfortable pews and want nothing at all to do with others who are sitting around us?
As I reflected more upon this, it dawned on me that this issue has really been an emotional one for me throughout my life. Raised a Roman Catholic and having served for years as a teacher of religion in Catholic schools and churches and having served for nine years as an ordained clergyman within that church, I both loved the Catholic Church deeply, yet yearned passionately for change within it, including the simple (I thought) realization that Catholics and Protestants cannot be divided at Jesus’ table.

… most of us are very comfortable with Communion as being something we share with each other, kind of disconnected from what is going on at those other churches, including sometimes even the one across the street.

Yet …. It wasn’t just emotional for me from that perspective. In my twelve plus years as a Protestant pastor, I have discovered, much to my chagrin, that the zeal and desire for shared Communion isn’t really there within most Protestant churches. While some of us advertise ourselves as having a table where ‘all are welcome,’ I think most of us are very comfortable with Communion as being something we share with each other, kind of disconnected from what is going on at those other churches, including sometimes even the one across the street. Even most World communion Sunday services, really, tend to be shared just within our own churches, among ourselves!
In fact, though, it cuts even deeper than any of this. Some would argue that this is a battle that has already been won. Think of all the Catholics and Protestants, they would say, who very freely receive Communion at funerals and weddings in churches other than their own, who are, in fact, already engaged in ecumenical Communion, if even, in some cases without the approval of their churches.
As wonderful as I think it is that they are, I also think of all of those who would never consider doing so either because the rules of their own church don’t allow it or because they feel that, way down deep, they are not really welcome at that other church’s table.
And even more, as favorable as I am to individual persons, in acts of conscience, doing anything they can to break down barriers that, in my view, are both unnecessary and absurd, I yearn for something more.
What I would REALLY like to see is good, serious discussions by Catholics and Protestants together about what Communion really means and about how the language each tradition has used to discuss it has both HELPED and HINDERED our understanding of sharing in Jesus’ Communion with us. Wouldn’t it be great if all of these churches which worship in such close proximity to each other, such as my own and the neighborhood Catholic parish, could find ways to talk to each other about this sacrament in which Jesus calls us all to be ONE?

Wouldn’t it be great if all of these churches which worship in such close proximity to each other could find ways to talk to each other about this sacrament in which Jesus calls us all to be ONE?

Some would contend that I am woefully idealistic and impractical, but I will contend in reply that Catholic and Protestant young people and adults alike would greatly benefit if, alongside one another, they could learn what it means when we do what we do separately in our own churches. And I am idealistic enough to believe that if we enter these discussions together, if we hold up and examine these very real, historic differences for what they are, we will yearn ever more deeply for that day when we can freely and officially sit side by side at the table that belongs not to us, but to God!
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
TO BE CONTINUED……………..
Rev. Dr. Robert LaRochelle is a pastor and educator who lives in Connecticut. He is author of Part-Time Pastor, Full-Time Church, Crossing the Street, and So Much Older Then …. His next release will be in Energion’s Topical Line Drives series and is titled What Protestants Need to Know about Roman Catholics.
In the next article in this series, Rev. Dr. LaRochelle discusses specific differences in the understanding of Communion between Protestants and Catholics.

October 15, 2013
Teach How to Think, Not What to Think

As an educator, I am deeply concerned with what people think. But I am equally concerned with how people think. Unfortunately, due to the tragic condition of the American school system, most students are simply told what to think rather than being equipped with tools to think for themselves. This is not a time for evangelicals to ignore biblical truth. Still less is this a time for mindless conformity.

It is no longer possible to ignore the academic vacuum that exists at all levels in our churches. Even pastor-teachers fall prey to what I call educationism – the belief that one can’t know anything unless one learns it from this or that “expert.” Such an attitude actually produces a shallow conformism since it leads us to believe that we need others to tell us what to think. Many well-meaning friends once warned me about going to the University of Basel for my doctorate. “You’ll lose your faith!” they exclaimed. Actually, one of the many reasons I ended up in Switzerland was to have my faith challenged. Thank God I came though still believing in unchanging standards of truth and goodness, but my point here is that students today seldom look for ways to have their beliefs challenged. When I was in college and seminary, I allowed my professors to dictate what the questions were and the method of approaching them. I was told that Mark was our earliest Gospel, that Paul could not have written Hebrews, that the Byzantine Text was secondary. I was rarely asked to look at the evidence for myself and make hard choices. What I sought and desired in school, but rarely found, was a map or a guide by which I could know what questions to ask.

Modern education in the U.S. has largely forsaken the scientific method of inquiry. The result has been unreflective rigidity. This inattention to discovery and heuristics is often a product of an anti-intellectual stream in our past. This is very unfortunate. I want my students to leave seminary with solid biblical convictions, of course, but I also want them to understand how one comes to know (epistemology) and to think (logic). Pedagogy matters. It matters because the systems that are opposed to biblical Christianity use logical arguments and philosophical methods. Michael Peterson, in his magisterial work Philosophy of Education (p. 83), writes:

A complete Christian view of knowledge recognizes that reality is complex and that each of its domains must be known on its own terms. There is no single way to discover all the different truths there are. We must discover empirical truths through observation and experiment, historical truths through records and artifacts, logical and mathematical truths by abstract reasoning, and so forth. Christians have no shortcuts in these areas, but share basic noetic capabilities as other humans.

In other words, if our business as Christians is to glorify God, then that includes glorifying Him with our minds. Whatever it takes, whatever it means, whatever happens to me, am I willing to obey His lordship over my thinking? Students, beware of the pedagogy that says, “You sit still while I instill.” And to my fellow educators I say: let us teach our students how to think and not only what to think.

(From Dave Black Online. Used by permission. And yes, we’re featuring a book that we didn’t publish!)

August 30, 2013
Faith vs. Mental Assent

Note: Today we bring you a sermon from a brother in Kenya, Bishop Simon O. MacOnyango of the Kenya Center for World Evangelism. This sermon is reprinted here with his kind permission.
Preached By Brother S. O. MacOnyango on 11^th August 2013 at Kahoya Believers Fellowship, Eldoret.
Main Text: 1 Corinthians 1:21-29 … New Living Translation (NLT)
……²⁰So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.
²¹Since God in his wisdom (revelation or divine truth) saw to it that the world would never know (receive his truths or receive Him by revelation) him through human wisdom (head knowledge – mental assent), he has used our foolish preaching (revelation) to save those who believe (receive the truth or revelation). ²²It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom (mental assent). ²³So when we preach that Christ was crucified (the revelation), the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense (doesn’t make sense against all proven human facts)….²⁴But to those called by God (embrace the truth) to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom (revelation) of God.²⁵This foolish plan of God (revelation) is wiser than the wisest of human plans (mental assent), and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.²⁶Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise (had revelation or had the capacity to receive the divine truths) in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. ²⁷Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish (not appealing to our mental faculties) in order to shame those who think they are wise (have head knowledge or mental assent). And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.²⁸God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important.²⁹As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God (when and if we receive these divine truths)
Note: words in brackets are mine and only meant for teaching purposes
John 7:38….New American Standard Bible (NASB)….³⁸He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being (from the revelatory not mental assent) will flow rivers of living water.’”
Many of us Christians have mental assent of things of God and take it for FAITH….We may know that God exists but actually DO NOT have faith that HE exists. Mental assent looks so much like faith that there is a very fine thin line between the two.
Mental assent means intellectually accepting or knowing the Word of God to be facts but not receiving it as a Truth – admiring it and agreeing with it BUT not receiving the revelatory element of it …. That doesn’t do us any good. In essence, mental assent agrees with and knows more about God but does not believe in God.
The mental assent agrees and knows that the Bible came from God and that it is God’s word BUT does NOT take it as revelation, and that every Word of it is a fact BUT NOT the Truth see! When a crisis comes however, s/he says, “Yes, I know (NOT BELIEVE) the Bible is true, but it does not work for me in this situation.” We often quote Scriptures we don’t really believe to be TRUTHS.
We so many times mentally affirm the promise! In many years in my ministry and family life I lived like that BUT wondering why I am not making any haed way despite my superb memory of the scriptures….. that ……. “God will supply all my needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Phil 4:19”,….. that in itself was beautiful …. but for so many years I never took these bible verses as God’s TRUTHS by making them personal. Such a Christian may be successful in knowing much about the Word, but as far as spiritual life is concerned has failed. The true believer is a doer of the Word who receives it as a TRUTH. The believer builds on rock, while the mental assent builds on sand. (See Matthew 7:24-27.)…… In Africa witchdoctors, sorcerers, and fortune tellers keep Bibles as one of their paraphernalia….if you happen to consult one…the first consultation is for you the client to open a bible at random…. keeping the bible in itself DOES NOT help a thing….we can have so many of them in public places, in public schools etc, but who teaches people to receive it as GOD’S TRUTH not like any other novel!!
A variation of mental assent is “sense/head knowledge.” This is the attitude that says, “If I cannot see it and weigh it against all available facts known, then it is not real. I’ll believe it when I see it.” The Bible tells us, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:17). This means that faith and sense knowledge are not compatible….I am not against teaching of critical thinking because I am a student of the same.
Faith is the substance and evidence of things that our sense of conventional knowledge cannot see. (See Hebrews 11:1, for definition of Faith). Sense knowledge is the biggest obstacle to faith because; in many cultures we are trained and conditioned to live by our five senses. If we cannot analyze something and empirically conclude that it actually works, then we do not believe it is real. However, God says He has promised is already reality. Yet it won’t become manifested reality in our lives until we believe it is real before we see it-through fully trusting in Him and His Word. That is how faith operates.
Again, the Bible says “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. Note carefully that this verse does not say that faith is the EVIDENCE of things that do not exist. It says that faith is the evidence of the things you CANNOT SEE.
For example, you cannot always see how God will meet your need. However, God says, “It’s already met; believe me.” That is living by faith. If you live by any other means, you will have high blood pressure, depression, and fear and end up in a mental institution. You will live in frustration because you will try to figure out how to meet your own needs (even spiritual) when you do not have that capability. God says, “I will supply all your needs. I have everything worked out. Trust Me to do it.”
If we are mentally assenting to the God’s word and NOT receiving it as a divine truth, we will continue to live below your privilege for too long as SONS. We will need to start living by faith (the truth of God’s word) so that God’s Word can come to pass in our lives and ministries and in every spheres of our involvement.
I may say “Well, I need more faith.”……Brethren Faith is SIMPLE BUT NOT EASY to obtain. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Here is the thing……..When we receive the Word then exercise that knowledge (the heard WORD) by the enablement of the Spirit we let it filter through our knower man to our spirit man then we receive it as a revelation (GOD’s TRUTH), it is then that our faith begins to grow…..
I HAVE known many Christian that I have personally led to the saving faith and BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST who never went beyond the baptism leave alone to command anything in that NAME!…in fact one Brother remarked to me during one of my teaching sessions……Brother Simon, you are a remarkable teacher of the word…I realized that He truly agreed with every scripture I put forth…. But down the line what I did to the Brother at the river here in Eldoret was ‘DRY CLEANING IN JESUS NAME’ not ‘BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME’. Why? Because he did not receive my teachings on Baptism as the TRUTH but FACTS of the Bible!
Mental assent is what defeats the child of God who regularly attends church more than anything else. Most Christians are not missing it in what they know about the scripture, but in what they believe (receive as truths). Faith is an act that emanates from our spirit NOT mental faculty! Mental assent just says; “I am blessed and highly favored” while refusing to receive it as a truth provided in the Word. Here is what mental assent is:
• Mental assent knows 100% that the Bible is the word of God .
• Mental assent agrees and knows that Jesus is the Son of God.
• Mental assent agrees and knows that Jesus was raised from the dead.
• Mental assent will say I believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. Mental assent knows that BAPTISM IS IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST …. Mental assent is beautiful, BUT IT WILL NOT embrace the truth …. Every time we read the Word or hear good teaching then we let filter through our mental faculty….that is the process…. by the enablement of the Spirit of God and put it to practice, our Spiritual life is strengthened a little more. The Word is the seed. Once we put the seed in the nursery (knower man) then it turns into a seedling then eventually transfer it to the actual garden (the spirit man) the seed is going to grow because the power is in the seed.
James 1:22 says, “Do not merely listen to the Word and so deceive yourselves. DO WHAT IT SAYS.” This verse separates mental assent from faith. James says if we think listening to the Word by itself will make the difference, then we are deceiving ourselves. We must learn what we have heard and received by believing and then acting upon it in faith NOT AS A MATTER OF RITUAL.
Jesus said to the chief priests and elders of the people…. There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ I will not, he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. (Matt 21:28-31)
The second son mentally assented to the words of the father but never did anything beyond receiving the word.
Although the first son was initially rebellious (hardened in the heart) he ended up agreeing to his father’s request and doing it. Jesus was showing us that we cannot just say we know BUT we must believe. WE HAVE TO LIVE OUT OUR FAITH BY DOING WHAT GOD ASKS. WE SHOULD NOT ONLY AGREE WITH HIS WORD AND WILL, BUT ALSO embrace it as a TRUTH not simply what the Bible says (facts)….
Brethren, faith is not a feeling though it produces a feeling. Faith will make us feel good when our bodies are healed, our needs are met and our lives are victorious! But it is not a feeling! The feeling and the healing (manifestation) follows the saying and the doing (faith)! You say it by faith (knowing it to be the TRUTH not what the Bible simply says) when you feel nothing or even feel terrible and you act like what God has said is true. This is so simple that a child can understand it yet most children of God struggle with grasping it.
May the Lord bless us and every one of us in the coming weeks!
Brother Simon MacOnyango

August 14, 2013
Joel Watts – Question 6 – Answer 1 (Profit)

Links:

Question 6
Elgin’s Answer
Joel’s Answer
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

Content:

(Note: Content corrected an updated 7/30/13, because the editor posted the wrong content.)
1) You say profits must be kept low. But terms like “low” and “high” are relative terms, and frankly very subjective. What is low or high is very likely to vary widely from person to person, and particularly between buyer and seller. What will be the basis for such determinations?
I think high profit would be something along the lines of what the former Exxon executive received as a retirement package. I must turn again to Aquinas. Money is consumable, unlike land and other means of production. To have more money than is consumable by the individual is against natural law (as Aquinas would state). To have consumable money making money consumable money, neither of which will ever be consumed, this is against natural law. If profit is consumed to provide for the poorest, it is a virtue. If profit is wasted (as in left only to consume itself), then it is sinful.
2) You say “But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.” How is government going to perform this role, and what gives you any confidence that they have the ability to fulfill this role?
“They” is not a term I thought we would rightfully use in a Republic. I would prefer the term “we.” The anti-trust/monopoly acts worked well until they were balkanized to the point of non-existence. Further, taxes based on high profit (profit unconsumed either in the means of production or in the means of comfort, but profit consumed only in the production of more profit) would likely yield a comfortable natural force, as was evident before the concept of low taxes means a better economy was the trend in the 1960’s.
3) You say you have different expectations for the profit and non-profit. What are these expectations, particularly when it comes to for profit and government?
I thought we were talking about profit and non-profit, not profit and government. I fully expect a profit organization to seek to make profit for the betterment of its members. A non-profit should seek to raise money for the betterment of others.

July 26, 2013
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

Links:

Question 6
Elgin’s Answer
Joel’s Answer
Joel Watts – Question 6 – Reply 1 (Profit)

Content:

1.) You quote Scripture regarding pay. Are profit and the pay the same thing?
Well, there are clearly some differences; otherwise we would not have separate words. But at their core they are basically the same in that they are the compensation for services rendered.
Where they differ is in how they are paid. Wages are paid for a particular unit of time. But, if we look at a store owner selling a can of soup, it would be very difficult to if not impossible to determine the hours worked to get a can of soup on the self so it could be purchased. As such the store owner is paid for his or her work by the difference between the cost of the can of soup and the amount paid for the can of soup.
This difference also results in another key difference that is often overlooked. Most people see profit only in terms of gain. But there is no guarantee that anyone will purchase the can of soup.   If someone works for a wage, they are virtually guaranteed to receive payment for services rendered; as such there is little, if any, risk. With profit, there is rarely any guaranteed and normally there is significant risk.
I have worked both ways. When I worked for a wage I have always been paid for the work I did. When I worked for profit there have been many times where I have not. If my costs ended up higher than I had expected, then my compensation was reduced. In fact, there were many times when I wrote checks for my employees’ wages, and did not have enough money to even pay all my bills, much less myself.
So at their core, they are both compensation, but they vary in how they are paid and the risk involved.
2.) Do you see only one “profit?” In other words, you speak about profit motive, yet we have seen in recent economic epochs the increasing split level of meaning applied to profit. Do you believe in different profits or is there only one profit, with just different avenues to get there?
Similar to the previous question they are all compensation, but there are two things that distinguish among the various types of profit. One is in what the compensation is in exchange for, is it in exchange for a good or a service?   There is at times some confusion about this because at times the service being provided is not clear, and at times not understood by many people.
The other is in the number of people being compensated, is it the single owner of a small store, or thousands of stockholders of a corporations?
3.) You write: “You pay a store in exchange for goods and services received.” I would contest that while this is philosophically the case, this is not always true. There are profit centers in business where profit is earned at a greater rate than with other products. Your statement seems to indicate you believe in a fair exchange. Economic practices no longer pretend this is true. Would you regulate fair exchanges? What if the exchange wasn’t fair?
At a minimum I would want to add a lot of qualifiers to these statements, but I would accept the general concept of a fair exchange as a goal, the main problem being how one defines “fair.” But if we ignore that issue for now, I do think there is a need for some regulation. To me the issue is not the existence of regulation, but the purpose or goal of regulation.
Regulation that aims at encouraging choice and competition is good. Because of the nature of regulation, regulation aimed at encouraging choice and competition is limited in nature, as too much regulation creates barriers to entry that stifle competition. On the other hand, regulation that seeks to impose some concept of fairness is doomed to not only to fail, but will ultimately make things worse.
Here is a case in point. A few years back Florida was hit by a hurricane and there were charges of price gouging by gas stations. In response, the Florida Attorney general made a very public point of saying that the states anti-gouging law would be strictly enforced. As chance had it, a few weeks later, another part of Florida was hit by another hurricane. Sure enough this time there was virtually no gouging – because there was no gas.
It is easy to understand, and in fact is simply the law of supply and demand in action. When stations were “gouging” with the first hurricane they were effectively rationing it and people purchased just what they need. After the second hurricane, they simply filled up “just in case” and stations quickly ran out. In addition, with the first hurricane station owners were encouraged to take extra efforts, perhaps purchasing a generator and getting an electrician to wire it up knowing they could recoup their costs. If they did that in the second case, they could easily be charge with “gouging” and end up in court and even fined. So why take the risk?
As for what to do if the exchange is not fair, the first question is who determines what is and is not fair? For me the best solution is to ensure consumers have choice. This will encourage business owners to provide the best value to customers. Again a case in point: There is a lot of competition among restaurants, and prices vary widely. Some places charge more for a lunch than others. But who is to say that one place is unfair and the other is fair? If I have a problem with one restaurant, I can very easily go someplace else.
The bottom line is that given all the factors that are involved in a transaction, so many of which are subjective, it is simply impossible for the government to regulate this in any effective manner and history is pretty clear that the more they try, the worst they make things.    Thus government should instead focus on making sure there is choice and competition for consumers and then let consumers decide for themselves which of the many suppliers provide them with the best value.

July 26, 2013
Joel Watts – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer

Links:

Question 6
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 6 (Profit) – Answer
For we do not aim to be rich merely for our own sakes, but for the sake of our children, our neighbors, friends and most of all, for our community. For the private fortunes of individuals are the wealth of the state. (Cicero, De Officiis)
St. Thomas Aquinas cites Augustine in saying “The businessman who is eager for profit blasphemes at his losses, and he lies and swears falsely over the price of his goods. These, however, are the vices of the businessman himself, not of business in general, which can be conducted without these vices” (Summa Theologica II-II, 77, 4)
For more of what could be considered my philosophical starting point, see here.
1.) What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force?
The theology of the scientific theory of evolution is one benefiting us here, I believe. “Life will find a way” is a statement common in movies about dinosaurs resurrected for our benefit and the creators’ profits. But, in this Hollywood statement are tenets of great philosophical struggles. Life will find a way.
Why must life find a way? Because the forces of non-life are always present and are the primary substance of the universe. As of yet, we have found life only on one planet, in one solar system, in one small part of the growing universe. Non-life is the constant of the universe. Yet, we have life.
“Find.” Find implies motive. We must find a way because it is natural. Competition and push-back are those things that drive us in our need to find a way to survive.
The same thing occurs with profit. Without the desire to live by what we make, we do not flourish as humans, but languish as natural beasts of the field. I believe in the concept of human flourishing, that of finding out who we are meant to be. I believe humans are naturally competitors. We compete against our siblings, against our schoolmates, and against one other in the pursuit of jobs, fame, and fortune. Profit and not material gain such as land, goats, and children is the modern goal of that pursuit. To deny, then, the pursuit of profit as a human need is to suggest we have somehow “become as the angels” have thus have need of nothing, not even love. The pursuit of profit is part of human flourishing.
At small levels, competition does present a regulating force; however, when profits are too large and thus power too easily bought, competition is easily snuffed out. Even Adam Smith knew this. When profits are kept low, competition is naturally occurring because more people are able to invest in order to achieve profits. Further, when profits are kept low, this means consumers have more money to spend. But, to keep them low, one must employ external forces, such as government regulations.
2.) Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
This is a rather difficult question to ask, given the wide range of organizations under those banners. Even non-profits must make money in order to say afloat.
I would venture to guess that the reasons many non-profits form as such are the tax laws. If we were to rectify them first, we might see the end of this dubious separation.
As far as a matter of trust, I do not think I can fully apply that term to a non-human entity. Corporations are not persons, my friend. I do, however, have different expectations for the two groups.

July 18, 2013