The best and worst of CCM

I have had a real love-hate relationship with contemporary Christian music for about the last eight to ten years. There was a time when I listened to CCM constantly—I knew almost every song on the radio, and my dad and I would even have contests whenever we would get in the car to see who could guess the song and artist first in the shortest amount of time. Then sometime after the car-contest-era, I swore off CCM completely. As my family and I came to a deeper, thoroughly Reformed theological understanding, I became increasingly frustrated with the simplistic, shallow nature of the vast majority of contemporary Christian music. Every time I turned on the radio, I would get so discouraged that I would almost immediately turn it off again. There was no depth—no reverence—no sense of awe at a majestic, awesome, holy God. I quit listening.

I developed a keen interest in film scores—you know, the instrumental backing to a movie that provides much of the emotional framework for the story’s impact. I became a soundtrack geek, rediscovering a sampling of classical music at the same time. My taste in music became gradually more and more eclectic in nature; I delved into Celtic music, and I even developed an enthusiasm for orchestrated metal. The depth and complexity of the music (and, oftentimes, the lyrics as well) was, and is, fascinating. But still no CCM. None at all.

It’s been several years since then, and I have now reached the point where I can again listen to CCM in moderate doses. I have discovered that there are actually some songs and artists that are worth listening to. Yes, there is much that deserves to be thrown out the window. But there is also some that adequately expresses the glory of the cross, the incredible gift of redemption, and the unmerited favor that is our salvation in Christ. You have to dig harder to find it. But it is out there.

Today as I was driving home from work, with my radio tuned to one of the valley’s Christian radio stations, I heard a song that personifies everything I learned to hate about contemporary Christian music. I do have to admit that this is one song that I really can’t stand to let play. Any time it comes on while I happen to be listening, I just have to turn it off. It’s nothing personal against the song or the artist, but it demonstrates oh-so-clearly not only the lack of depth but also the complete lack of theological understanding that permeates much of the Christian music scene. The song is by Francesca Battistelli, and part of the lyrics go like this: “‘Cause I got a couple dents in my fender / got a couple rips in my jeans / try to fit the pieces together / but perfection is my enemy / on my own I’m so clumsy / but on Your shoulders I can see / I’m free to be me.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but I know for a fact that I have a whole lot more that is wrong with my heart than “a couple dents in my fender” or “a couple rips in my jeans”. Perfection is not just my enemy—it’s absolutely unattainable in this life. I’m more than just clumsy; I’m absolutely lost and helpless apart from One who is greater than I. Salvation isn’t just about finding that I am “free to be me”. It’s about falling down at the foot of the cross, acknowledging my sinful soul and my absolute dependence upon my Savior, and looking to Him alone to bring me to heaven. It’s about the glorious and inexplicable truth that although I can do absolutely nothing to bring my sinful heart into submission to Him, yet He looks upon me not in myself, but in Christ, and Christ’s merit covers my sin completely. I am free and forgiven, in Him. Now that is something worth singing about! Unfortunately, however, the true glory of the Gospel rarely comes across in its fullness in much of Christian pop music.

There are some exceptions, though. Michael Card, for example, has always been one of my favorite artists. Not only is his music unique and beautiful, but his lyrics also reflect the highs and lows of the Christian life, and the full range of Christian experience. I recently have been listening to his “Ancient Faith” album, a 2-disc masterpiece that starts at creation and explores many of the themes of the Old Testament. It is truly magnificent. Comparing the songs from “Ancient Faith” to the song I was quoting earlier… well, the contrast is stark. Card’s music carries with it a sense of reverence and awe in the face of a holy God. His lyrics reflect what it truly means to be a Christian—from the depths of despair to the heights of rejoicing. He digs deep into the Scriptures and mines gems that are expressed with perhaps greater power and poignancy through music. Music is meant to display the full range of human emotion, and especially for the Christian artist, the full range of spiritual emotion. Card does so. Artists like Michael Card have gradually brought me back around to listening to CCM again.

I still am a soundtrack geek. I still like a good dose of orchestrated metal. I wouldn’t say that I am, generally speaking, a fan of contemporary Christian music. But I am glad to have reached the point again where I can turn on Christian radio without cringing.

Monday randoms...

~ I only have 11 weeks of school left. There really IS light at the end of the tunnel!

~ I finally broke down and took claritin today. A morning of non-stop sneezing gets rather exhausting.

~ I am officially in love with the song "Before the Throne of God Above" by Selah. I can't stop listening to it!

~ This spring weather makes me happy. If only 100-degree days could just disappear instead of being just a short few weeks away!

~ I can't seem to keep up my blog lately. Am I losing all my creativity on homework so that I have nothing left to say? Hmm, so it would seem.

~ My stack of books just keeps building, and I am oh-so-greatly anticipating having the opportunity to actually READ them all.

~ Michael Buble is my new favorite happy music.

~ I have been blessed beyond degree.

Thoughts on Law

This week I chose to write my discussion for International Business class on the concept of common law. It turned out to be a far broader assignment than I initially anticipated, but it was quite a fascinating process to do the research. One article in particular, which I ended up not even referencing in the discussion, was particularly though-provoking for me--so much so that I had to restrain myself from referencing it, lest I end up quoting the entire thing! It is well-written, apropos, and will certainly make you think.

The original version is, of course, prettier than my blog version, and can be viewed here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/legislation-and-law-in-a-free-society/.

~*~

Legislation and Law in a Free Society
Posted By N. Stephan Kinsella • September 1995 • Vol. 45/Issue 9

Mr. Kinsella practices law with Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis in Philadelphia. This article is adapted from a longer essay forthcoming in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, which contains detailed references to the authors and works cited here.

Libertarians and classical liberals have long sought to explain what sorts of laws we should have in a free society. But we have often neglected the study of what sort of legal system is appropriate for developing a proper body of law.

Historically, in the common law of England, Roman law, and the Law Merchant, law was formed in large part in thousands of judicial decisions. In these so-called “decentralized law-finding systems,” the law evolved as judges, arbitrators, or other jurists discovered legal principles applicable to specific factual situations, building upon legal principles previously discovered, and statutes, or centralized law, played a relatively minor role. Today, however, statutes passed by the legislature are becoming the primary source of law, and law tends to be thought of as being identical to legislation. Yet legislation-based systems cannot be expected to develop law compatible with a free society.

Certainty, which includes clarity of and stability in the law, is necessary so that we are able to plan for the future. Often it is thought that certainty will be increased when the law is written and enunciated by a legislature, for example in the civil codes of modern civil-law systems.

As the late Italian legal theorist Bruno Leoni pointed out, however, there is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system. When the legislature has the ability to change the law from day to day, we can never be sure what rules will apply tomorrow. By contrast, judicial decisions are much less able to reduce legal certainty than is legislation.

This is because the position of common-law or decentralized judges is fundamentally different from that of legislators in three respects. First, judges can only make decisions when asked to do so by the parties concerned. Second, the judge’s decision is less far-reaching than legislation because it primarily affects the parties to the dispute, and only occasionally affects third parties or others with no connection to the parties involved. Third, a judge’s discretion is limited by the necessity of referring to similar precedents. Legal certainty is thus more attainable in a relatively decentralized law-finding system like the common law, Roman law, or customary law, than in centralized law-making systems where legislation is the primary source of law.

Negative Effects of Uncertainty

Legislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have.

Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more and/or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty, which is brought about by a legislation-based system, causes an increase in time preference rates because if the future is less certain, it is relatively less valuable compared to the present.

In addition to materially impoverishing society, higher time preference rates also lead to increased crime. As a person becomes more present-oriented, immediate (criminal) gratifications become relatively more attractive, and future, uncertain punishment becomes less of a deterrent.

Central Planning and Economic Calculation

Ludwig von Mises showed that, without a decentralized private property system, the free market prices which are essential in economic calculation cannot be generated. As Leoni has explained, Mises’ criticism of socialism also applies to a legislature attempting to “centrally plan” the laws of a society. The impossibility of socialism is only a special case of the general inability of central planners to collect and assimilate information widely dispersed in society. The widely dispersed, decentralized character of knowledge and information in society simply makes it too difficult for centralized legislators to rationally plan the laws of society.

Legislators’ inescapable ignorance also makes them less able to truly represent the general will of the populace and likely to be influenced by special interests. Because of their ignorance, they have no reliable guide for knowing what statutes to enact, which makes them more likely to be influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups. This leads to statutes that benefit a select few at the expense of others and, in the long run, at the expense of all of society.

Decentralized law-finding systems like the common law, on the other hand, are analogous to free markets in that a natural order, unplanned by government decrees, arises in both. Additionally, as pointed out by Richard Epstein, because alteration of legislation and regulation is likely to have more of a payoff for lobbyists than convincing a judge to change common-law type rules, judges are also less likely to be the target of special interests than are legislators.

The Proliferation of Laws

Because of the systematic ignorance that legislators face, legislation often disrupts the delicate economic, legal, and social order of society, leading to unintended consequences. And invariably, because of government propaganda combined with public ignorance and apathy, the inevitable failures of legislation are blamed, not on interventionist government, but on freedom and unregulated human conduct, leading to even more meddlesome legislation.

Such a continual outpouring of artificial laws has many insidious effects. As special interest groups become successful, others become necessary for self-defense, and soon a legal war of all against all begins to emerge. Thus we are led into conflict rather than cooperation. Additionally, when so many laws exist, and with such arcane, vague, complex language as is common today, it becomes impossible for each citizen to avoid being a law-breaker—especially given the perverse rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Almost everyone has violated a tax law, securities regulation, “racketeering” law, gun law, alcohol law, customs regulation, or at least traffic ordinance. But when we are all lawbreakers the law is discredited and, what is worse, the government can selectively and arbitrarily enforce whatever law is convenient against any “trouble-maker.”

Furthermore, as another Italian theorist, Giovanni Sartori, has pointed out, when legislation is thought of as the primary source of law, citizens become more accustomed to following orders, and thus become more docile, servile, and less independent. Once people lose their rebellious spirit, it is easier and more likely for the government to become tyrannical.

Because of the danger of legislation, several constitutional safeguards should accompany its exercise. Supermajority and referendum requirements are one way to limit the legislature. Another way would be for all legislation to be constitutionally limited to replacing the opinion of a given court decision with a new decision. Then, if a given case or line of cases were issued that had particularly egregious reasoning or results, the legislature could rewrite the unfortunate opinion in better form, and enact this into law, as if the court had first issued the rewritten decision. The rewritten opinion would then assume the status of a judicial precedent, at least for that court.

This limit on the legislature’s ability would prevent it from enacting huge legislative schemes like the Americans with Disabilities Act out of whole cloth. To the extent the legislated “substitute opinion” strayed from the facts of the particular case, it would be merely dicta, of no binding force.

Sunset provisions that automatically repeal legislation unless re-enacted after a given number of years are also useful. Another prophylactic measure would be an absolute right to jury trials in all cases, civil or criminal, so that government could not escape the jury requirement by calling truly criminal sanctions “civil.” This should be combined with a requirement that the jury be made aware of their right to judge the law’s validity as well as the defendant’s liability or guilt.

The Role of Commentators and Codes

Law codes are essential in the development, systematization, and promulgation of law. Modern civil codes of civil-law systems are one example of very impressive and useful codifications that developed under the largely decentralized Roman law system. However, the dangers of legislation also counsel that legal codifications not be legislated. There is no reason that law codes cannot be privately written. Indeed, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England was private and very successful in codifying the law, and we today have successful, private treatises such as the Restatements of the law. Law codes would be far more rational and systematic, and shorter, if they did not have to take an unwieldy and interfering body of legislation into account; if they could focus primarily on common-law developments.

Both private and statutory codification of existing case law can make mistakes. But if the code is private, judges can ignore the lapses in the codifier’s reasoning. This has the extra benefit of giving an incentive to private codifiers not to engage in dishonest reasoning or meddlesome social planning. If a codifier wants his work to be used and acknowledged, he will attempt to accurately describe the existing body of law when he organizes and presents it, and will likely be explicit when recommending that judges adopt certain changes in future decisions.

Both the Roman law and common law have been corrupted into today’s inferior legislation-dominated systems. The primacy of legislation should be abandoned, and we should return to a system of judge-found law. Scholars who codify naturally-evolved law have a vital function to serve, but they should not ask for the governmental imprimatur on their scholarly efforts.

Of course, the form of a legal system does not guarantee that just laws will be adopted. We must always be vigilant and urge that individual freedom be respected, whether by legislator or judge.