12-tone music

Do you like this music composed by Arnold Schoenberg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-fyWc6Mpd8&feature=related

I know everybody appreciates different kinds of music, but I'm afraid I find this kind of music hard to appreciate. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) was considered the leader of a new group of composers at the beginning of the 20th century that wanted to change music forever. He began his musical career writing pieces that sounded somewhat melodic, similar to those of Wagner, Mahler, and Strauss before him. You know, like where you can almost tell what key they're in? But after years of stretching tonality almost to the breaking point, Schoenberg finally decided to break it once and for all---he started writing a new kind of music that wasn't in any key whatsoever. This kind of music was atonal. Atonal music is dissonant, meaning it sounds like the "wrong" notes are being played. And Schoenberg went even further than that after awhile. He started using rules of math to write his music. Today, this kind of music is referred to as 12-tone music, or serialism.

A while ago, I came across a very funny article by David Pogue, New York Times Columnist and former Broadway music director, and Scott Speck, award-winning music director and conductor, that explained Schoenberg's musical method. It's so good, here it is word for word:

Schoenberg explained---somewhat

If you find middle C on a piano and play all the white notes in order up to the next C, you've just played the seven notes in the key of C. About 99 percent of the world's music has been written in the key of something. That's why so many pieces of classical music are called such things as Symphony in D major or Sonata in F.

But notice something about the key of C: In traveling up the piano from C to shining C, you skip all the black keys. Arnold Schoenberg's big concept was that these keys shouldn't be second-class citizens just because they're a different color. His new kind of music, 12-tone music, used all 12 of the notes between C and C, white and black---equally. Sure, some of the old-fashioned concepts such as 'harmony', 'melody', and 'pretty' went out the window, but that's progress.

Not only did Schoenberg decide that all those previously ignored in-between notes deserved more importance, but he actually instituted the world's first affirmative-action quota system for those notes. He decided that if he wrote the note C on his music paper, he wasn't allowed to use a C again until he'd used all 11 of the other notes first!

After he saw how intellectually satisfying such self-imposed rules were, he went even further. He'd make up a specific order of those 12 notes---for example, C, E-flat, G, A-flat, B, C-sharp, B-flat, D, F-sharp, F, A, E---and force himself to use these notes in that order, over and over again, for an entire piece. He'd permit himself to use whatever rhythms he wanted, and he was allowed to combine the notes into "chords"---but he always went in order.

When things were getting really dull, he made up a couple more rules: Playing the series of 12 notes backward was okay, too. He even permitted himself the luxury of flipping a 12-note series upside-down on the music paper. And for years and years, he had all kinds of fun mixing up these rules to make music (such as playing those 12 notes backward and upside-down).

This new kind of music was dubbed 'serialism', which has almost nothing to do with Schoenberg's passion for whole-grain breakfast flakes.

Weird guy.

Feet of clay

Am I better than the next guy? Do I love others more than other Christians love others? Am I kinder and more generous? Do I secretly think, "Jesus loves you, but I'm His favorite" like this article in The New York Times jokes?

We are always so quick to say, "I can't understand how he/she could have done ___________. Is that the way a true Christian would act?" When we should be saying, "There but for the grace of God go I."

Scripture reminds us that, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." (Proverbs 16:18), and "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not" (Rom 7:18).

And in Romans 1:28 it says that God gave man over to a depraved mind.

The worldly mind knows well how to lie, cheat, steal, gossip; it perverts everything it thinks about. The shocking truth is when we become Christians, this worldly mind still exists and continually harasses our new mind (in Christ). The difference is we now have a choice. We can choose to "put on the new man" (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). And when our new nature is in control, we think as Christ thinks.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil 2:5).

On the other hand, if our old nature is allowed to be in control, we are capable of anything.

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin (Rom 7:15-25).

Indeed, there is a battle waging within us---a battle between our old and new natures. From the moment of our salvation, our "new man" and "old man" aggressively compete for possession of our mind, emotions, and body. But we need not be defeated, thinking, "What's the use? No matter how hard I try, I'm bound to fail anyway." There's the mistake right there---relying on the "trying." Because no matter how hard we try to alter our old nature, we cannot change it. For when a person receives Christ, the “old man” is not cleaned up. After all, it is dead!

If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness (Rom 8:10).

For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3).

Rather, a new creation is instantly given.

Knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin (Rom 6:6).

But, spiritual growth is needed to strengthen the “new man” in this war. And there is no growth without Bible study and prayer (Eph 1:16-18; Col 3:16).

A relationship with a local assembly of believers is also essential to growth, "…encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Heb. 10:25).

Therefore, the key to living a successful Christian life is considering our old nature dead (keep it in its coffin!) and letting our new nature rule in its place, drawing on the power of the Holy Spirit.

No, I'm certainly not better than the next guy---I often fail! But as I grow in Christ, I can experience His victory over my sinfulness more and more often.

Two natures beat within my breast.
One is foul, the other blest.
The one I love; the one I hate.
The one I feed will dominate. (Author unknown)

The Rich Man

There once was a rich man who was near death. He was very grieved because he had worked so hard for his money and wanted to be able to take it with him to heaven. So he began to pray that he might be able to take some of his wealth with him.

An angel heard his plea and appeared to him. "Sorry, but you can't take your wealth with you." The man begged the angel to speak to God to see if He might bend the rules. The man continued to pray that his wealth could follow him.

The angel reappeared and informed the man that God had decided to allow him to take one suitcase with him. Overjoyed, the man gathered his largest suitcase and filled it with pure gold bars and placed it beside his bed.

Soon afterward, he died and showed up at the gates of heaven to greet St. Peter.

St. Peter, seeing the suitcase, said, "Hold on, you can't bring that in here!"

The man explained to St. Peter that he had permission and asked him to verify his story with the Lord.

Sure enough, St. Peter checked it out, came back and said, "You're right. You are allowed one carry-on bag, but I'm supposed to check its contents before letting it through."

St. Peter opened the suitcase to inspect the worldly items that the man found too precious to leave behind and exclaimed, "You brought pavement?"

Matthew 18:20

A few days ago I sat listening to friends discuss what the Bible meant when it said, "...where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them." One said, "It means that Jesus Christ is with us somehow differently at different times, like during church when we're all worshipping Him. He's with us differently then. He's kind of like arrowing in on us." Another piped in and said, "Oh no, He's not with us differently because He's always the same." And yet another said, "But He's always with us. How can He be with us differently at times?"

So, I went home thinking about what was said.

First of all, no one had mentioned where that verse was found, so that was the first thing I looked up. Matthew. Okay, Matthew. That told me something right there. The vast majority of Matthew takes place before the cross, right? Did that make a difference in this case? I needed to look further. The verse in question was Matthew 18:20. Now, what was the entire chapter 18 of Matthew about? Who was speaking and to whom was he speaking? Jesus was speaking to His apostles about humility. Okay. Does everything Jesus said to them directly apply to us today? No. But did it in this case? I needed to look further.

So next, what were the verses just before talking about, say 15-19? Verses 15-17 were about confronting a brother who was sinning, first privately, then with one or two witnesses, and finally, before the whole assembly.

Then, verse 18 said, "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Now what in the world did that mean and what did it have to do with anything just said?

Well, cross references to this verse were Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).

If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained (John 20:23).

Okay, things started becoming a little clearer to me as to what was going on here. It seemed obvious that this ability/authority had only been given to the apostles and not to us. They were being given special authority to act officially in Jesus' absence.

So then what about verse 19?

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven (Matt 18:19).

I could only assume that this verse was linked to the verse(s) before it and was directed solely to the apostles.

This verse also parallels verses found elsewhere in the Gospels, e.g., Matt 21:21-22, Mark 11:23-24, John 14:12-14.

Have you ever noticed that the “whatsoever you ask believing” promises are found in only one small portion of the Bible — the Gospels (although they are alluded to in the Hebrew Christian epistles)? Never in the OT or in Paul’s epistles do we find that “all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” I don't think these promises were given to us. I believe Jesus was giving special powers to the apostles to perform miracles at that time. And in fact, in the beginning of Acts, we do see the them performing extraordinary miracles in His name. Of course, miracles were given to the Jews (Matt. 12:39; 16:1; Mark 8:11, 12; Luke 11:16; John 6:30). But when the gospel went out to the Gentiles, these miracles greatly decreased and soon entirely ceased.

So then, it seemed to me that Matthew 18:19 was saying that when two of the apostles agreed on something and asked the Father for it, it was given to them.

Okay, so I finally got to verse 20. Again, I could only assume it was linked to the verse(s) before it. It was only to the apostles; where two or three of them were gathered, Jesus would be in their midst. This was the only interpretation that made sense to me.

Keep in mind, also, that this was before the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost. Today, God is always with us (in our midst) because as Christians, He indwells each one of us (Rom 5:5, 1 Cor 6:19, Eph 1:13, 1 Thes 4:8, 2 Tim 1:14). Our being gathered together does not make Him more or less with us, or with us any differently, than when we are by ourselves.

He Giveth More Grace

Annie Flint accepted Jesus Christ as her Savior at an early age. And whether by nature or through her Christian upbringing, she was generally cheerful, optimistic, had a generous nature, and was always ready to share what she had with others. Annie was also courageous. In fact, when she was a toddler and just learning to walk, she would march across the room with her head up regardless of any obstacle in the way. Annie exhibited this same courage later in her life when she was hemmed in by so many trials. She certainly learned to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (2 Tim 2:3).

But Annie was also very human. As a child she had a very quick temper which flared up on slightest provocation, but just as quickly died down. She never claimed entire freedom from this tendency, but she did learn the secret of grace in overcoming it.

Another characteristic was her acute sensitiveness, which made her keenly aware of the needs AND the wrongs of others. In a word, her likes and dislikes were very intense. She readily admitted that if she was accused of something she had not done, she would sulk far longer than her temper lasted. And she would never speak to anyone while in these moods or even try to explain any mistake that might have been made.

But her greatest fault of all, she admitted, was a lack of patience, with herself and others. She did not like to wait for anything. She wanted to see results immediately. But she was also very persistent and refused to give up anything until it was finished. This did help her to accomplish many hard and distasteful tasks, but all through her life the hardest lesson she had to learn was patience.

Annie's life was far from easy. Her own parents had been taken from her in childhood, her foster parents both passed away, and her one sister was very frail and struggling. And then, she herself, was told she would be a helpless invalid for a good portion of her life. She had to completely depend on others for her care.

Annie had many friends who were sincerely interested in her welfare. However, there came times when some would criticize and even challenge her faith. These friends strongly believed that healing of the body was for every child of God in this life. They claimed healing was purchased for us by Christ, and that everyone who walked obediently could claim deliverance from physical infirmities and bodily sicknesses. She listened to what they had to say. But more than that, she went earnestly and prayerfully to search the Scriptures as to God's will. It was only after a most painstaking study and prayer, and reading of the best writers on this subject that she reached the conclusion that, while God can and does heal in this way in some cases, in others He does not. She also saw that many of those who pressed their theory were themselves infirmed, and while telling others that they should claim healing, their own lives showed the failure of their theory.

Annie became thoroughly convinced that God intended to glorify Himself through her. And when she, like Paul, had prayed three time (and more) that this might be taken from her, she reached the place where she could also say with Paul,

And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:9-10).

Annie endured much suffering as her disease worsened with each passing year, and as new complications developed. But through it all, her faith in the goodness and mercy of God never wavered. For more than forty years, she experienced pain as her joints became more and more rigid. And although she was able to turn her head, it was in great pain that she was able to write these amazing lyrics down on paper:

He giveth more grace as our burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength as our labors increase;
To added afflictions He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials he multiplies peace.

When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.

His love has no limits, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again.


(Annie Johnson Flint, 1866-1932)

Objective truth

I know I interpret Scripture through my own theological glasses. It is something I need to keep in mind as I study. However, some go so far as to say we can never really know what the Bible says because it says something different to everyone who reads it. But I disagree with these proponents of the so-called radical hermeneutic (an interpretive approach grounded in postmodernism called 'deconstruction'*); who hold we should only talk about the 'core Gospel', and never doctrine, alleging knowledge of objective truth is impossible when reading the Bible. This is utter nonsense! Would God give us a book that was not meant to be understood? And what a sure way of keeping us all 'babes' in Christ who are "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine."

...like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation (1 Pet 2:2).

For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil (Heb 5:13-14).

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph 4:11-16).

Yes, there may be differences of opinion about what the Bible says, differences that can sometimes be resolved with humble interaction and much time; but among Christians I believe there is never an excuse for avoiding what the Bible has to say, on the false grounds that knowledge of the truth is impossible.

In fact, I believe that John 7:17,

If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

tells me how certainty (spiritual discernment and assurance) may be arrived at when studying Scripture. Basically, when my heart is right, God will give me the capacity to understand His truth. In other words, if my motive is to know God's will, I believe I will be given assurance from the Holy Spirit that the teaching of Scripture is true, which will be much more convincing than all the logical arguments in the world.

As I study Scripture, these are the interpretive guidelines I adhere to:

First of all, because I firmly believe I should stand by the important hermentical law that the Bible should be interpreted literally, I seek to understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. In other words, I look for the intended meaning of Scripture and stay away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.

Secondly, I seek to interpret each verse/passage historically and contextually. (Historical interpretation is understanding the culture, background, and situation in which the text was written. And contextual interpretation is always taking the surrounding context of a verse/passage/book into consideration when trying to determine its meaning.)

Lastly, I prayerfully consider all possible interpretations, comparing them against what Scripture says---even the ones that are not the traditional or popular interpretations of today. (I remember Martin Luther...)


*Rejecting "modern" epistemology [the study of knowledge and justified belief] with its insistence on foundations and proper method, postmodernists, sometimes on highly sophisticated grounds, argue that there are no secure foundations, and all methods are themselves theory-laden. The result is that there is no univocal, authoritative "meaning" in the text itself. If one must use the word "meaning" of a text, one should speak of the "meanings" of the text---that is, the different meanings that different individuals or different interpretive communities will find there. Indeed, properly speaking the meanings are not really in the text itself but in the interpreters of the text, as they interact with it. - D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1998)

Gimme that old time religion

This evening I had the great privilege of singing in an ensemble that helped lead our bi-annual church Hymn Sing. It was a riot! People had come from all over the northwestern Chicago area to attend, and the place was packed. I would guess the average attendees' age to be around 70, but what great singing! People say you lose your singing voice as you get older, but after tonight, I don't believe it. I suspect many left with very hoarse voices indeed.

Some of the songs we sang I hadn't heard sung in years; like, Shall We Gather At the River, Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus, I Will Sing of the Mercies of the Lord Forever, and When the Roll is Called Up Yonder. We sang several contemporary songs as well; Beautiful Savior by Stuart Townend, a great favorite of mine, was one of them. And to accompany all this great gospel singing were two grand pianos, a large pipe organ, trombone, bass guitar, drums, tambourine, harp, and flute.

This was my first time to sing at the Hymn Sing, but I hope it's not my last. What a wonderful evening. It rather reminded me of my radio days when I sang in the Back to the Bible Youth Choir. Now I have fond memories of both.