Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? --- I Cor. 6:14

This verse from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians is usually quoted in the context of marriage, as a caution to Christian singles to avoid romantic entanglements with non-believers. However, while this is certainly a valid application, there is nothing in either the context of the passage or the language of the verse itself to limit its admonition to this single area. There is another field where Christian and non-Christian can be bound together -- the area of business. A specific instance of this was brought up in the recent discussion of copyright procedures, that of a Christian company being owned by a non-Christian company. How does this admonition apply to that circumstance?

The metaphor being used here is that of yoked animals, two beasts of burden (at the time, most likely oxen) hooked together for the purpose of pulling a cart or a plow. The key aspect of the metaphor is that yoked animals always have to move in unison; the stronger animal changing direction forces the other to make the same change. Another critical element to the picture is that the animals are not free to take themselves out of the yoke; without outside intervention, they are trapped in this relationship. When applied to human relations, this image suggests that of a unbreakable binding such that, when one member of the pair or group makes a decision, it must be followed by all (this could be arrived at through autocracy or democracy, but the end result is the same -- there can be no independant action). There are human relationships that do not follow this pattern, such as normal friendship; friends can take different paths in life, and as long as those paths do not diverge too far, still remain friends, and when those paths do go too far, they are free to leave the friendship. Marriage is a different matter; since God does not countenance divorce, the individuals are not free to leave, and any significant decision by one partner will also change the life of the other. This is the reason that this verse is so often cited as pertaining to marriage. In addition to marriage, the relations of people legally bound in a joint business venture also follow this pattern. A company, though made up of individuals, is a single entity, and therefore the people who compose it must all move as one in matters of business (though they may have differing directions initially, their differences must be resolved or overruled before the company as a whole can take action). Therefore a Christian company should not be "unequally yoked" to a non-Christian company.

But what does it mean to be a "Christian company"? Applying the term "Christian" as an adjective is problematical, at best. In the Bible, the word is only used to indicate people who have accepted Christ and are "saved", and is therefore a noun. Our society, however, has modified it into serving double duty, both as a noun and as an adjective. So the question must be asked: if an impersonal entity like a company cannot be saved, what does it mean for it to be "Christian"? One possible definition is that any company owned or staffed by Christians is a "Christian company", no matter its purpose. This definition is a popular one, and therefore it is easy to find "Christian" laundromats, "Christian" plumbing companies, "Christian" used car dealerships, and the like; usually these are easily identified by the icthus included in their company logo or the "Christian" company name. A more narrow definition would be that a "Christian" company is one engaged in providing distinctly "Christian" goods and/or services -- "Christian" publishing houses that only publish "Christian" books, "Christian" record companies that only produce "Christian" music, ect. In this case, the very existance of the company itself is tied up in being Christian, for without that identity there would be no market for its product. Though I personally would lean towards the latter definition, for the purpose of this post, I am not going to distinguish between these two types, because both have identified themselves to the world as "Christian", and are therefore bound by what is expected of those who claim that name.

Now that we have a working definition of a Christian company, how does I Cor. 6:14 apply? What does it take for a Christian company to be "unequally yoked" to a non-Christian company? Returning to the image of the yoked oxen, it is clear that a Christian company is yoked to a secular one when the latter is in a position to dictate or strongly influence the actions of the former, and the Christian company is not in a position to legally sever the relationship. This can occur in partnerships (when a Christian is in a business partnership with a non-Christian), in mergers, or in ownership. In other words, a Christian company that is owned by a non-Christian company -- which is the case for virtually every Christian publishing house and record label -- is in violation of scripture.

The purpose of a business -- any business -- is to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this, and without profit no business can survive. Since both Christian and non-Christian companies have the same goal, why does it matter who is in control, since they are pursuing the same prize anyway? The difficulty is that companies are not isolated entities; they are composed of individuals, and every one of those individuals who is a Christian is accountable to God for the decisions he makes on behalf of that company and its pursuit of profit. A Christian is bound by Scripture to pursue profit in an honest and godly manner, both for the sake of his own conscience and to protect the name of Christ from slander (because nothing looks worse to an unbelieving world than a Christian company engaged in very un-Christian business activities). This is an obligation that can at times go even above and beyond the ethical behavior required by the law, because that which is legal is not always that which is holy. This should be the number one guiding principle of any Christian businessman. And therein lies the problem. As long as a Christian company is independant, those people who guide it are free to act in the way they believe best honors God, even if that way does not always maximize profit. A non-Christian company, however, has only one goal -- pursue profit by whatever means necessary (a dictum that in some companies too often includes methods that are not only ungodly but even illegal) -- and they can apply this principle to every company under their control (this is not to say that all of them will, but they can). A Christian business owned by a non-Christian company can therefore find itself in the position of being under orders to disobey the law of God; no matter the intentions of those Christians who run that particular corporation, they must either bow to the will of their owners or be replaced by those who will. In either case, the business that makes the claim to the name of "Christian" will end up acting in a non-Christian manner, bringing shame to the name of Christ and providing a evil witness to the world. A Christian company owned by a secular one is under the constant shadow of this possibility, the constant threat of this very powerful temptation, threatening both their own holiness before God and the image of God before the world. Much like a Christian who is married to a non-believer, there is a possibility that they will resist the temptation to disobey God for temporal advantage, but due to the immediate benefits offered by cooperation, it can be a small one. The Bible instructs believers to flee strong temptations that are too likely to lead to disobedience, and this command is an outgrowth of this principle. There is no certainty that a Christian company will be forced to ungodly business practices if they are controlled in this way, but it is too strong of a possibility for God not to advise against it.

It could be possible to apply this principle to individuals as well, and claim that any Christian working for an unbeliever is in violation of this command, but I believe that is an incorrect application. For one thing, while the individual Christian is a representative of Christ, the job position he fills is not, so no claim is made to a higher standard. The Christian himself should always strive to conduct himself in a godly fashion, but his job makes no statement either way, and so misdeeds of the employee can leave no spot on the reputation of both God and Christians beyond that of the individual's reputation. Also, and what is probably the more crucial difference, the Christian has the freedom to leave his job if his employer ever orders him to act contrary to the law of God. A business owned by a company does not have this privilege; it does not have the power to escape ungodly demands by severing the connection to its owners. Therefore, I would say that, so long as the employee does not continue working for a business that he knows engages in ungodly practices, Christians are free to find work in secular businesses.

Just as Christians should not date or marry unbelievers, in order to avoid being led astray by those who have strong influence on their lives, so Christian companies should avoid entanglement with secular companies, for the same reason. The value gap between the two sides is too large, the possibility for a conflict of interest too high, for them to mesh well together. Though their superficial goal -- the acquisition of profit -- is the same, the Christian company (because it is composed of Christian individuals) has the much deeper, fundamental goal of serving God, of being a light in a dark world; when the latter purpose comes in conflict with the former, the latter must always take precedence. Though it can often make financial sense for a Christian company to sell themselves out to a secular buyer, God has forbidden it. It's time for Christians to reclaim the companies we call ours, and reclaim our integrity with them.

In the front of Zondervan's New International translation of the Bible you can find these words:

The Holy Bible, New International Version (R)
Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publishers, providing the verses quoted from do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

Let me be clear and note that what is technically copyrighted is the New International Version translation that Zondervan took the time to do, not the concept of the Bible in itself. U.S. copyright law has no jurisdiction over The Bible. That is why the original Greek and Hebrew (along with the original King James version) are free to all. Every translation has a similar copyright attached to it: New American Standard, New King James, etc. For the remainder of this essay I will use Zondervon as a stand-in for all Bible translation companies.

A copyright is used by companies to protect their property so that they can make a profit on that property by keeping it exclusive. It is understandable that Zondervan (and any other publishing company) would need to make a profit. After spending hundreds of man hours on translating a text as complicated as The Bible, Zondervan would, naturally, look for a way to recoup their expenses. I am writing under the assumption that they feel that if their translation became public domain, all their work to recoup expenses could be lost.

But are these publishing companies who translate the Bible only trying to recoup expenses? In this question lies the crux of this essay. Is it right, and yes, I mean morally right, to copyright The Bible -- translation or no? We know its legal to copyright a translation of the Bible, but is it man's place -- ever -- to say, no, you can't have access to that holy text without paying us first? Is it at all within man's jurisdiction to place any kinds of restraints on the Bible? Legality almost doesn't matter at all in this conversation. Man can set up laws that, cosmically, God would laugh at, call frivilous, and then command his followers (ala Acts 5:29) to disregard.

Let's get back to modern day and contemporary economics. I charge that beyond recouping expenses for a translation no company should be profitting from the un-amplified text of the Bible itself. Charging a premium price for a premium Bible that includes leather, maps, notes, etc. is one thing. But to keep a copyright on the text of the Bible implies an intent to profit on the mere text of the Bible. Zondervan, as I mentioned before, holds the copyright to the New International Version of the bible. This is the best selling translation of the Bible in the world. The Bible itself is the best selling book in the world. This means Zondervan has a lot to lose if the New International Version ever went public domain, and what they have to lose is money. The NIV was first published in 1976, by the way. I'm pretty sure Zondervan has more than made back their translation expenses (and made a nice bit on the side) since then. When you factor in that the Bible isn't the only thing they publish, it becomes clear their business model is diversified enough to keep the coffers full even if they offered a no-frills, newpaper print version of the NIV for free.

Some might say to me, though, that if I want the Bible to be distributed so badly then, legally, I can simply buy a bunch of copies and hand them out myself, right? Sure. Should I have to in order for the Bible to be distributed? No. If a secular company translated The Bible knowing it would make them a buck I could understand the desire to retain copyright. And, let me make clear, I am fine with Zondervan and company, just like secular corporations, profiting off anything they want. But do I think they should leverage the Bible for profit over making it available to the masses? No. It's legal, but it's not right. Christian companies are supposed to know better than that. What if I'm a poor Christian who wants to give Bibles to other poor Christians who can barely read American English, let alone the King's English (KJV)?

But, some say, people could just read the King James if they needed to. It's free. You can get the entire thing online. You can post it, distribute it, and recite it however you wish. Sure, but let's face it, people who use "just get the King James" as the party line are decidely unsympathetic to the plight of the reader. The original King James for most people, including the learned, is about as good as nothing at all. Hey, the Greek and Hebrew are free too. In fact, they're even more authentic and error free, why not point them in that direction? If someone is needing a Bible (or wanting to distribute a Bible) bad enough that copyright gets in the way, chances are they are a] of low income, or b] giving out numerous copies to people with low income. Low income people are usually very close to being illiterate. If the good of these people is our highest priority, then we why would we ever burden them with a Bible that was as far from their natural language as King James is? That's not only cheap, it's selfish.

Frankly, I should never have to go through man to get to God. This is the crux of Christ's message: no longer do we need a physical priest to intercede for us, now we can directly approach God ourselves. The same principle holds true when applied to the text of the Bible. Martin Luther, Gutenberg, St. Thomas Aquinas and others acted in stages to free the Scriptures and Christian theology from the strangle hold of the elite. They finally released it from Latin, type-set it in common vernacular and taught it in English (or German) so the serf could learn as the educated did.

With profit coming in from multiple channels why the insistence that they have a "right" under U.S. law to "own" their version of the Bible? Peter, when ordered to stop talking about God (it was the law, after all) replied, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29). So, Zondervan, by law, wants to keep their work from going into public domain. They probably think all their work will be "lost" if they do. Lost for profit, yes. But "lost" for the greater good of mankind? No. I say, "let my text go!"

Academia is an arrogant world all unto itself. From on high, scholars and pedagogical experts dictate amazing (they're always amazing) new ways to get students involved and excited about their studies. Promises are made about new types of testing or grading procedures that will revolutionize classroom learning as we know it.

The big buzz in academia right now is plagiarism. Due to the internet, plagiarism just got a whole lot easier, but thanks to Google, it just got easier to detect too. So, now, a whole new war ensues with professors, researches, writers and instructors trying desperately to get it through the student's mind that plagiarism is more dangerous than helpful.

In article after obfuscated article, learned men and women pretend to have the answer to this escalating problem, and (oddly enough) the answer is always complicated: a mix of backwards sociology and bloated psychology. In truth, the answer is simple: plagiarism will never go away. I'll tell you why, Academia, and I'll make it simple. It's not complicated. There is no formula to make students behave. There is no way to make them stop appropriating other people's words because appropriation is taught as acceptable from day one both in school and in our culture.

We have an entire generation of students in school now who have been raised in a "I'll copy this for you, you copy this for me" CD/Cassette/VHS society. We have raised our children to believe that they are owed services, money, and goods by the government. Liberal politicians have preached about "Equality" and "Wealth Re-Distribution" long enough for an inherent distrust in private property to be part of our children's worldview.

Whose fault is their plagiarism then, really? How can we expect our students to learn that's its ok to politically fight against private property, but yet respect "intellectual property," a very modern, abstract notion? The answer is you can't. It can't be done both ways. If we are to expect students to honor the work of another author then we must teach them to honor another man's physical space, property, and rights. In the current climate, when a student commits plagiarism it could possibly be argued that, in some cases, there is no sense of wrong-doing. Such a student is only logically carrying through with what he/she has been taught.

Cut with the crap, Academia. Remove your head from out of your weath distribution, stop sticking your thumb up your welfare, and then maybe our children will begin to believe you when you talk about my text and your text.

Dear Diary,

In reality, who really reads blogs save for those already on the blogsphere? Does the general public cruise Blogger looking for insight and information?

What, then, is the purpose of blogging save personal validation? Do blogs, in other words, serve a purpose other than the authors needing to simply be listened to? This entry is a perfect example. As doubtful as I am in the usefulness of blogs I am still writing this to someone.

It seems to me that Blogland is a giant circle of self-publishers reading each other's postings and praising each other for their ideas: I'll scratch your back of you scratch mine on a global scale. If that's the case, why not just have a message board for people to post on? Its because people want to own something. They want to call their blog their place in cyberspace and in that space they can post their ideas unencumbered by immediate input. Their faithful readers will praise their insight and those who don't care or don't agree probably won't take the time to post back.

Is, then, any real work being done? Is any real information being shared?

As a personal continuation of PoorYoungThings.com, this space will hopefully rise above the typical blog tendencies. There will be essays on spirituality, pedagogy, religion, theology and I hope you -- the reader -- will respond back as if we were e-mailing each other. Every now and then I'll go crazy and post personal news about my upcoming wedding or my life (including pictures), but for the most part I want to use this space to start dialogs that carry into the real world. Let's read new books, argue points and develop new ideas then share them with our friends. Use the internet to begin thinking, but then take it off the grid.