Saturday, December 10, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The Real Cinderella.
Over the past few weeks, the grocery store that I work at has had a display back near the deli of a TV and a DVD player. They've been playing Cinderella, recently released on DVD by Disney. As I've been stocking the lunch meats, I've listen to the movie play over and over again. Finally it affected my mind so that I developed my own Cinderella story. I present it to you now.
The Real Cinderella
Once upon a time there was an evil witch named Cinderella. Her mother died during childbirth, and her godly father never realized that his child was a witch. He eventually remarried a widow who had two daughters, both of whom were about the same age as Cinderella. It was not long, however, that Cinderella’s father also died. Now Cinderella’s step-mother knew that she was a witch, but had never told Cinderella’s father, for she knew how much he loved his daughter, and she did not want to upset him. But now that he was dead, the step-mother could do something about Cinderella’s sinful lifestyle. But what should she do? The best thing to do regarding the safety of all the souls in the village was to put Cinderella to death, or at least to turn her in to the chief magistrate. But the step-mother, a godly woman, was too kind-hearted to do such a thing to any person, even an evil witch like Cinderella.
“Now Cinderella,” said the step-mother, “I know that you are a witch. I have seen you commune with the animals such as birds and mice, and such sorcery is evil and is an abomination before the Lord. In order to prevent you from practicing your wicked witchcraft around other people, I am going to keep you confined to our house. Until you repent of your evil ways, you will serve your sisters and myself at all times.”
When Cinderella and her step-sisters had reached marrying age, the king made a proclamation across the land. His son the Prince was also of marrying age, and the king greatly desired that a wife be found for the Prince. A ball was to be held, and the Prince would choose that woman whom he desired to be his wife. Cinderella’s step-sisters were holy and God-fearing young women, but bless their hearts, they were just plain ugly. Nevertheless, their mother saw to it that they had dresses for the ball so that they could attend and attempt to win the Prince’s heart.
Sinful jealousy festered in the wicked heart of Cinderella. She used her sorcery to cause the mice in the house to steal articles of cloth from the dresses of the step-sisters. These enchanted mice then made a beautiful dress from the pilfered cloths. The rodents even stole a pearl necklace from one of the step-sisters. In her wicked vanity, Cinderella paraded herself in her new dress in front of the step-sisters. This was a mistake on her part, for the sisters recognized the stolen pieces of clothing, and took them back.
Cinderella was not to be stopped, however. She went back to the seclusion of her room, and called upon all her powers of necromancy to raise up a spirit of an old woman. This shade then used the powers of the grave to give Cinderella a beautiful dress, a carriage with a team of horses, and a pair of glass slippers. However, as demonic power always falls short of the perfect power of righteousness, these gifts would not last long. At the stroke of midnight, the gifts would return to the base elements from which they were made.
Cinderella went to the royal ball and there she put an enchantment upon the Prince, causing him to fall in love with her. But when midnight approached, she was forced to flee back to her house. In her haste, she left behind one of her glass slippers.
The Prince was determined that he would have no other person for his bride but the girl who owned the glass slipper. He sent his servants throughout the land to search for the girl whose foot fit the slipper that had been left behind. They searched and searched, but all in vain. Nobody’s foot fit. Finally they arrived at Cinderella’s house. After failing to get the slipper to fit either of the step-sisters, the servants were in despair. But then Cinderella appeared and they knew that they must try the slipper on her foot. The step-mother, suspecting that sorcery was at play, attempted to foil to servants from applying the slipper to Cinderella’s foot. But alack! Cinderella had the other glass slipper, which fit perfectly. She was rushed back to the Palace and a wedding was held at once.
The unsuspecting people of the land assumed that all was happily ever after. But they were wrong. Soon Cinderella turned the heart of the king away from God so that he too followed in her wicked ways. Cinderella had Asherah poles raised in the high places, and altars to Baal were built. She had the priests of God all put to death, accept for those that hid. Soon after she had ordered a man to be killed so that the Prince (now the King, since his father had died by this time) could own the man’s vineyard, a prophet of the Lord came out of hiding and boldly approached Cinderella and the king.
The prophet spake, “The Lord has said that the dogs shall eat Cinderella within the walls of the land.” And so it came to pass, many years later, after Cinderella’s husband the king had died, that a man claiming right to the throne rode into town. Cinderella made herself up so as to wickedly seduce this man. But he would not be tricked by her cunning wiles. Instead, he called to those who sided with him to turn against Cinderella. Some servants of hers did so, and defenestrated her. When she hit the ground, some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. The claimant to the throne went in and ate and drank. And he said, “See now to this cursed woman and bury her, for she was the Queen..” But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. They reported this to the man, and he said, “Thus it is as the Lord spoke through the prophet, “In the land the dogs shall eat the flesh of Cinderella, and the corpse of Cinderella shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory, so that not one can say, ‘This is Cinderella.’”
And then everyone lived happily ever after.
The Real Cinderella
Once upon a time there was an evil witch named Cinderella. Her mother died during childbirth, and her godly father never realized that his child was a witch. He eventually remarried a widow who had two daughters, both of whom were about the same age as Cinderella. It was not long, however, that Cinderella’s father also died. Now Cinderella’s step-mother knew that she was a witch, but had never told Cinderella’s father, for she knew how much he loved his daughter, and she did not want to upset him. But now that he was dead, the step-mother could do something about Cinderella’s sinful lifestyle. But what should she do? The best thing to do regarding the safety of all the souls in the village was to put Cinderella to death, or at least to turn her in to the chief magistrate. But the step-mother, a godly woman, was too kind-hearted to do such a thing to any person, even an evil witch like Cinderella.
“Now Cinderella,” said the step-mother, “I know that you are a witch. I have seen you commune with the animals such as birds and mice, and such sorcery is evil and is an abomination before the Lord. In order to prevent you from practicing your wicked witchcraft around other people, I am going to keep you confined to our house. Until you repent of your evil ways, you will serve your sisters and myself at all times.”
When Cinderella and her step-sisters had reached marrying age, the king made a proclamation across the land. His son the Prince was also of marrying age, and the king greatly desired that a wife be found for the Prince. A ball was to be held, and the Prince would choose that woman whom he desired to be his wife. Cinderella’s step-sisters were holy and God-fearing young women, but bless their hearts, they were just plain ugly. Nevertheless, their mother saw to it that they had dresses for the ball so that they could attend and attempt to win the Prince’s heart.
Sinful jealousy festered in the wicked heart of Cinderella. She used her sorcery to cause the mice in the house to steal articles of cloth from the dresses of the step-sisters. These enchanted mice then made a beautiful dress from the pilfered cloths. The rodents even stole a pearl necklace from one of the step-sisters. In her wicked vanity, Cinderella paraded herself in her new dress in front of the step-sisters. This was a mistake on her part, for the sisters recognized the stolen pieces of clothing, and took them back.
Cinderella was not to be stopped, however. She went back to the seclusion of her room, and called upon all her powers of necromancy to raise up a spirit of an old woman. This shade then used the powers of the grave to give Cinderella a beautiful dress, a carriage with a team of horses, and a pair of glass slippers. However, as demonic power always falls short of the perfect power of righteousness, these gifts would not last long. At the stroke of midnight, the gifts would return to the base elements from which they were made.
Cinderella went to the royal ball and there she put an enchantment upon the Prince, causing him to fall in love with her. But when midnight approached, she was forced to flee back to her house. In her haste, she left behind one of her glass slippers.
The Prince was determined that he would have no other person for his bride but the girl who owned the glass slipper. He sent his servants throughout the land to search for the girl whose foot fit the slipper that had been left behind. They searched and searched, but all in vain. Nobody’s foot fit. Finally they arrived at Cinderella’s house. After failing to get the slipper to fit either of the step-sisters, the servants were in despair. But then Cinderella appeared and they knew that they must try the slipper on her foot. The step-mother, suspecting that sorcery was at play, attempted to foil to servants from applying the slipper to Cinderella’s foot. But alack! Cinderella had the other glass slipper, which fit perfectly. She was rushed back to the Palace and a wedding was held at once.
The unsuspecting people of the land assumed that all was happily ever after. But they were wrong. Soon Cinderella turned the heart of the king away from God so that he too followed in her wicked ways. Cinderella had Asherah poles raised in the high places, and altars to Baal were built. She had the priests of God all put to death, accept for those that hid. Soon after she had ordered a man to be killed so that the Prince (now the King, since his father had died by this time) could own the man’s vineyard, a prophet of the Lord came out of hiding and boldly approached Cinderella and the king.
The prophet spake, “The Lord has said that the dogs shall eat Cinderella within the walls of the land.” And so it came to pass, many years later, after Cinderella’s husband the king had died, that a man claiming right to the throne rode into town. Cinderella made herself up so as to wickedly seduce this man. But he would not be tricked by her cunning wiles. Instead, he called to those who sided with him to turn against Cinderella. Some servants of hers did so, and defenestrated her. When she hit the ground, some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. The claimant to the throne went in and ate and drank. And he said, “See now to this cursed woman and bury her, for she was the Queen..” But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. They reported this to the man, and he said, “Thus it is as the Lord spoke through the prophet, “In the land the dogs shall eat the flesh of Cinderella, and the corpse of Cinderella shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory, so that not one can say, ‘This is Cinderella.’”
And then everyone lived happily ever after.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Thomas Watson on The Right Understanding of the Law
One of the issues that differentiates Covenant theology from Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology is that of the place of law in the life of the Christian. By declaring that the moral law is still essential to Christian living, Covenant theologians are often looked upon as being legalistic. The Puritans, especially, have been accused of being too works-oriented. These misconceptions usually come about because of ignorance or misrepresentations of the Covenantal, Puritan position. Seventeenth-century Puritan Thomas Watson wrote a very clear and concise statement on the right understanding of the law in the second volume of his Body of Practical Divinity.
Watson begins by naming the differences between the law and the gospel. First, “the law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship Him in and through Christ.” Secondly, the law requires obedience but gives no strength to obey. The gospel gives us the strength to obey God’s law.
The question then arises, “Of what use is the moral law to us?” Watson answers that it allows us to see our sin and our need for Christ. He quotes Galatians 3:24, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”
Is this moral law still in force for believers? Watson tells us that the law has been abolished in certain ways. The first (and it is the ignorance of this fact that causes others to view Covenantalists as legalists) is that law has been abolished in respect of justification. Watson stresses (as did all the Puritans) that obedience to the moral law does not justify anybody. The second way in which the law has been abolished for believes is in respect to its curse. Christians are no longer under the curse of the law because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).
This leads to the question of how was Christ made a curse for us. As a surety, Christ was made a curse. The curse was placed upon His manhood, thus taking away the curse to do the elect. However, though the law is not our savior, Watson says, it is our guide. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.” (Romans 3:31). Watson warns against antinomianism, which teaches that the moral law is completely abrogated to believers, because it leads to a sinful life. He says, “They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.” If a person was to reject one thing that God says (the law), why are we to believe that they would accept the other (the gospel)?
Then follows some rules that Watson gives concerning the Ten Commandments.
Rule 1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
Rule 2. In the commandments, more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.
Rule 3. For any sin forbidden, the occasion for that sin is also forbidden. For example, if adultery is forbidden, then ogling is also forbidden.
Rule 4. Where one relation is named, another relation is included. If a child is commanded to honor his parents, then the parents are commanded to love the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are forbidden. If idolatry is forbidden, then so is superstition.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. The duties to God go hand in hand with our duties to our fellow man.
Rule 7. We are also forbidden to being accessory to the sins of others.
(1) By imposing sinful laws on others, or forcing them to sin.
(2) By not hindering others from sinning when we have the chance to do so.
(3) By counseling, abetting, or provoking others to sin.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin.
(5) By our sinful example.
Rule 8. Though we are unable to fulfill the law perfectly by our own strength, God has provided encouragement to fulfill what we can.
(1) God has promised to work in us to obey and to love Him.
(2) God for Christ’s sake will accept our less-than-perfect works.
(3) Though our works be imperfect, God will accept us in Christ because of his perfect obedience.
I hope this summary has clearly explained the role of the law in a Christian’s life. If this whets your appetite for more on this sort of topic, then read the whole book. All of my quotes and paraphrases and whatnot are taken from it. Here it is: Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, The Banner of Truth Trust. If you’re going to read that, then you should probably also read Watson’s Body of Divinity and The Lord’s Prayer, both of which are also published by the Banner of Truth. The Ten Commandments belongs in between those two in order. It was all originally one volume, but was split into three separate volumes later on. Soli Deo gloria.
Watson begins by naming the differences between the law and the gospel. First, “the law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship Him in and through Christ.” Secondly, the law requires obedience but gives no strength to obey. The gospel gives us the strength to obey God’s law.
The question then arises, “Of what use is the moral law to us?” Watson answers that it allows us to see our sin and our need for Christ. He quotes Galatians 3:24, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”
Is this moral law still in force for believers? Watson tells us that the law has been abolished in certain ways. The first (and it is the ignorance of this fact that causes others to view Covenantalists as legalists) is that law has been abolished in respect of justification. Watson stresses (as did all the Puritans) that obedience to the moral law does not justify anybody. The second way in which the law has been abolished for believes is in respect to its curse. Christians are no longer under the curse of the law because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).
This leads to the question of how was Christ made a curse for us. As a surety, Christ was made a curse. The curse was placed upon His manhood, thus taking away the curse to do the elect. However, though the law is not our savior, Watson says, it is our guide. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.” (Romans 3:31). Watson warns against antinomianism, which teaches that the moral law is completely abrogated to believers, because it leads to a sinful life. He says, “They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.” If a person was to reject one thing that God says (the law), why are we to believe that they would accept the other (the gospel)?
Then follows some rules that Watson gives concerning the Ten Commandments.
Rule 1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.
Rule 2. In the commandments, more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.
Rule 3. For any sin forbidden, the occasion for that sin is also forbidden. For example, if adultery is forbidden, then ogling is also forbidden.
Rule 4. Where one relation is named, another relation is included. If a child is commanded to honor his parents, then the parents are commanded to love the child.
Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are forbidden. If idolatry is forbidden, then so is superstition.
Rule 6. The law of God is entire. The duties to God go hand in hand with our duties to our fellow man.
Rule 7. We are also forbidden to being accessory to the sins of others.
(1) By imposing sinful laws on others, or forcing them to sin.
(2) By not hindering others from sinning when we have the chance to do so.
(3) By counseling, abetting, or provoking others to sin.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin.
(5) By our sinful example.
Rule 8. Though we are unable to fulfill the law perfectly by our own strength, God has provided encouragement to fulfill what we can.
(1) God has promised to work in us to obey and to love Him.
(2) God for Christ’s sake will accept our less-than-perfect works.
(3) Though our works be imperfect, God will accept us in Christ because of his perfect obedience.
I hope this summary has clearly explained the role of the law in a Christian’s life. If this whets your appetite for more on this sort of topic, then read the whole book. All of my quotes and paraphrases and whatnot are taken from it. Here it is: Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, The Banner of Truth Trust. If you’re going to read that, then you should probably also read Watson’s Body of Divinity and The Lord’s Prayer, both of which are also published by the Banner of Truth. The Ten Commandments belongs in between those two in order. It was all originally one volume, but was split into three separate volumes later on. Soli Deo gloria.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
The Church and Post-Weimar Germany
Wow, it's been a long time since I've written anything here. But I guess we're all used to that by now, hm? Well, anyway, I've been reading a wonderful book by German historian Joachim Fest titled Plotting Hitler's Death: The Story of the German Resistance. The opening chapter attempts to answer the question of how the German people could allow somebody like Hitler and his Nazi party to gain so much control? As I read through Fest's analyses of the general feelings of the German populace, I couldn't help but think of modern Christendom.
One reason why Hitler was allowed to gain so much power was pragmatism. Many people really were uncomfortable with much of Hitler's views and methods, and many were even vocally opposed to him. But in the end, they allowed him take over more and more governmental functions simply because they thought that some good might come of it, despite the bad. You see, Germany just wasn't a great place to live at this time. After their defeat in World War I and all the humiliations placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, Germans were left with a nation that they just couldn't have pride in. And national pride was a very deeply ingrained trait in Germans. Also, following WWI, they went through an incredible inflation period and then the Great Depression. Joblessness was at an all-time high. Things just really stunk. The government that was created after WWI, the Weimar Republic, just never seemed to do anything that actually benefited anybody or helped to restore the national pride. All Germans knew that some sort of change was needed. They were not all agreed on what sort of change, but they knew that something needed to happen to better their existence. Along came Hitler who promised change. He promised to restore national pride to Germans. He promised to repudiate the humiliating articles of the Treaty of Versailles. He promised financial prosperity. Now whether you were right or left-wing, socialist or democrat, that all sounded really good. However, there were the downsides to Hitler. For the right, he was too radical. For the left, he was too conservative. For the socialists, he was...well, too anti-socialist. To the democrats, he was too authoritarian. But most of them decided that perhaps much of the stuff the disagreed with about Hitler was just bluster on his part, and as crazy or evil as he may have seemed, perhaps it was worth it to let him have more power if he would bring about all those positive changes that he promised. They were being pragmatic. They were allowing positive change to occur by whatever means, regardless if evil changes also occurred.
How does this apply to the church? First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am comparing nobody to Hitler or to the Nazis. My comparison is with the apathetic German populace. So, to the church. Today's Christians are very pragmatic. They perceive that worship and the Christian religion had become stale and cold and that it was just not gaining any new converts. So change was needed. It is true that the church must always be reforming, but not just any change will do. But for many people today, any change will do. Worship services have been altered so that the preaching of the word has taken a secondary role behind music and drama and puppet shows. False teachers are allowed to speak in our churches because they attract such large followings. Doctrine is no longer important--instead all we want is something or somebody who can draw a crowd. No matter if this speaker fills his listeners with distortions of the truth, or with nothing at all--just ear-tickling about how you can be healthy and wealthy. Just so long as he carries a Bible (no matter whether he actually opens it or not) and drops the name of Christ now and then (no matter if his Christ matches up with the one described in Scripture), and that's good enough. Some people recognize the error in these persons or methods, but they decide that the good outweighs the bad. "Sure," they may say, "our means of getting people into the church are not Scriptural, and may even be anti-Scriptural, but at least we're getting people into the church, where we can then teach them the Gospel." It seems as if many of these people are trying to "trick" people into church--they lure them in with promises of relevance and great music and drama, and then later, when they feel that the new converts are ready for it, then they'll teach them real doctrine. Unfortunately, they never seem to decide that the people are ready for the real doctrine, so they continue in the unScriptural frivolities indefinitely, despite the promise that such methods were only going to be temporary. Which leads to my next point...
Many of the political, governmental, and military leaders of Germany allowed Hitler to gain power because they felt assured that they would be able to "tame" him. After he had served their purposes, they would rein him in and prevent him from doing the things that they disagreed with. But Hitler was clever. He was able to work his way up into power in such ways so that by the time anyone would want to reign him in, they would be unable to.
As I said, many people recognize the errors and dangers of some of the things coming into the church, but they allow it anyway because they figure that after they have exhausted the usefulness of the method or ideology of person, then they could step back in and put a halt to any extreme errors. But this just doesn't happen. Error is like leaven--it spreads quickly throughout the whole of the dough and then you can't separate it from the rest of the dough. All erroneous teachings must be nipped in the bud. Once you allow an error to come into the church, you will not be able to just take it away once you feel like. Pastor Gregory N. Barkman, in a sermon from Galatians about Paul's confronting Peter for his hypocrisy, asks what it would be like if Paul had just been nice and had been more interested in unity than in doctrine. What if Paul had decided to wait before speaking up? What if he went to the church in Jerusalem 25 years later and tried to put a stop to their segregating practices? It would have been a lot harder. By then it would have been an ingrained tradition. There would be young people who had been raised that way. And many of them could have said, "Hey, Peter did it, so it must be right!" This argument would have been particularly forceful if they had already started thinking that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This error of Jewish Christians not eating with Gentile Christians might have spread to other churches, making Paul's task of correction even harder. Thankfully, Paul did not wait 25 years, but he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it. Had the Germans done this in 1933, a lot of hardship could have been spared. And so it is for the church today.
One reason why Hitler was allowed to gain so much power was pragmatism. Many people really were uncomfortable with much of Hitler's views and methods, and many were even vocally opposed to him. But in the end, they allowed him take over more and more governmental functions simply because they thought that some good might come of it, despite the bad. You see, Germany just wasn't a great place to live at this time. After their defeat in World War I and all the humiliations placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, Germans were left with a nation that they just couldn't have pride in. And national pride was a very deeply ingrained trait in Germans. Also, following WWI, they went through an incredible inflation period and then the Great Depression. Joblessness was at an all-time high. Things just really stunk. The government that was created after WWI, the Weimar Republic, just never seemed to do anything that actually benefited anybody or helped to restore the national pride. All Germans knew that some sort of change was needed. They were not all agreed on what sort of change, but they knew that something needed to happen to better their existence. Along came Hitler who promised change. He promised to restore national pride to Germans. He promised to repudiate the humiliating articles of the Treaty of Versailles. He promised financial prosperity. Now whether you were right or left-wing, socialist or democrat, that all sounded really good. However, there were the downsides to Hitler. For the right, he was too radical. For the left, he was too conservative. For the socialists, he was...well, too anti-socialist. To the democrats, he was too authoritarian. But most of them decided that perhaps much of the stuff the disagreed with about Hitler was just bluster on his part, and as crazy or evil as he may have seemed, perhaps it was worth it to let him have more power if he would bring about all those positive changes that he promised. They were being pragmatic. They were allowing positive change to occur by whatever means, regardless if evil changes also occurred.
How does this apply to the church? First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am comparing nobody to Hitler or to the Nazis. My comparison is with the apathetic German populace. So, to the church. Today's Christians are very pragmatic. They perceive that worship and the Christian religion had become stale and cold and that it was just not gaining any new converts. So change was needed. It is true that the church must always be reforming, but not just any change will do. But for many people today, any change will do. Worship services have been altered so that the preaching of the word has taken a secondary role behind music and drama and puppet shows. False teachers are allowed to speak in our churches because they attract such large followings. Doctrine is no longer important--instead all we want is something or somebody who can draw a crowd. No matter if this speaker fills his listeners with distortions of the truth, or with nothing at all--just ear-tickling about how you can be healthy and wealthy. Just so long as he carries a Bible (no matter whether he actually opens it or not) and drops the name of Christ now and then (no matter if his Christ matches up with the one described in Scripture), and that's good enough. Some people recognize the error in these persons or methods, but they decide that the good outweighs the bad. "Sure," they may say, "our means of getting people into the church are not Scriptural, and may even be anti-Scriptural, but at least we're getting people into the church, where we can then teach them the Gospel." It seems as if many of these people are trying to "trick" people into church--they lure them in with promises of relevance and great music and drama, and then later, when they feel that the new converts are ready for it, then they'll teach them real doctrine. Unfortunately, they never seem to decide that the people are ready for the real doctrine, so they continue in the unScriptural frivolities indefinitely, despite the promise that such methods were only going to be temporary. Which leads to my next point...
Many of the political, governmental, and military leaders of Germany allowed Hitler to gain power because they felt assured that they would be able to "tame" him. After he had served their purposes, they would rein him in and prevent him from doing the things that they disagreed with. But Hitler was clever. He was able to work his way up into power in such ways so that by the time anyone would want to reign him in, they would be unable to.
As I said, many people recognize the errors and dangers of some of the things coming into the church, but they allow it anyway because they figure that after they have exhausted the usefulness of the method or ideology of person, then they could step back in and put a halt to any extreme errors. But this just doesn't happen. Error is like leaven--it spreads quickly throughout the whole of the dough and then you can't separate it from the rest of the dough. All erroneous teachings must be nipped in the bud. Once you allow an error to come into the church, you will not be able to just take it away once you feel like. Pastor Gregory N. Barkman, in a sermon from Galatians about Paul's confronting Peter for his hypocrisy, asks what it would be like if Paul had just been nice and had been more interested in unity than in doctrine. What if Paul had decided to wait before speaking up? What if he went to the church in Jerusalem 25 years later and tried to put a stop to their segregating practices? It would have been a lot harder. By then it would have been an ingrained tradition. There would be young people who had been raised that way. And many of them could have said, "Hey, Peter did it, so it must be right!" This argument would have been particularly forceful if they had already started thinking that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This error of Jewish Christians not eating with Gentile Christians might have spread to other churches, making Paul's task of correction even harder. Thankfully, Paul did not wait 25 years, but he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it. Had the Germans done this in 1933, a lot of hardship could have been spared. And so it is for the church today.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Steve Lemke's paper
In my last post I talked about SBC president Bobby Welch's article againts the Founders, and his use of a paper by Steve Lemke. Well, I was looking at a blog (http://www.joethorn.net/?p=141) about the same thing, and Lemke himself made a response. Well, I responded to that. I thought I would copy my comment there and paste it here. For all of you. Enjoy!
Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”
This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.
In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!
Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.
Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”
This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.
In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!
Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tom Ascol Speaks
Over at the Founders blog Tom Ascol has started to respond to the Bobby Welch issue that I just posted about. Nice to see that my guesses are justified...When I made my comment about the number of attendees-to-members, I just guessed the numbers. Well, Tom Ascol is more responsible than I am and actually did some research to show that of the 4000 people who are on the membership rolls of Bobby Welch's church, only 2000 show up on an average Sunday. That makes 2000 baptised people who do not care about Christ's church. I dare Welch to produce that kind of number regarding Founders churches.
Oh Boy
I just wrote a really long post and then lost it. Aye carumba. That exasperates me too much to get mad about it. So I guess I'll just rewrite the whole dang thing. I'll make it shorter this time because I don't feel like rewriting all of my great arguments.
SBC president Bobby Welch has written an article concerning Founders-friendly churches. That article is here. He believes that these Calvinistic churches just aren't as evangelistic as Arminian SBC churches because they have fewer baptisms and fewer members. He says, "In 2004, not a single one of the 233 self-identified Founder's Fellowship Southern Baptist Churches had 40 or more baptisms. Their baptism to member ration was 1:62; it was 1:42 in the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention." Also, "Only eleven of the 233 churches had more than 1,000 members in 2004, and only one had a regular worship attendance of 1,000 or more."
Here we see the ungodly philosophy of pragmatism rearing its ugly head at the very top of the SBC heirarchy. Welch seems to be suggesting that good evangelism is that which produces the most visible results. This is not the Biblical concept of evangelism, however. I would argue that Founders churches are the most evangelistic because they do real evangelism--that is, they preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). They do not ignore important doctrines just so as not to offend people. That is how most of these 1,000+ member churches get so big! Take Joel Osteen as an example. Why does he have the biggest church in all time and space? Because his congregants get to hear about how great they can feel and how peachy things can be and how materially blessed they can get without ever having to hear about the fact that their sin is infinitaly heinous and is sending them to eternal torments in hell. I believe that this is how so many large SBC churches get large--they ignore the tougher doctrines and just tickle ears. They replace sound doctrinal preaching with extra vacuous chorus chanting, puppet shows, and dramas. But Founders churches know that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). The churches that pound out such a large rate do so only because they will baptise and make members of anybody who repeats a prayer. Founders churches do not want unchristian baptisms or unregenerate members. They examine people to see if they exhibit any real fruit of repentance. This is the biblical method, but it is not a popular method.
I know that not all megachurches are only large because they neglect sound teaching. Spurgeon's church is an example of that. But I believe that to be an exception and not the rule. I would love to see the Lord create a large revival in Reformed Baptist churches. But I would rather not see an explosion of numbers rather than to see the gospel of God laid aside for ear-tickling trivialities and falsehoods. Bobby Welch can have those churches. We don't want them.
There is one statistic that I didn't see Bobby Welch talk about. I saw his concern that Founders churches' baptisms-to-member ratio was lower than other SBC churches. But how about the ratio of regular attenders-to-members? Oh, so we don't have many 1,000+ member churches. But for non-reformed churches in the SBC, what is the ratio? I bet that in these large churches, it could be as low as 50%. That is, there are half as many people regularly attending as there are people on the membership rolls. I dare Bobby Welch to find that to be the case in Founders churches. I'd says it would be over 90%. Because Reformed folk take church membership seriously. To my great shame, that is why I haven't joined my church yet. I have been a sloppy attender, and I don't want to waste their time in admitting me as a member until I can show that I am dedicated to the church enough to actually go all the time.
One last thing about Founders churches. They are mostly concerned with discipleship. Evangelism is important, but it is mostly the job of the individual. The church isn't for the lost. It is for the saved. I know the Founders church I go to regularly and emphatically emphasises us to evangelize the people around us, and the elders are constantly teaching us the Biblical method of doing so. But if every Sunday's sermon was simply about what words to say to accept Jesus into my heart, then I would never ever grow as a Christian. I need to be fed, and not just milk for the rest of my life. Founders churches are concerned with nurturing Christians into maturity. But the average man doesn't care about being a mature Christian. He wants his ears tickled with fluff. So he will only join and be baptised into a church that tickles his "felt needs." But that is not Christian baptism. So Bobby Welch can have his churches that dip unregenerate people into water. I know that God wants me to choose a church that teaches the whole of His truths, and not just one that makes a lot of people wet.
SBC president Bobby Welch has written an article concerning Founders-friendly churches. That article is here. He believes that these Calvinistic churches just aren't as evangelistic as Arminian SBC churches because they have fewer baptisms and fewer members. He says, "In 2004, not a single one of the 233 self-identified Founder's Fellowship Southern Baptist Churches had 40 or more baptisms. Their baptism to member ration was 1:62; it was 1:42 in the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention." Also, "Only eleven of the 233 churches had more than 1,000 members in 2004, and only one had a regular worship attendance of 1,000 or more."
Here we see the ungodly philosophy of pragmatism rearing its ugly head at the very top of the SBC heirarchy. Welch seems to be suggesting that good evangelism is that which produces the most visible results. This is not the Biblical concept of evangelism, however. I would argue that Founders churches are the most evangelistic because they do real evangelism--that is, they preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). They do not ignore important doctrines just so as not to offend people. That is how most of these 1,000+ member churches get so big! Take Joel Osteen as an example. Why does he have the biggest church in all time and space? Because his congregants get to hear about how great they can feel and how peachy things can be and how materially blessed they can get without ever having to hear about the fact that their sin is infinitaly heinous and is sending them to eternal torments in hell. I believe that this is how so many large SBC churches get large--they ignore the tougher doctrines and just tickle ears. They replace sound doctrinal preaching with extra vacuous chorus chanting, puppet shows, and dramas. But Founders churches know that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). The churches that pound out such a large rate do so only because they will baptise and make members of anybody who repeats a prayer. Founders churches do not want unchristian baptisms or unregenerate members. They examine people to see if they exhibit any real fruit of repentance. This is the biblical method, but it is not a popular method.
I know that not all megachurches are only large because they neglect sound teaching. Spurgeon's church is an example of that. But I believe that to be an exception and not the rule. I would love to see the Lord create a large revival in Reformed Baptist churches. But I would rather not see an explosion of numbers rather than to see the gospel of God laid aside for ear-tickling trivialities and falsehoods. Bobby Welch can have those churches. We don't want them.
There is one statistic that I didn't see Bobby Welch talk about. I saw his concern that Founders churches' baptisms-to-member ratio was lower than other SBC churches. But how about the ratio of regular attenders-to-members? Oh, so we don't have many 1,000+ member churches. But for non-reformed churches in the SBC, what is the ratio? I bet that in these large churches, it could be as low as 50%. That is, there are half as many people regularly attending as there are people on the membership rolls. I dare Bobby Welch to find that to be the case in Founders churches. I'd says it would be over 90%. Because Reformed folk take church membership seriously. To my great shame, that is why I haven't joined my church yet. I have been a sloppy attender, and I don't want to waste their time in admitting me as a member until I can show that I am dedicated to the church enough to actually go all the time.
One last thing about Founders churches. They are mostly concerned with discipleship. Evangelism is important, but it is mostly the job of the individual. The church isn't for the lost. It is for the saved. I know the Founders church I go to regularly and emphatically emphasises us to evangelize the people around us, and the elders are constantly teaching us the Biblical method of doing so. But if every Sunday's sermon was simply about what words to say to accept Jesus into my heart, then I would never ever grow as a Christian. I need to be fed, and not just milk for the rest of my life. Founders churches are concerned with nurturing Christians into maturity. But the average man doesn't care about being a mature Christian. He wants his ears tickled with fluff. So he will only join and be baptised into a church that tickles his "felt needs." But that is not Christian baptism. So Bobby Welch can have his churches that dip unregenerate people into water. I know that God wants me to choose a church that teaches the whole of His truths, and not just one that makes a lot of people wet.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Death By Laughing
Last night I watched one of my favorite comedies ever, so I thought I'd talk about it. Murder By Death. Buy it. Watch it. Love it. Live it. I laugh my socks of watching this movie. It was written by Neil Simon and it features an all-star cast of some of my favorites: Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, Eileen Brennan, Peter Falk, David Niven, and Estelle Winwood (Estelle--she's swell!). This is one of the few good moves to come out of the seventies (1976), and this movie will keep me laughing until I die. I suppose a reasonable knowledge of old detective novels and films is necessary to get some of the humor. So come on, people, go rent some film noir from the old days, and then watch this movie. Each of the five detectives is a take on some famed fictional detective. Milo Perrier (James Coco)=Hercule Pirot, Sam Diamond (Peter Falk)=Sam Spade, Jessica Marbles (Elsa Lanchester)=Miss Marple, Dick Charleston (David Niven)=The Thin Man, Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers)=Charlie Chan. Great, okay, we have that settled, now add in some of the greatest quotes of all time. You know how Napolean Dynamite seems great for quotes? It's nothing compared to this movie. Goodness gracious me. Let me think of a few examples:
Sam Diamond: The last time that I trusted a dame was in Paris in 1940. She said she was going out to get a bottle of wine. Two hours later, the Germans marched into France.
Tess Skeffington: There's nothing on him 'til '46, when he was picked up in El Paso, Texas, for trying to smuggle a truckload of rich white Americans across the border into Mexico to pick melons.
Sam Diamond: Now, if one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to give my lady friend here a glass of cheap white wine, I'm going down the hall to find the can. I talk so much sometimes, I forget to go.
Sam Diamond: Look all over him.
Dick Charleston: All over his body?
Sam Diamond: Well, somebody's gotta do it. I'm busy standing guard.
Dick Charleston: Why don't I stand guard? You look all over the body.
Sam Diamond: All right, we'll take turns. You look over the first dead, naked body that we find and I'll look over the second.
Willie Wang: Why do I do all the dirty work, Pop?
Sidney Wang: 'Cause your mother not here to do it.
Sidney Wang: Someone just put deadly snake in room. Wake me when it come near bed.
Well, that's enough for now. Just thought that I'd say that I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! Murder By Death. Buy it today, folks.
Sam Diamond: The last time that I trusted a dame was in Paris in 1940. She said she was going out to get a bottle of wine. Two hours later, the Germans marched into France.
Tess Skeffington: There's nothing on him 'til '46, when he was picked up in El Paso, Texas, for trying to smuggle a truckload of rich white Americans across the border into Mexico to pick melons.
Sam Diamond: Now, if one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to give my lady friend here a glass of cheap white wine, I'm going down the hall to find the can. I talk so much sometimes, I forget to go.
Sam Diamond: Look all over him.
Dick Charleston: All over his body?
Sam Diamond: Well, somebody's gotta do it. I'm busy standing guard.
Dick Charleston: Why don't I stand guard? You look all over the body.
Sam Diamond: All right, we'll take turns. You look over the first dead, naked body that we find and I'll look over the second.
Willie Wang: Why do I do all the dirty work, Pop?
Sidney Wang: 'Cause your mother not here to do it.
Sidney Wang: Someone just put deadly snake in room. Wake me when it come near bed.
Well, that's enough for now. Just thought that I'd say that I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! Murder By Death. Buy it today, folks.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
What I'm Doing Now Update
In the short time between my last post, I have finished reading Chuck Palahniuk's Stranger Than Fiction, and then read all of his novel Diary. Right now I'm on the road so I just brought the Kornbluth book with me.
It is hot, hot, hot in Texas right now. I'd love to go someplace nice and cold.
James White recently conducted a Great Debate with a Roman Catholic, which sends their nuttier apologists into a frenzy. Art Sippo, in particular. He loves to spew out all sorts of nasty things about Dr. White, and I can't see any sort of proof or documentation for the things he says. He accuses Dr. White of being abusive, but I have never seen any such thing. James White can be very blunt and he doesn't allow himself to be pushed around, but he never says anything beyond what is true. I have never seen him try to bully people around, like Sippo claims. However, White doesn't allow himself to be bullied around, either, and this may be what the Catholics don't like. But really, and I think this is true for any group that disagrees with truth, what the Romanists are really upset about, and what they perceive as being abuse, is the fact that he believes that many of their tenants are anti-Gospel. So when White says that, for example, the Roman concept of justification goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Sippo believes that this sort of comment is abusive. But that's just my opinion. Like a Catholic, I am full of them.
It is hot, hot, hot in Texas right now. I'd love to go someplace nice and cold.
James White recently conducted a Great Debate with a Roman Catholic, which sends their nuttier apologists into a frenzy. Art Sippo, in particular. He loves to spew out all sorts of nasty things about Dr. White, and I can't see any sort of proof or documentation for the things he says. He accuses Dr. White of being abusive, but I have never seen any such thing. James White can be very blunt and he doesn't allow himself to be pushed around, but he never says anything beyond what is true. I have never seen him try to bully people around, like Sippo claims. However, White doesn't allow himself to be bullied around, either, and this may be what the Catholics don't like. But really, and I think this is true for any group that disagrees with truth, what the Romanists are really upset about, and what they perceive as being abuse, is the fact that he believes that many of their tenants are anti-Gospel. So when White says that, for example, the Roman concept of justification goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Sippo believes that this sort of comment is abusive. But that's just my opinion. Like a Catholic, I am full of them.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
What Am I Doing Now?
Since I've been so silent lately, I thought I should let you all know what I'm doing. So you can know I'm still alive and all that. Of course, my existence is defined by my recreational activities, so that is what I'm going to list for you.
Currently reading:
Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will
Chuck Palahniuk, Stranger Than Fiction
C. M. Kornbluth, His Share of the Glory
Currently listening to:
AC/DC, Stiff Upper Lip
Currently watching:
Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode 408, Hercules Unchained
Keep circulating the tapes!
Currently reading:
Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will
Chuck Palahniuk, Stranger Than Fiction
C. M. Kornbluth, His Share of the Glory
Currently listening to:
AC/DC, Stiff Upper Lip
Currently watching:
Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode 408, Hercules Unchained
Keep circulating the tapes!
If Only Arminians Were So Honest...
"God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us." -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 26.
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." -- Romans 9:16.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, 9.
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:12, 13.
Lately I've been reading Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will, and so this sort of thing has been on my mind lately. When I came across the Machiavelli quote, I thought it was very appropriate. Most Arminians are not willing (if I may so pun) to completely disregard phrases such as "no man may boast," so they still pay lip service to it while contradicting it in their doctrine (such as by affirming that it is their own pre-regenerate will that decides their soul's fate). This sort of contradiction and inconsistency just boils my potato, so it is refreshing to see someone honestly declare that he believes that a share of the glory is owed to man, despite the words of St. Paul.
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." -- Romans 9:16.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, 9.
"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:12, 13.
Lately I've been reading Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will, and so this sort of thing has been on my mind lately. When I came across the Machiavelli quote, I thought it was very appropriate. Most Arminians are not willing (if I may so pun) to completely disregard phrases such as "no man may boast," so they still pay lip service to it while contradicting it in their doctrine (such as by affirming that it is their own pre-regenerate will that decides their soul's fate). This sort of contradiction and inconsistency just boils my potato, so it is refreshing to see someone honestly declare that he believes that a share of the glory is owed to man, despite the words of St. Paul.
Monday, May 09, 2005
New Drawing
Well, Challies.com is doing a new drawing. This time you can win the Amazing Grace: the History and Theology of Calvinism DVD set and the movie Luther on DVD. Enter here:
Friday, May 06, 2005
The Good Life
Wowzee wow wow, where can I begin?! I have just returned from a fantastical trip throughout the great state of Texas following around a Nebraskan band called The Good Life. This is headed up by Tim Kasher, also the leader of Cursive. Kasher is one of the greatest songwriters of all-time. I am a total fan. Like complete crazy. I don't get this way about bands often. Radiohead is one example of my raving lunatic fanaticalness. Love 'em. And now...Tim Kasher. Anything he touches is gold. Since being in love with him means I'm in love with whichever of his two bands he currently is recording/touring with, I usually just refer to him personally rather than either one of the bands singly. So if you asked me, "Who are some of your favorite bands?" I would just say, "Tim Kasher" instead of "Cursive" or "The Good Life", because I can't have one without the other. It's all good, baby. Well anyway, he is now touring with The Good Life, and he made three stops in Texas, so I had to go to all three of them. Of course. With my wife Stephanie, and our good friend Jane. We are all three of us rabid Kasherites, and it was Jane who introduced us to such wonderful music.
For the uninitiated, I suppose I should explain a few things. Tim Kasher is part of the Indie scene, that is, he records for independent record labels. No big time labels for him like Capitol or Sony. It's all pretty much a small-time thing. His current label is Saddle Creek. This is basically a group of friends and like-minded individuals who like to make music and need it put out some way. It doesn't work like the big labels, where basically executives own the bands and force them to work within the labels' specifications. No, these guys can do whatever they want. Saddle Creek just sort of puts it out for them. There is no big money promotions or anything. It's all pretty much just word of mouth. So of course, the shows are not big. No sold out arenas here. No, they just play at little clubs for something like $10 a ticket. Just bar bands that happen to tour the country or even the world. These bands cannot be really considered famous. At a big place like Best Buy you may find the latest CDs from Cursive and The Good Life, but usually none of their older stuff. A place like Wal-Mart is out of the question. The best places to find CDs by these type of bands is online or at weird CD stores that cater to indie kids. These stores are usually only found in the bigger cities, like Good Records in Dallas or Waterloo in Austin.
The darling of the indie scene right now is Conor Oberst, a complete moron whose leftist views have so completely softened his brain so as to be utterly useless, is gaining some sort of fame right now with his band Bright Eyes. They seem to be featured in every music or entertainment magazine and are appearing on every late night talk show. His music stinks, and he recently sold one of his most completely retarded songs ever to Sesame Street for $1.5 million. So, for those real indie kids who aren't so enamored with Conor that they can take an honest look at things from a historical indie perspective (which is the grandchild of the punk perspective), he is a total sell-out. He is quickly becoming one of those famous bands that supposedly represent the indie scene, but because of his rising fame, is automatically disqualified from being considered indie anymore. For those of you who are familiar with none of these things, don't worry; you're not missing much. The historical school of Indie thought is to say that anybody who becomes even remotely famous is now a sell-out, is no longer meaningful, and isn't "indie". I think this is complete nonsense. Why shouldn't talented bands become famous? And can they really help it if all of a sudden people like them? No, I only consider a person a true sell-out only if he compromises his original artistic and musical principles in order to sell more records. Now, I am not in a position to judge if whether or not Conor Oberst is a sell-out according to my definition because I don't know his intentions. Maybe he is just getting famous accidentally, as it were. But I will call him a sell-out for two reasons. One is that he sold a song to SESAME STREET! For $1.5 MILLION! I mean, COME ON! Secondly, I call him a sell-out because I know it will infuriate all of his silly little teeny-bopper fans and all those who like him mostly because of his retarded politics. Stephanie and Jane used to be big fans of his and were able to tolerate his stupid political views until a recent tour of Texas. At the show they attended, he said that he hated Texas and that all Texans did was rape Indians and rope steers. There he goes, biting the hand that feeds him. Let's not mention that Nebraska (where Oberst hails from) has a much more politically incorrect history with Native Americans than Texas does. It just goes to show what a completely small, closed-minded bigot he is. Now I use these phrases on purpose. Being some sort of bleeding-heart liberal, Oberst is exactly the kind of person that likes to accuse others of being closed-minded and bigoted. That is the way of the political left. Oh, you think abortion is murder? Well, you're just a small-minded bigot. But making a baseless caricature of over 22 million people is a-okay. Moron. I guess Stephanie and Jane still listen to his music, but that have agreed with me that personally, he is a big stinker. I always thought his music sucked even before I knew what an idiot he was, but now I have more reason to heap scorn on him.
Why did I mention Conor? I don't remember. I think it was probably to help explain to any of you not familiar with this aspect of the music scene what the Indie scene is all about, and since he is starting to appear on television, you may have actually heard of him. So I bring him up to give you a concrete example of all this stuff that I'm talking about.
Well, back to my boyfriend, Tim Kasher. He is probably an idiot, too, but he doesn't bash us over the head with it at concerts. So hoorah for him.
So the first Texas stop is in Austin at Emo's, then onto Denton where they played at Haileys', and finally Houston, at Mary Jane's Fat Cat. There were three other acts performing before the Good Life at each show. The first was Consafos. This is a delightful band that turned us into instant fans. Stephanie bought their new LP. This band is led by Stefanie Drootin, who plays bass for The Good Life and sometimes for Bright Eyes (the afore-mentioned band led by Conor Oberst). I guess you could say that she is an all-around handy bass player for the Saddle Creek stable of bands. I am glad to see her going out front with her own band and singing prettily after playing second banana to all these other guys. She deserves her own spotlight. She's awesome.
A second band playing is called Bella Lea. This band is also awesome. Stephanie and Jane weren't too keen on them at first, but they came around by the third show. For one thing, the singer, Maura Davis, is freaking HOT. Now, I know this has nothing to do with their talents, and that they would probably not be pleased at all if her hotness was the only reason to like them, but I can't help but mention it. Dang, she's hot! But the main reason I like these folks is that they play real rock and roll with real guitar solos and stuff. This is not very common in the Indie scene at all. As I have suggested earlier, the Indie scene and "emo" music (as it is often called) is a direct descendent of punk music. One of the hallmarks of the punk scene was its stripping from rock music all showiness. And this usually included guitar solos. For punk, it was usually considered a very bad thing if you could actually play guitar well. The Indie/Emo scene is similar. They may not be consciously anti-guitar solo, but I think it is a subconscious left-over. A lot of the music is also derived from folk music, which is also not very solo-y. Just basic chords on an acoustic guitar. Remember the uproar that occurred when Bob Dylan went electric and had Robbie Robertson play lead guitar for him? Scandalous! Well, it's kind of like that today. But not this band! For one thing, Maura Davis is a very good rhythm guitar player. From watching her, I could tell that she knew more than just the basic Mel Bay chords. She was playing figures all over the neck with weird fingerings that I couldn't recognize. And Matt Clark is an excellent guitarist. He wears his Jimmy Page influence on his sleeve with his bluesy guitar licks and, most notably, with his use of violin bow. I asked him about this after a show, and he said that of course Jimmy Page was an influence. Then seeing my AC/DC shirt, he cited them as an influence as well. Awesome! This band is good. They have a bluesy quality that I love. If you haven't noticed from my generally negative remarks, I am not a big fan of the Indie/Emo style of music. I love Tim Kasher, and I like a few others okay, but most of the scene is just not my bag. I'm a guitar player, I'm a rock 'n' roller, and I love the blues. So Bella Lea appeals to me in those ways. Yet they also have the sort of Emo sadness that I do like. It's the beautifully sung sadness of Tim Kasher that makes him appeal to me, and this is also one of the major appeals of Radiohead. Bella Lea's slower songs have this sadness that is sung so beautifully that just tears at the heart-strings. Lovely. If you click on the link I provided above for Bella Lea, you should start hearing one of these songs immediately. Beautiful.
The third band, Make Believe, just plain stunk. Oh my gosh, they were like the male Yoko Ono. Need I say more? If you like Yoko Ono, then knock yourself out and check this band out. If not, then I suggest that you leave this band alone. Man. They're the suckiest sucks that ever sucked.
And finally...The Good Life. And man, are they good. Let me tell you the story of Tim Kasher, as I have been told it. This may not be all true, but it sounds good. He used to make music, got married, and then stopped making music because his wife wanted him to get a real job. So there you see, he's a nice guy, changing his plans for the woman he loves. But it didn't work. She left him anyway. So, even though his songs were all sad before this point in his life, now they got really sad. The album that the Good Life is currently touring for, the aptly titled Album of the Year, chronicles a relationship through the course of a year. Kasher says that some is autobiographical, some is fictional, but it is all good. This is the album that I heard that turned me into an instant Tim Kasher fan. For one thing, the music is beautiful. I could be a fan no matter what the lyrical content was (well, except unless it was bigoted anti-Texas crap). His singing is so full of emotion so that you can't take your attention away. But the lyrics are what jumped out at me. This album pretty much describes word-for-word a previous relationship I was once in. Well, except for the bits about bars and drinking. I thought that I could have written this album. Except, of course, that I met my wife. This made me very happy, and so I could no longer write sad poems. Or any poems. I seem to be one of those guys (probably like Tim Kasher) who is creative when I am sad. When I am sad, I could put out great poems, and sometimes great songs. But happiness is a writer's block to me. Since I've been happy since December of 2000, I haven't had any real creative output since then. Darn you, Stephanie, for ruining my musical career! I kid her, of course.
Now then. As I said, these venues that the Good Life played at are small. Just little clubs. Bars, really. And again, these bands aren't really famous at all. So, you put these two facts together, and what you get is a bunch of awesome musicians wandering around the club with us regular folks when they're not needed on stage. Which means that I could, say, walk right up to my hero Tim Kasher and say, Hello, Mr. Kasher. Which I did. To my great embarrassment, I was so star struck on the first night that I just sort of blubbered at him and barely spit out what I was trying to say. He was probably very amused. He probably doesn't have grown men go a big gooey wet one on him very often. I think he was also amused by the fact that I called him "Mr. Kasher" instead of acting all cool like the other people there and just saying, "Hey, Tim, great to see you," as if they know him, which they don't. I got to talk to a lot of people in these bands. There are all cool and awesome. Especially when engaging in guitar talk with the guitarists. And even though Tim Kasher is my hero and I was there only for him, I think the most celebrity moment for me was meeting Stefanie Drootin, his bass player. As I have said, she also plays bass for Conor Oberst, and because of that fact, I have seen her on TV when Bright Eyes played on the Late Late Show with Colin Ferguson. So even though I am in love with Tim Kasher, I have never actually seen him on TV. Stefanie, I have seen on TV. So meeting her was, as I said, my most celebrity moment. It made me think of seeing wax figures at museums. I always see them and think, "This is way too small to be built to scale." But then you meet a famous person and discover that they are, in fact small. Other than that, they look just like they do on TV. Well, that was how I felt meeting Stefanie Drootin. Fortunately, I didn't go all gooey on her like I did on Tim Kasher. I was able to play it cool around her. I have a crush on her now, I've decided. Yes, I am in love. Stephanie (my wife) is cool with it because she has a crush on Tim Kasher. It all works out.
The first night, in Austin, we're watching the show and I had forgotten to bring my camera. Well, actually, I had remembered to bring my camera, but I had forgotten to put batteries in it. So I'm standing there thinking that I need to take pictures at the next show in Denton. And then I get a marvelous idea. Keep in mind that all previous concerts that I've been to were big famous ones. AC/DC, Radiohead, Velvet Revolver...that sort of thing. All these places are full of security guards and metal detectors. So I always had to smuggle cameras in my rectum and so forth. But not these shows. So I have this great idea. Nuts to my camera, why not bring a video camera to the next show? I asked my fine ladies with me, and they said that Haileys (the club in Denton that was next on the itinerary and with which they are very familiar) would have no objection to my bringing a video camera. I just needed to get permission from Tim Kasher. So I did! After the show. Well, actually, I got Jane to ask for me. Remember, I'm too star-struck to speak intelligible phrases at this point. Tim says sure, he doesn't care. So the next day I take my video camera with me.
Before the show I went up to my good friend Tim Kasher and asked him if he could manage to play my favorite song for me, "October Leaves". He said, "Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't learn that for the tour." I don't know if this is a cock-and-bull story or not. I see no reason why he should lie, because he takes lots of requests. Unless he thought maybe I was coming on to him. I suppose normally that it is girls who come up to him to request songs. Not some huge guy. But that's probably me just being paranoid. Maybe he honestly didn't remember how to play it.
And then I film the show. No tripod. Too short. Can't rest the camera on my shoulder. Too short. So I have to hold it up. For an hour and a half. Let me tell you, that is freaking hard work. Jane asked me if I'd film the Houston show, too, and I said no way. My shoulder is still sore. But it was worth it. Now I can see The Good Life live every night! Wee ha! And the fact that I got the blessing for its filming straight from Tim Kasher himself, well, that just makes it extra special.
But the absolute highlight of the whole experience came on the last day, in Houston. At every show, after about an hour, Tim would announce that it was the end of the "set proper." So all the other musicians would leave the stage, and he'd stand up there with his acoustic guitar and play a brand new song. Each night was a different new song. After that, the band would rejoin him and they'd play a few more songs. Anyway, he would always introduce the new song in some way, or dedicate it to somebody. So that last night, he's about to play his new song, and he stands there thinking of something to say. Then he points straight at me and says, "I dedicate the song to that guy, because he's been coming to all our shows. Following us around. But in a good way, not in a bad way. He hasn't been showing up at my doorstep." Well, I had an emotional orgasm right then and there, I can tell you that. Stephanie and Jane felt a bit slighted because they were sitting right next to me and had also been to every show, but he didn't mention them. Ha! So I am very special. I can die now. Just make sure you bury me with my recording of the Denton show.
For the uninitiated, I suppose I should explain a few things. Tim Kasher is part of the Indie scene, that is, he records for independent record labels. No big time labels for him like Capitol or Sony. It's all pretty much a small-time thing. His current label is Saddle Creek. This is basically a group of friends and like-minded individuals who like to make music and need it put out some way. It doesn't work like the big labels, where basically executives own the bands and force them to work within the labels' specifications. No, these guys can do whatever they want. Saddle Creek just sort of puts it out for them. There is no big money promotions or anything. It's all pretty much just word of mouth. So of course, the shows are not big. No sold out arenas here. No, they just play at little clubs for something like $10 a ticket. Just bar bands that happen to tour the country or even the world. These bands cannot be really considered famous. At a big place like Best Buy you may find the latest CDs from Cursive and The Good Life, but usually none of their older stuff. A place like Wal-Mart is out of the question. The best places to find CDs by these type of bands is online or at weird CD stores that cater to indie kids. These stores are usually only found in the bigger cities, like Good Records in Dallas or Waterloo in Austin.
The darling of the indie scene right now is Conor Oberst, a complete moron whose leftist views have so completely softened his brain so as to be utterly useless, is gaining some sort of fame right now with his band Bright Eyes. They seem to be featured in every music or entertainment magazine and are appearing on every late night talk show. His music stinks, and he recently sold one of his most completely retarded songs ever to Sesame Street for $1.5 million. So, for those real indie kids who aren't so enamored with Conor that they can take an honest look at things from a historical indie perspective (which is the grandchild of the punk perspective), he is a total sell-out. He is quickly becoming one of those famous bands that supposedly represent the indie scene, but because of his rising fame, is automatically disqualified from being considered indie anymore. For those of you who are familiar with none of these things, don't worry; you're not missing much. The historical school of Indie thought is to say that anybody who becomes even remotely famous is now a sell-out, is no longer meaningful, and isn't "indie". I think this is complete nonsense. Why shouldn't talented bands become famous? And can they really help it if all of a sudden people like them? No, I only consider a person a true sell-out only if he compromises his original artistic and musical principles in order to sell more records. Now, I am not in a position to judge if whether or not Conor Oberst is a sell-out according to my definition because I don't know his intentions. Maybe he is just getting famous accidentally, as it were. But I will call him a sell-out for two reasons. One is that he sold a song to SESAME STREET! For $1.5 MILLION! I mean, COME ON! Secondly, I call him a sell-out because I know it will infuriate all of his silly little teeny-bopper fans and all those who like him mostly because of his retarded politics. Stephanie and Jane used to be big fans of his and were able to tolerate his stupid political views until a recent tour of Texas. At the show they attended, he said that he hated Texas and that all Texans did was rape Indians and rope steers. There he goes, biting the hand that feeds him. Let's not mention that Nebraska (where Oberst hails from) has a much more politically incorrect history with Native Americans than Texas does. It just goes to show what a completely small, closed-minded bigot he is. Now I use these phrases on purpose. Being some sort of bleeding-heart liberal, Oberst is exactly the kind of person that likes to accuse others of being closed-minded and bigoted. That is the way of the political left. Oh, you think abortion is murder? Well, you're just a small-minded bigot. But making a baseless caricature of over 22 million people is a-okay. Moron. I guess Stephanie and Jane still listen to his music, but that have agreed with me that personally, he is a big stinker. I always thought his music sucked even before I knew what an idiot he was, but now I have more reason to heap scorn on him.
Why did I mention Conor? I don't remember. I think it was probably to help explain to any of you not familiar with this aspect of the music scene what the Indie scene is all about, and since he is starting to appear on television, you may have actually heard of him. So I bring him up to give you a concrete example of all this stuff that I'm talking about.
Well, back to my boyfriend, Tim Kasher. He is probably an idiot, too, but he doesn't bash us over the head with it at concerts. So hoorah for him.
So the first Texas stop is in Austin at Emo's, then onto Denton where they played at Haileys', and finally Houston, at Mary Jane's Fat Cat. There were three other acts performing before the Good Life at each show. The first was Consafos. This is a delightful band that turned us into instant fans. Stephanie bought their new LP. This band is led by Stefanie Drootin, who plays bass for The Good Life and sometimes for Bright Eyes (the afore-mentioned band led by Conor Oberst). I guess you could say that she is an all-around handy bass player for the Saddle Creek stable of bands. I am glad to see her going out front with her own band and singing prettily after playing second banana to all these other guys. She deserves her own spotlight. She's awesome.
A second band playing is called Bella Lea. This band is also awesome. Stephanie and Jane weren't too keen on them at first, but they came around by the third show. For one thing, the singer, Maura Davis, is freaking HOT. Now, I know this has nothing to do with their talents, and that they would probably not be pleased at all if her hotness was the only reason to like them, but I can't help but mention it. Dang, she's hot! But the main reason I like these folks is that they play real rock and roll with real guitar solos and stuff. This is not very common in the Indie scene at all. As I have suggested earlier, the Indie scene and "emo" music (as it is often called) is a direct descendent of punk music. One of the hallmarks of the punk scene was its stripping from rock music all showiness. And this usually included guitar solos. For punk, it was usually considered a very bad thing if you could actually play guitar well. The Indie/Emo scene is similar. They may not be consciously anti-guitar solo, but I think it is a subconscious left-over. A lot of the music is also derived from folk music, which is also not very solo-y. Just basic chords on an acoustic guitar. Remember the uproar that occurred when Bob Dylan went electric and had Robbie Robertson play lead guitar for him? Scandalous! Well, it's kind of like that today. But not this band! For one thing, Maura Davis is a very good rhythm guitar player. From watching her, I could tell that she knew more than just the basic Mel Bay chords. She was playing figures all over the neck with weird fingerings that I couldn't recognize. And Matt Clark is an excellent guitarist. He wears his Jimmy Page influence on his sleeve with his bluesy guitar licks and, most notably, with his use of violin bow. I asked him about this after a show, and he said that of course Jimmy Page was an influence. Then seeing my AC/DC shirt, he cited them as an influence as well. Awesome! This band is good. They have a bluesy quality that I love. If you haven't noticed from my generally negative remarks, I am not a big fan of the Indie/Emo style of music. I love Tim Kasher, and I like a few others okay, but most of the scene is just not my bag. I'm a guitar player, I'm a rock 'n' roller, and I love the blues. So Bella Lea appeals to me in those ways. Yet they also have the sort of Emo sadness that I do like. It's the beautifully sung sadness of Tim Kasher that makes him appeal to me, and this is also one of the major appeals of Radiohead. Bella Lea's slower songs have this sadness that is sung so beautifully that just tears at the heart-strings. Lovely. If you click on the link I provided above for Bella Lea, you should start hearing one of these songs immediately. Beautiful.
The third band, Make Believe, just plain stunk. Oh my gosh, they were like the male Yoko Ono. Need I say more? If you like Yoko Ono, then knock yourself out and check this band out. If not, then I suggest that you leave this band alone. Man. They're the suckiest sucks that ever sucked.
And finally...The Good Life. And man, are they good. Let me tell you the story of Tim Kasher, as I have been told it. This may not be all true, but it sounds good. He used to make music, got married, and then stopped making music because his wife wanted him to get a real job. So there you see, he's a nice guy, changing his plans for the woman he loves. But it didn't work. She left him anyway. So, even though his songs were all sad before this point in his life, now they got really sad. The album that the Good Life is currently touring for, the aptly titled Album of the Year, chronicles a relationship through the course of a year. Kasher says that some is autobiographical, some is fictional, but it is all good. This is the album that I heard that turned me into an instant Tim Kasher fan. For one thing, the music is beautiful. I could be a fan no matter what the lyrical content was (well, except unless it was bigoted anti-Texas crap). His singing is so full of emotion so that you can't take your attention away. But the lyrics are what jumped out at me. This album pretty much describes word-for-word a previous relationship I was once in. Well, except for the bits about bars and drinking. I thought that I could have written this album. Except, of course, that I met my wife. This made me very happy, and so I could no longer write sad poems. Or any poems. I seem to be one of those guys (probably like Tim Kasher) who is creative when I am sad. When I am sad, I could put out great poems, and sometimes great songs. But happiness is a writer's block to me. Since I've been happy since December of 2000, I haven't had any real creative output since then. Darn you, Stephanie, for ruining my musical career! I kid her, of course.
Now then. As I said, these venues that the Good Life played at are small. Just little clubs. Bars, really. And again, these bands aren't really famous at all. So, you put these two facts together, and what you get is a bunch of awesome musicians wandering around the club with us regular folks when they're not needed on stage. Which means that I could, say, walk right up to my hero Tim Kasher and say, Hello, Mr. Kasher. Which I did. To my great embarrassment, I was so star struck on the first night that I just sort of blubbered at him and barely spit out what I was trying to say. He was probably very amused. He probably doesn't have grown men go a big gooey wet one on him very often. I think he was also amused by the fact that I called him "Mr. Kasher" instead of acting all cool like the other people there and just saying, "Hey, Tim, great to see you," as if they know him, which they don't. I got to talk to a lot of people in these bands. There are all cool and awesome. Especially when engaging in guitar talk with the guitarists. And even though Tim Kasher is my hero and I was there only for him, I think the most celebrity moment for me was meeting Stefanie Drootin, his bass player. As I have said, she also plays bass for Conor Oberst, and because of that fact, I have seen her on TV when Bright Eyes played on the Late Late Show with Colin Ferguson. So even though I am in love with Tim Kasher, I have never actually seen him on TV. Stefanie, I have seen on TV. So meeting her was, as I said, my most celebrity moment. It made me think of seeing wax figures at museums. I always see them and think, "This is way too small to be built to scale." But then you meet a famous person and discover that they are, in fact small. Other than that, they look just like they do on TV. Well, that was how I felt meeting Stefanie Drootin. Fortunately, I didn't go all gooey on her like I did on Tim Kasher. I was able to play it cool around her. I have a crush on her now, I've decided. Yes, I am in love. Stephanie (my wife) is cool with it because she has a crush on Tim Kasher. It all works out.
The first night, in Austin, we're watching the show and I had forgotten to bring my camera. Well, actually, I had remembered to bring my camera, but I had forgotten to put batteries in it. So I'm standing there thinking that I need to take pictures at the next show in Denton. And then I get a marvelous idea. Keep in mind that all previous concerts that I've been to were big famous ones. AC/DC, Radiohead, Velvet Revolver...that sort of thing. All these places are full of security guards and metal detectors. So I always had to smuggle cameras in my rectum and so forth. But not these shows. So I have this great idea. Nuts to my camera, why not bring a video camera to the next show? I asked my fine ladies with me, and they said that Haileys (the club in Denton that was next on the itinerary and with which they are very familiar) would have no objection to my bringing a video camera. I just needed to get permission from Tim Kasher. So I did! After the show. Well, actually, I got Jane to ask for me. Remember, I'm too star-struck to speak intelligible phrases at this point. Tim says sure, he doesn't care. So the next day I take my video camera with me.
Before the show I went up to my good friend Tim Kasher and asked him if he could manage to play my favorite song for me, "October Leaves". He said, "Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't learn that for the tour." I don't know if this is a cock-and-bull story or not. I see no reason why he should lie, because he takes lots of requests. Unless he thought maybe I was coming on to him. I suppose normally that it is girls who come up to him to request songs. Not some huge guy. But that's probably me just being paranoid. Maybe he honestly didn't remember how to play it.
And then I film the show. No tripod. Too short. Can't rest the camera on my shoulder. Too short. So I have to hold it up. For an hour and a half. Let me tell you, that is freaking hard work. Jane asked me if I'd film the Houston show, too, and I said no way. My shoulder is still sore. But it was worth it. Now I can see The Good Life live every night! Wee ha! And the fact that I got the blessing for its filming straight from Tim Kasher himself, well, that just makes it extra special.
But the absolute highlight of the whole experience came on the last day, in Houston. At every show, after about an hour, Tim would announce that it was the end of the "set proper." So all the other musicians would leave the stage, and he'd stand up there with his acoustic guitar and play a brand new song. Each night was a different new song. After that, the band would rejoin him and they'd play a few more songs. Anyway, he would always introduce the new song in some way, or dedicate it to somebody. So that last night, he's about to play his new song, and he stands there thinking of something to say. Then he points straight at me and says, "I dedicate the song to that guy, because he's been coming to all our shows. Following us around. But in a good way, not in a bad way. He hasn't been showing up at my doorstep." Well, I had an emotional orgasm right then and there, I can tell you that. Stephanie and Jane felt a bit slighted because they were sitting right next to me and had also been to every show, but he didn't mention them. Ha! So I am very special. I can die now. Just make sure you bury me with my recording of the Denton show.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Civil War Crimes
I just thought that I would remind everybody that on this day in history, April 27, 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. This was, of course, very unconstitutional. At that time, this act pertained only to a section between Washington, DC and Philadelphia. The entire nation was affected by it a year and a half later, again by an act of Lincoln. Again, this was very unconstitutional. What all this meant was that people could be arrested and held indefinitely without ever being tried for a crime. Pity those who ever tried to point out the unconstitutionality of this act. If this fact makes you curious as to what other crimes against freedom that Lincoln committed, I suggest that you read the book When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. Now I understand that a lot of people get very upset when ever any question of Abraham Lincoln's character or presidency is questioned. Even when presented with irrefutable facts, they will plug their ears and refuse to listen. I say, beware idolizing any man. Read the facts first.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Long Time No Speak
Well well well, it has been an awful long time since I've last uttered a peep on this blog. Over a month, it looks like. My how time flies! I've been kind of busy with school so I haven't given much thought to internet rantings. Not that there hasn't been anything to rant about! The Pope died, for goodness' sake! Well, what can be said about that? Apparently, much of what calls itself Protestant Evangelicalism can say a great deal of good things about the Pope. What a great number of good deeds he performed. But unfortunately, if John Paul II was still adhering to the doctrines of the church that he led when he died, then sadly, he was relying partly upon these own good works to get him to heaven. That's what his fellow Catholics believe! Some say that he was so good and meritorious, that he has been able to skip purgatory and go straight to heaven! Unfortunately, the true Gospel has no such place for works. Only the work of Christ can get a man into heaven. Salvation comes wholly by God's grace. Now, I can't say where the soul of Pope John Paul II is at this moment because I cannot say to whom God has or has not been gracious to. If He can save me, then He could save John Paul II. If He could save Paul, the chief of sinners, then God could save this good-working Pope. On the other hand, God is true to His Word, which states that His graceful salvation comes through faith alone in Christ alone. Those who do not accept this Gospel are under condemnation. Now, though we cannot say what went on in the heart of the Pope in his last hours, we can see that his ministry has been one of rejecting this Gospel and replacing it with another (which is not really another). The true Gospel can say, as the Pope's motto, "totus tuus" (totally yours), but only to Jesus Christ; not, as the Pope's motto meant, to Mary. That so many "evangelicals" and "protestant leaders" are remaining completely silent on the issue of the gospel and instead just praise the late Pope's works is very sad and is, it would appear, a return to Rome.
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA FIDE
SOLUS CHRISTUS
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLI DEO GLORIA
ECCLESIA REFORMATA ET SEMPER REFORMANDA
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA FIDE
SOLUS CHRISTUS
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLI DEO GLORIA
ECCLESIA REFORMATA ET SEMPER REFORMANDA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)