“Hey God…It’s Me, David…Are You There?”

“Welcome to therapy, Mr. McDowell,”  you say.

“Thanks…it’s good to be here,” I mumble.

Is it sad that I think of my blog as a therapy session sometimes?  I always have mixed feeling when I blog.  I guess I’m just way too transparent, or too real…or I just don’t like to put up fronts.  I really despise fakeness.

I have mixed feelings this morning.  Kandice kissed me good-bye this morning at 7:15, heading off to her new job which she is very excited about.  And here I sit…unemployed…again.  Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy for Kandice.  She has my full support and I am convinced she will do awesome at this job.  I must admit though, my feelings are often like, “Hey God…when is it my turn?”  My spiritual red lights are going off telling me that I am being selfish.  When things like that happen, I try to just get on my knees and pray and say, “Ok God, I know that You know this, but here is how I’m feeling…and I have to give this to You or it is going to eat me up inside.”  I have cried to God, screamed at God, screamed to God, and yes, I have been angry with God (futile effort by the way).  Some people think that this is irreverent.  I just get really tired of hiding my true feelings behind pious prayers.  God knows how I am feeling.  He is God of the universe and knows everything…why should I pretend that He isn’t aware of my feelings?  He is my best friend, my all in all, everything I need.  And sometimes my feelings just get in the way, like this morning.

So here I am, alone again in the house during the day, looking for work, praying to God about my feelings and about me finding a new job.  In a way, it is liberating.  In other ways, it is constricting and dangerous.  In many ways, it is like that first big hill on a roller coaster…and I’m just hanging on for my life.

John Calvin’s “Of Christian Liberty” Section Four

Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God. Being constantly in terror so long as they are under the dominion of the law, they are never disposed promptly to obey God, unless they have previously obtained this liberty. Our meaning shall be explained more briefly and clearly by an example. The command of the law is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” (Deut. 6: 5.) To accomplish this, the soul must previously be divested of every other thought and feeling, the heart purified from all its desires, all its powers collected and united on this one object. Those who, in comparison of others, have made much progress in the way of the Lord, are still very far from this goal. For although they love God in their mind, and with a sincere affection of heart, yet both are still in a great measure occupied with the lusts of the flesh, by which they are retarded and prevented from proceeding with quickened pace towards God. They indeed make many efforts, but the flesh partly enfeebles their strength, and partly binds them to itself. What can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing of which they are less capable than to fulfill the law? They wish, aspire, endeavor; but do nothing with the requisite perfection. If they look to the law, they see that every work which they attempt or design is accursed. Nor can any one deceive himself by inferring that the work is not altogether bad, merely because it is imperfect, and, therefore, that any good which is in it is still accepted of God. For the law demanding perfect love condemns all imperfection, unless its rigor is mitigated. Let any man therefore consider his work which he wishes to be thought partly good, and he will find that it is a transgression of the law by the very circumstance of its being imperfect

Debating Infant Baptism with Martin Luther: Part I

Interviewer: Dr. Luther, thank you for being with us today. While the majority of Christian churches—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and your name’s sake, Lutheran—practice infant baptism, there are many churches (Baptists and Pentecostals, for example) that dismiss the practice as unscriptural. I know this is a subject you feel very strongly about. What is your main line of defense for saying infant baptism honors God?

Luther: I would begin by saying that the reality that infant baptism pleases Christ is evidenced by the fact that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost. We can point to men and women, baptized in infancy, who can now explain the Scriptures, and evidence by their life that they know Christ. Look at St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others. If God did not accept the baptism of infants, he would not give the Holy Ghost or any of his gifts to those who had been thus baptized. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the unscholarly and unlearned.

Interviewer: But surely you’d agree this doesn’t settle the issue. Detractors can point to multitudes of men and women, now entirely unreligious altogether who were baptized in infancy. They can also point to men and women who, believing their justification to be entirely sealed via their baptism at infancy, felt free to, from that point on, go on with their lives, unconcerned with maturing in godliness. In fact, some would say that telling a child that their sins were forgiven and they are now regenerate, thanks to their baptism which took place in their infancy, actually encourages children to pursue godliness no further. It’s like being told to pursue something they already have attained.

Luther: God in his wisdom allows many who start the race to stumble and fall before the race is over. Just because one can find a man or woman who has since renounced their baptism, this doesn’t mean that the baptism didn’t at the time accomplish what it was intended to accomplish—namely, the salvation of the infant’s soul. We maintain, however, that the fact that many who were baptized in infancy grow up to become mature in Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit, proves that God endorses the manner in which they were baptized. God can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit.

Interviewer: But again, detractors would say that God could well save children, who were baptized in infancy, not because of their paedo-baptism, but in spite of it. It’s obvious that godly and spiritual men and women through the centuries, who didn’t know better, submitted to the Pope as Christ’s Vicar on earth. You would say that the godly in the Church of Rome were saved in spite of Rome, not because of her. Couldn’t one use that same line of reasoning with infant baptism?

Luther: Someone who uses this line of reasoning is at a fundamental disagreement with us concerning the nature of baptism. We maintain that all humans, however old, the elderly as well as the infants, are in need of the grace that is available in Holy Baptism. It is wrong to withhold the sacrament of baptism from infants because they, like everyone else, need their sins forgiven.

Interviewer: But this begs the question—He that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved, the apostles tell us. Can infants, in your opinion, believe?

Luther: We are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. If an adult deceitfully receives baptism under false pretenses, this does not invalidate the baptism itself, in the same way that someone receiving the Lord’s Supper unworthily doesn’t alter the fact that it is truly the Lord’s Supper he or she is receiving.

Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other. That is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith is wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it.

Interviewer: But does a child have the faith to properly receive Baptism?

Luther: All humanity is enslaved to sin and unable, apart from the Holy Ghost, to take hold of Christ. A grown man, with impressive mental faculties is no more capable of receiving Christ on his own that a child fresh out of the womb. Whether infant or adult, the grace to receive the benefits of Baptism comes from the gracious hand of God.

We bring our children for Baptism in the conviction and hope that he or she believes, and we pray that God may grant the child faith. But we do not baptize them upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all humans, may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err.

Interviewer: But what command of God, what Scriptural warrant, is there for saying that an infant should be baptized, or for saying that an infant can comprehend and believe the gospel?

Luther: Christ’s command to go and baptize “all nations” excludes no one under heaven, and certainly infants are included in this. There are numerous examples of household baptisms in the book of Acts, and we say that surely some of these households had infants within them. Furthermore, the ancient tradition of the Church testifies to the validity and legitimacy of infant baptism. There is documented evidence that infants have been receiving baptism since the earliest days of the Church. One can find second century grave stone inscriptions, listing the day a baby was born, the day they “received grace” or “became a child of God”, followed by the day they died.

Interviewer: But you would agree that the Scriptural case to be made for infant baptism is based on implicit, not explicit, instructions to do so? Detractors say that we’ve no reason to assume that infants were included in any of the household baptisms. When the jailer in Acts 16 was baptized with his family, the text says he and his household all believed the gospel. Which brings us back to the original question—where does Scripture say that infants can believe?

Luther: Was not John the Baptist filld with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb? Conversion is all God’s work, and he can accomplish it regardless of how old someone is. We could ask for a proof text, showing that God cannot regenerate infants. In the absence of such a text, what right have any of us to limit God?

Interviewer: Baptists say that one cannot, while sticking to a strict “Sola Scriptura” principle, defend infant baptism since there are no explicit commands or examples of it in the New Testament. They would say that the baptism of infants was, itself, simply a carry over from the mideival corruption of the Roman Catholic Church–a superstitious human tradion, with no Scriptural warrant. Some detractors would go so far as to say it is a harmless tradition, one that is commendable, as it has such a long history in the Church–however, they would say that, while it can be defended as a benevolent tradition, it must never be held up as a Scriptural essential, binding a Christian’s conscience. Some churches that practice infant baptism–Methodists, for example, and some Anglicans–themselves basically hold infant baptism to be a human tradition. They still practice it, but don’t insist that Scripture demands it.

Luther: Such reasoning makes it sound as if the Baptism of infants were merely optional, rather than expected by God. This does damage to the importance of baptism.

Interviewer: But, in the absence of any explicit commands in Scripture about infant baptism, can one really say it’s sinful for parents to not baptize their children? If this was that important to our Father, wouldn’t it be spelled out more clearly in Scripture? Can an essential doctrine be based entirely on deductions, assumptions, and Church tradition?

Luther: If a couple fail to baptize their child, and that child should die, they can hope, but have no certain assurance that their child has been received into Heaven. However, if I baptize that child, and he or she should die, I can know, on the authority of God’s promises about Baptism, that the child is in Christ’s presence. Surely withholding from a child the gracious means by which they are received into Christ’s kingdom is sin.

===========================================================================

* Based on Luther’s Large Catechism

Author: Daniel Townsend

Daniel Townsend is an Examiner from Jackson. You can see Daniel’s articles on Daniel’s Home Page.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10570-Jackson-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m7d7-Debating-Infant-Baptism-with-Martin-Luther-Part-I

John Calvin’s “Of Christian Liberty” Section Three

On this almost the whole subject of the Epistle to the Galatians hinges; for it can be proved from express passages that those are absurd interpreters who teach that Paul there contends only for freedom from ceremonies. Of such passages are the following: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace,” (Gal. 3: 13; 5: 1- 4.) These words certainly refer to something of a higher order than freedom from ceremonies. I confess, indeed, that Paul there treats of ceremonies, because he was contending with false apostles, who were plotting, to bring back into the Christian Church those ancient shadows of the law which were abolished by the advent of Christ. But, in discussing this question, it was necessary to introduce higher matters, on which the whole controversy turns. First, because the brightness of the Gospel was obscured by those Jewish shadows, he shows that in Christ we have a full manifestation of all those things which were typified by Mosaic ceremonies. Secondly, as those impostors instilled into the people the most pernicious opinion, that this obedience was sufficient to merit the grace of God, he insists very strongly that believers shall not imagine that they can obtain justification before God by any works, far less by those paltry observances. At the same time, he shows that by the cross of Christ they are free from the condemnation of the law, to which otherwise all men are exposed, so that in Christ alone they can rest in full security. This argument is pertinent to the present subject, (Gal. 4: 5, 21, &c.) Lastly, he asserts the right of believers to liberty of conscience, a liberty which may not be restrained without necessity.

John Calvin’s “Of Christian Liberty” Section Two

Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has already been demonstrated, (supra, chap. 17, sec. 1,) leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good, although it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment-seat of God. The two things are very different, and should be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness, (Eph. 1: 4; 1 Thess. 4: 5.) The office of the law is to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. For when the conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

Declaration of Independence

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

//

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

<a href=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=7651&m=6&c=1″ mce_href=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=7651&m=6&c=1″ target=”_top”><img src=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=7651&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1″ mce_src=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=7651&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1″ width=300 height=250 border=1></a>

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Idiot Sightings

A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought it was funny.  Enjoy!

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

We had to have the garage door repaired. The Sears repairman told us that one of our problems was that we did not have a ‘large’enough motor on the opener. I thought for a minute, and said that we had the largest one Sears made at that time, a 1/2 horsepower. He shook his head and said, “Lady, you need a 1/4 horsepower.” I responded that 1/2 was larger than 1/4. He said, “NO, it’s not.. Four is larger than two…”

We haven’t used Sears repair since.

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

My daughter and I went through the McDonald’s take-out window and I gave the clerk a $5 bill. Our total was $4.25, so I also handed her a quarter. She said, “You gave me too much money.” I said, “Yes I know, but this way you can just give me a dollar bill back.” She sighed and went to get the manager who asked me to repeat my request. I did so, and he handed me back the quarter, and said “We’re sorry but we cannot do that kind of thing.” The clerk then proceeded to give me back $1 and 75 cents in change..

Do not confuse the clerks at McD’s.

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

I live in a semi rural area. We recently had a new neighbor call the local township administrative office to request the removal of the DEER CROSSING sign on our road. The reason: “Too many deer are being hit by cars out here! I don’t think this is a good place for them to be crossing anymore.”

From Kingman , KS .

 

IDIOT SIGHTING IN FOOD SERVICE:

 

My daughter went to a local Taco Bell and ordered a taco. She asked the person behind the counter for ‘minimal lettuce.’ He said he was sorry, but they only had iceberg lettuce.

From Kansas City

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

I was at the airport, checking in at the gate when an airport employee asked, “Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?” To which I replied, “If it was without my knowledge, how would I know?” He smiled knowingly and nodded, “That’s why we ask.”

Happened in Birmingham , Ala.

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it’s safe to cross the street. I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine. She asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded, “What on earth are blind people doing driving?!”

She was a probation officer in Wichita , KS

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

We were having a good-bye luncheon for an old and dear coworker, as she was leaving the company due to ‘downsizing.’ Our manager commented cheerfully, “This is fun. We should do this more often.” Not another word was spoken. We all just looked at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights stare. This was a lunch at Texas Instruments.

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her life, couldn’t understand why her system would not turn on. A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriff’s office, no less.

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

When my husband and I arrived at an automobile dealership to pick up our car, we were told the keys had been locked in it. We went to the service department and found a mechanic working feverishly to unlock the driver side door. As I watched from the passenger side, I instinctively tried the door handle and discovered that it was unlocked. “Hey,” I announced to the technician, “It’s open!” His reply, “I know. I already got that side. This was at the Ford dealership in Canton , MS .

 

IDIOT SIGHTING:

 

When I left Hawaii and was transferred to Florida , I still had the Hawaiian plates on my car, as my car was shipped from Hawaii . I was parking somewhere (I can’t remember) and a guy asked me “Wow, you drove from Hawaii to here?” I looked at him and quickly said “Yep. I took the Hawaii/San Francisco Bridge”. He nodded his head and said “Cool!”

What’s On David’s Zune? June 23,2009

This was a diverse, but very good list that got me through part of the morning.  Check it out:

Video Killed The Radio Star—Buggles

You’re My Better Half—Keith Urban

Word of God Speak—MercyMe

83—John Mayer

Sleepyhead Sun—Chris Rice

Basic Instructions—Burlap To Cashmere

King Without A Crown—Matisyahu

Let There Be Rock—AC/DC

Breakfast At Tiffany’s—Deep Blue Something

Breaking The Habit—Linkin Park

The Ride—David Allan Coe

What If—Creed

It’s Over—The Fire Apes

Down To The River To Pray—Allison Krauss

Still Called The Blues—Buddy Guy

No, I’m Not

I stopped by the library this weekend to pick up a few movies and I also picked up a few CD’s.  One that I picked up is one that I had in high school and has always been a favorite of mine is Yes, I Am by Melissa Etheridge.

The interesting thing about any art form is that it can hit you different at different times in your life.  This particular album really struck a chord with me (no pun intended) because of it’s passionate (some might say erotic) lyrics and it’s gruff blues sound.  These are strengths of Etheridge as she seems to bleed all over her music, especially in this album.  Strictly, from an artistic standpoint, this is an incredible album.

Most everyone knows about Melissa Etheridge and the mystique that surrounds this album.  Supposedly, Yes, I Am is the answer to everyone’s speculation that she was a lesbian.  And sure enough, right around the time of this album, she did confirm that she is indeed, a lesbian.  Seen in this light, these passionate lyrics take on a different understanding as you really feel her personal struggle with this issue.  The opening song, “I’m The Only One” can be seen as her struggle with her jealousy toward another woman.  Her ode to being out of control, “If I Wanted To” seems to show a struggle with her feelings for another person and how she would change them, if she only wanted to.  This song assumes that one’s sexuality is out of their control.  “Come To My Window” suggests, like many songs, that she cannot live without her love.  “Silent Legacy” none too subtely suggests that silence is not the best way to deal with this issue of sexuality.  “I Will Never Be The Same” suggests that she will never be the same after this…whatever this is.  “All American Girl,” one of the better tracks on this album because it seems like it’s the only one not pushing an agenda, still contains the lyrics, “How could she keep the baby; she could barely keep her head.” 

I could review every one of these songs and find some sort of agenda with them.  When I first heard this album in 1993 as a senior in high school, none of this jumped out at me then as much as it does now.  And it’s not just the blatant sexual references or the gay theme to this album.  The humanist worldview of Etheridge shines forth in this as she promotes finding your happiness in your partner or something other than God.  As a believer, I understand how dangerous this thinking is and it is made even more dangerous by its subtlety. 

Here my advice: Appreciate this ground-breaking album for its catchy blues rock sound and passionate and well-written lyrics, but be aware of its agenda and recognize when works of art start preaching to you and what exactly they are preaching.

John Calvin’s “Of Christian Liberty” Section One

Section One: Connection of this chapter with the previous one on Justification. A true knowledge of Christian liberty useful and necessary. 1. It purifies the conscience. 2. It checks licentiousness. 3. It maintains the merits of Christ, the truth of the Gospel, and the peace of the soul.

We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must demur and fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and trepidation. In particular, it forms a proper appendix to Justification, and is of no little service in understanding its force. Nay, those who seriously fear God will hence perceive the incomparable advantages of a doctrine which wicked scoffers are constantly assailing with their jibes; the intoxication of mind under which they labour leaving their petulance without restraint. This, therefore, seems the proper place for considering the subject. Moreover, though it has already been occasionally adverted to, there was an advantage in deferring the fuller consideration of it till now, for the moment any mention is made of Christian liberty lust begins to boil, or insane commotions arise, if a speedy restraint is not laid on those licentious spirits by whom the best things are perverted into the worst. For they either, under pretext of this liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must rather be, while not suppressing this very necessary part of doctrine, to obviate the absurd objections to which it usually gives rise.