In July of 2016 I had the privilege of recording a new version of some old friends. A band called “Before The Fall” (which name of course is just packed full of all kinds of philosophical and theological nuance…but I digress…) came down all the way from South Bend to record a 4-song EP.

“Before The Fall” (or BTF from now on) is comprised of Casey Packer on vocals, Joe Northern on guitar, Osvaldo Limon on bass, and Justin Sellers on drums.

Now, I’ve worked with 3 out of these 4 guys for years now, in various different bands, and it’s always so gratifying to have your clients return to the scene of the crime, er, I mean, give you their repeat business. And to have them tell their friends is priceless. In fact, most of the Michiana area folks I record have heard about TBush via word-of-mouth.

And even though this most recent phase of technological innovation is allowing more and more people to record themselves (anyone remember the great ADAT/Mackie revolution of the mid-90′s?)

It usually ends up being more economical in the long-run to let an experienced producer/engineer work alongside a group of musicians, and end up sounding better than you originally hoped for. Of course this is no mere attempt at self-aggrandizement on my part—I had the exact same experience working with such talented guys as the Elefante brothers and JR McNeely.

Both the “Lovewar” and “The Channelsurfers” projects were much improved by combining that which the band brought to the table with the oversight of the producers and engineers. Not only the recorded tones, either: song arrangements, layered overdub suggestions, and that certain extra 10% that we all strive to get out of whoever we’re working with—it all adds up in the end.

Standard plug-ins I use all the time

I love power trios—from The James Gang to ZZ Top to Rush to King’s X (Lovewar? Anyone? Lovewar?), I’ve always liked a stripped-down meat-and-potatoes approach to rock. Nate Mosley, Stu Way, and Paul Osborn together form this power trio called “The Jondo Trio,” and they rolled in to record a full-length CD titled “Scraps From The Borderland” in April of 2016.

Jondo Trio Live

Originally Nate had wanted to record 2 or 3 songs, and then perhaps continue (sort of a studio audition), but I assured him unequivocally that he would have so much fun recording here, and that he would be so pleased with the results that he would end up recording the whole thing here anyway, so he may as well just plan on it. An offer you can’t refuse…?

Nate Mosley and "Old Blue"

Paul has a wonderful DW kit, and it sounded beautiful, especially since he’s a really consistent hitter. Balanced playing and a deep groove pocket from the drummer helps so much in achieving drum tones—I can’t emphasize it enough. I ended up using a lot of the room sound in the final mix (miced with an MXL R80 ribbon into a Joe Meek preamp), and those drum tones were just peachy. And no—I repeat NO—drum triggers were used on this recording. They’re fine on some material, and can be very helpful (see here), but this recording is 100% true, organic drum goodness.

Paul Osborn

Here’s a sample of the drums from the breakdown in “Ain’t No Grave,” and you can just hear Nate’s live vocals peeking through.

Stu Way on bass

Stu Way (no relation to Pete—get it?) held down a big, fat low end with his 5-string Schecter bass taken direct through my SansAmp Bass Driver, and for most of the bass tracks I ended up using both a UAD LA-2A and a UAD Cambridge EQ plugin, with an occasional Voxengo Boogex or a Tessla saturation in the chain just for variety and some additional “juice.”

Nate and his Fender Music Master

I hadn’t heard much of the material, and I didn’t know how much doubling of the guitars we would be needing to do, but early in the tracking I decided to do something a little differently with his guitar, and that was to take a direct signal from his pickups as well as micing up his Fender Deluxe rig. Here’s the isolated tone: Ain’t No Grave Guitar

UAD Nigel, SIR impulse Reverb, and Boogex

Nate’s trusty old blue Les Paul carried most of the rhythm weight, and a 70′s Fender Music Master along with a really cool 60′s Gretsch Corvette (loaded with a single DeArmond pickup) filled out the roster. The Fender gave us a particularly cool ZZ Top-style solo blues tone, heard especially on “Jesus Walk.”

I rarely get such immediate and positive (visceral, even!) responses from other musicians as I do when I play this material for other studio clients and friends. Maybe it’s the genre, but the combination of songs, style, production, musicianship, and Nate’s manly, testosterone-laden vocals all add up to cook a rich gumbo of blues-rock that just satisfies.

Nate's "Lap" gutar

All together now! Gang vocals...

Order this CD right now—you won’t regret it.

A little X/Y technique for a big acoustic sound

BTW—since recording this project they added Chris Dafforn on keys, and are no longer in the power trio hall of fame…but they sound even better! Here’s a sample of the opening song, which features Chris on trumpet (and myself on trombone). I almost forgot about the horns!

Whatzup Review

Like ‘em on Facebook

We're live!

The producer and the produced.

Sing it, brother

This was an interesting project for a couple of reasons—first, they recorded 7 songs in March of 2015 before they had decided upon a lead singer for the band. Then they came back in April of 2016 and recorded 3 new songs—but with an entirely different drummer!

Anytime you have different sessions and different musicians, but are aiming towards one cohesive end product (a full-length CD) there will always be a few sonic hurdles to leap over.

Gear lust...

Dave Roberts has been recording here for a long while, and is simply one of the hardest working bassists I know. Along with Jon Tudor on guitar, Dan Zimmerman on vocals, and _______ (who’s on drums again?), he’s got quite a metal troupe put together.

Dave Roberts as...Dave Roberts

Recording notes: I used 2 different Valhalla VintageVerbs (one very small room, and one with a smooth plate setting of about 3 ms. Decay), the usual varied Voxengo Voxformer channel strips (hey look at me: I’m alliterating with V’s!), and this chain on the heavy guitar buss:

The Waves C4 is only lightly compressing around 110-180hz

Between Jon’s ENGL amp and his EVH head, the guitar tones we got were thick and chewy, even with the band’s fairly radical ‘drop’ tunings.

Direct from Germany

But in the end, with metal it’s all about the riffs—and they’re killer.

Dan listening...

My personal favorite? I’m torn—always a sucker for a 130 bpm pounder like “Light It Up,” but the pushy groove of “Control” is cool as well…

I'm hurdling sonic obstacles...

So I’m kickstarting the fundraising by donating all of the proceeds from this full-length rock version of “A Mighty Fortress” (that’s the link, FYI) toward her upcoming adventure.

In April 2015 things were a bit slow in the studio, and I was really looking for something fun to do musically. As a listener of the “The Dividing Line” podcast, I always looked forward to the “Radio Free Geneva” segment, where James White examines anti-reformed polemics and teachings. The standard theme was fine, but I felt that it needed a more, er, muscular musical treatment. I put my old-school, classic rock mind to the task, and out came “A Mighty RFG.” It was first aired on July 30, where Rich Pierce sprung it on an unsuspecting James White—and eyebrows were raised!

Hard at work...

It proved to be a popular theme, and I was thrilled to be able to contribute to one of my favorite ministries in this way. Then I started getting requests to do a full-length version, without all the breaks and inane comments from synergists. That’s what I should have done in the first place, so I had to do some backwards engineering, adding all four verses, four-part harmonies, replayed drums, and lead guitar fills.

Thanks to our friend Jon Swerens at Rockhill Records for hosting and selling this single without taking the traditional label “cut”! All proceeds, except for credit card processing fees, will go to Rachel’s ministry.

(Here’s the original version, with all the breaks and comments)

“A Mighty Fortress” sample.

Now, I knew that they were the “worship band” for a church in Plymouth (Plymouth Wesleyan Church), and to be honest, that fact didn’t engender much confidence in me. Many times, churches don’t have the luxury of taking only top-notch musicians, and are happy when people volunteer their time and energies in order to be a part of the music.

Josh Casper (g), Joel Hartung (g, vocs), Heather Delp (vocs), Marc Greenawalt (drums), Christen Ellis (vocs), Dave Portteus (keys), and Jerry Cox on bass.

Marc Greenawalt lays down the groove...

So when they showed up on a Friday night, we got the drums set up and mic’d as usual, both guitars mic’d up in my “isolation barn” (this is Indiana, after all), and the bass went direct into the SansAmp D.I. We put the keys and both female vocalists in the control room with me, and we treated their vocals as “scratch” tracks. So, this was going to be a good old-fashioned, hold on to your hats, everybody-play-their-instrument-at-the-same-time session. Cool!

Well, as soon as we got going I realized that this was not just a few folks who got together only on Sundays, but was a real honest to goodness rock band. They knew the arrangements well, usually getting the right take on the 2^nd time around, and everyone seemed to be having fun, too—I love a good friendly session!

Joel is...intense.

We were able to get all of the basic tracks for 12 songs finished by the next Saturday evening, and began thinking about overdubs and vocals. Josh’s most excellent Boogie amp had some issues, so we used some of my amps for extra parts and solos.

Josh and his SG

The real pleasant surprise was when Heather and Christen came in to sing their parts. Instead of recording each vocalist separately, I placed two LCD mics facing each other so that the two singers could interact vocally with each other live in the studio. What a great idea (not just mine, either!), and they simply nailed their parts. It wasn’t like some young singers, who flit about the scale searching for the elusive harmony of the moment, but they knew exactly who was supposed to sing what part and when, and they just did a great job together.

Christen and Heather singing their live scratch tracks

Jasper Stone Boundless.

"Took me a LOOOOONG time to mix this record..."

Here are a couple of mix notes: I subgrouped the entire drum kit and was able to get a real tight sound by utilizing 4 freeware plugs in addition to a Waves Renaissance EQ and an old Timeworks Mastering Limiter. The chain went (in order):

Ferric TDS – Tape dynamics simulator>Waves Ren EQ>Tessla SE – Transformer saturation simulator> Voxengo MSED Mid-Side controller>TDR Feedback Compressor>Timeworks Mastering Limiter.

To get that big, smooth bass tone I used a Logic Overdrive into 2 UAD plugins—an LA-2 and a Cambridge EQ.

Jerry Cox, our big smooth bass player

For Josh and Joel’s guitar tones, I used their own amp sounds coming from the mics, and then did a little widening trick by bussing each guitar out to a sample delay of about 20-30 (each guitar gets a different delay) and then that delayed single fed a Voxengo Boogex cabinet emulator. By panning these effected tones opposite of the source tone and being pretty conservative with the level, it’s a cool way to “embiggen” the rhythm guitar sound.

(“It’s a perfectly cromulent word.”)

Vocals were processed through Voxengo Voxformers, a Valhalla Vintage Verb, and assorted little delays.

Ultimately, it’s all down to levels, panning, EQ, “space,” and compression—the ingredients that must be mixed right in order for the jambalaya to come out just right... and yes, I mastered it myself.

One other thing I noticed: the lyrics. They are very well thought-out, not at all clichéd , and full of interesting imagery that really helps communicate their worldview and message.

“Burn The Ships now, no looking back. Pressing on, the past is in the past…”

That is great metaphor for the Christian life and continuing in the faith, alluding to the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés and his decision to “burn the ships,” which left his men with only 2 choices — die, or ensure victory.

“Like a Watchman with an eye on the horizon, waiting for sunrise…”, encouraging us to be ever-vigilant, for the the night will eventually be ended, and day approaches.

I missed the CD release show—always something coming up—but they’ll be out and about for sure. Here’s to great bands who not only play well together, but love each other deeply; it really comes out in the music.

Be sure and “like” them on Facebook.

One more sample:
Burnin’ Bright

Buy the CD here.

I then discovered that Mike was also a drummer in a band called “Outta Hand” (maybe an allusion to the eventual behavior of their fans?), with inactive members, and that he had a whole slew of unrecorded material ready to be explored. I convinced him that the best way for him to realize his musical vision was to let me play guitars, bass, and keys, with himself on drums, and just start knocking the songs out one at a time.

What a total and utter blast this project was—everything from funk to hilarious county-style parody to channeling my inner 80′s rock star to Midwestern-tinged ballads aching for young love, this CD was pure joy to work on.

Stacy Christon, Kent Christon’s wife, hand recommended TBush Recording to Mike, so thanks to you, Stacy!

To purchase it, go to to CD Baby, Amazon, or listen on Spotify (“Outta Hand Justified”).

Here are some samples for your listening pleasure:

My Girl’s Wedding

Drivin’ To You

Justified

The Dash

Just Might Get It

With my wife of 32 years, Heidi

In my first post, I critiqued staff writer Ray Balogh’s introduction to the “Abortion” installment of the series Tackling the Tough Questions back in October of 2015 for the Milford Mail-Journal Church Page. In this post I will try to interact with the condensed version of A Social Statement On Abortion from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. If there are any “well, duh!” sections that I do not specifically address, please chalk it up to my own attempt at brevity.

A Social Statement On Abortion

Condensed from elca.org

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

“We are united with all humans and creation because God created us and everything else. We are united in Christ through faith with all Christians; therefore we have the freedom and obligation to seriously deliberate moral matters, including induced abortion, despite our deep differences.”

First of all, I have no earthly idea what is meant by the assertion that “We are united with…creation,” other than in the most cursory and surface-level sense. Yes, God created us and everything else that exists, but human beings were created as the vice-regents of God—in His image—and for the purpose of exercising godly dominion over the rest of His creation (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 45:11-12; Genesis 1:28). As a brief aside, this godly dominion is one of the reasons why God made cows out of New York Strip.

Yes—as believers we must “deliberate moral matters,” with the Bible as our sole infallible source of authority, but this goes back to the previous post, wherein I took exception to the idea that anyone who claims Christ is in fact a Christian. If anyone claims to be a Christian, and yet ascribes a competing authority to anything or anyone other than Christ and His Word, then they are what the Bible calls an “idolater.”

“Though the discussion should recognize the value of the unborn life and the woman, the developing life does not have an absolute right to be born and the woman does not have an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy.”

Whoa, wait, back up the truck. Did you read what I think I just read? That was dogmatic and pure prescriptivism, with no foundational rationale behind it. With all due respect, this is a blatant attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. They just said that they can:

a) recognize the “value of the unborn,” and at the same time

b) kill it as a matter of “rights.”

Slice it any way you want, but that’s irrational and self-refuting—it’s either ‘a’ or ‘b’, but it cannot be both. That’s a disturbing sentence on a number of levels, not the least of which in its cavalier, “wave the hand” authoritative pronouncement of what is absolute or not.

“We affirm the Christian presumption to preserve life. Abortion should be a last resort. We deplore the circumstances leading a woman to consider abortion: personal anguish, poverty, oppressive social realities, sexism and racism.”

Okay, fine—deplore all day long, but are any of those reasons legitimate justification for the murder of one’s own offspring? And is “legal baby-killing” (abortion sans euphemism) ever to be used as a “last resort” when there is actually one other “last resort” left to consider: carrying the child to term? In fact, state-licensed, legalized abortion-on-demand (as it being defended here) is never really the last resort.

“We commit to support such women financially, nutritionally, medically, educationally, socially, psychologically and spiritually through congregational policies and individual practices.”

Me too—and we have done so gladly, and at great expense.

“Marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse and our congregations and schools should teach sex education in a Christian faith context”

Wait, what? Public schools teaching the Christian faith as a basis for ethics? I love it! Yes! Strange how a Lutheran denomination can make such a theonomic-sounding statement, but there it is. Maybe “our” means only Lutheran schools, but in the context of their overall statement, it sure sounds like they’re desirous of this for the whole country.

“…emphasizing responsibility, mutuality and abstinence.”

Responsibility and mutuality in marriage is a good thing—and abstinence outside marriage is also a good thing. Both are in obedience to God’s Law. So far so good.

“Males should be taught to assume more responsibility for raising children.”

Oh wow—my stars and garters—call the local TV news: men should be men: they should do the right thing, marry the girl, and they should provide for and  lead their families. Again, I absolutely agree. “Father hunger” is a plague. So can we finally get rid of all of those policies and social programs that actually perpetuate male irresponsibility, like no fault divorce, welfare, food stamps, and WIC?

“We challenge the life-degrading attitudes permeating the culture and seek to reduce the need for abortion as the answer to unintended pregnancies.”

Challenge away all you want, but the legalization of abortion is one of the key factors in our culture’s embracing all of these horrible life-degrading attitudes in the first place! Psalm 12:8: “The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.” When unborn babies are euphemized and devalued, we shouldn’t be surprised when our culture is permeated with “life-degrading attitudes.”

“Pastors and church members should be trained to competently and respectfully counsel the woman, man and other decision makers, with help from other professional expertise.”

Yes, by all means—seek wisdom and knowledge, and be competent to advise. But if the counsel that is offered is any version of “kill your unborn baby,” then this is all moot and is simply more pathetic double-speak.

“Counselors should respect how the pregnancy involves the woman’s body, mind and spirit and should seek to empower her to act responsibly after prayer.”

No one is ignoring the very real changes that take place during and even after gestation. I should know (even though I’m a man), since I am married and my wife has had three of these little blessings. But no amount of respect for a woman’s physiological state or prayer is going to change the fact that if she kills her unborn baby, she is culpable for murder, and all of her counselors are culpable and complicit as well.

“The pastoral response must be gracious, affirming and ongoing, regardless of the woman’s decision. We will encourage women in most circumstances to continue the pregnancy, realistically assessing the immediate and long-term costs and resources in raising the child.”

Whoa, wait, back up the truck again: Are they saying that even if the woman decides to kill her baby, that she should be affirmed in this? Seriously, if there were ever a time for Church discipline to be exercised, this would be it. And—let me get this clear—are they saying that a negative assessment regarding the costs of raising a child would be determinative of whether or not they would counsel her to abort? And would these hardships then fail to fall under the category of “most circumstances?” The mind boggles…

“We encourage the increasingly more open process of adoption as a positive alternative to abortion.”

Yes—I agree 100%. So why aren’t you also always encouraging the woman to head in this direction as the first, middle, and last resort if she’s determined not to continue as a mother? Get this clear: Even with adoption looming in the background as a viable option, this document is positively affirming the murder of unborn babies in certain economically challenged situations. This is unconscionable.

“Sound reasons for ending a pregnancy include:”

Okay—here we go—the real meat of the issue:

“•When the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life”

This is usually when the pregnancy is called an ectopic pregnancy (where the fetus develops outside the uterus), where there is no chance that the baby can survive, and where there is a real threat to the mother’s life. This accounts for less than 1% of all abortions performed in the US. In fact, even under so-called restrictive abortion laws, the mother’s right to life was never disregarded. Contrary to what some pro-choice advocates have said, there is no danger whatsoever that women whose lives are in jeopardy will be unable to get proper medical treatment, even if such treatment tragically results in the death of an unborn child. (And see the links provided by my friend Daniel Meyer below)

“• When pregnancy results from rape, incest or under domineering and dehumanizing circumstances that remove the woman’s choice regarding intercourse”

I don’t know if my truck can be backed-up any more—I just may be out of room.

So, let me get this straight: the baby gets it in the back of the head because of a man’s evil and wicked act? A lowlife scum of the earth commits a vile and wicked act, and the ensuing result is that it’s the baby who gets whacked? This is precisely where the wheels fall off of their truck. All the talk about recognizing “the value of the unborn life,” or of affirming “the Christian presumption to preserve life” just got thrown under the bus, and all due to the status of only one of the parents. Besides—wouldn’t this be just a dandy example of encouraging the “process of adoption as a positive alternative to abortion?”

“• Extreme fetal abnormality resulting in the infant’s severe suffering and very early death.”

Again, this is NOT where the discussion is, and extreme fetal abnormality is the impetus for less than 1% of all abortions. To the contrary: Many conditions which were inoperable decades ago are no longer so, and besides that, not all defects require surgery anyway. To paraphrase Luther, “Tests and screenings do err,” and we’re still left in the position of opting for murder rather than the ethically-sound position of “let’s wait and see.” If I can produce just one person who had been diagnosed to have an “extreme fetal abnormality” in the womb, and was carried to term and is alive today, then that argument is moot, too.

“The further along the pregnancy, the more serious the issues. After the fetus is viable, we oppose ending the pregnancy without first making every reasonable and necessary effort to support the life.”

“After the fetus is viable…” And what constitutes viability? In my last article I mentioned how completely arbitrary the standard of viability is, but let’s let someone other than myself expand on it:

“Neonatal medicine,” points out Dr. Stuart Kolner, “has decreased the risks associated with premature birth. The World Health Organization adopted the standard of twenty-two weeks as being the dividing line between spontaneous abortion and birth, and newborns as young as twenty-weeks gestational age have survived. Since abortions are routinely performed as late as twenty-four weeks, one can no longer justify such procedures on grounds of fetal non-viability.”¹

Viable or not, human life is the same (emphasis mine- Tim). What has changed are the technical means for protecting and improving human gestation. Viability is measured by the sophistication of the life-support systems around the baby, not by the humanness or aliveness of the baby itself.

By the criterion of viability, the senile old person rendered incompetent by a stroke, the completely psychotic individual, or even the quadriplegic war veteran, are not “viable,” since they are not capable of an independent existence.”

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/abortion/abortion-and-the-argument-of-viability.html

IOW, the very concept of “viability” is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not abortion can be countenanced or whether it should be legal.

“We should advocate for and support just laws and work to change unjust laws.”

Yes—amen. I heartily agree, and would defend that statement myself. After all, I do lean theonomic, and would just add that man’s laws are infinitely more tyrannical, oppressive, and downright complicated than God’s Law. But I have to ask: By what standard do you, the ELCA, define what is just and what is unjust? Here’s an idea: Let’s start by overturning the most unjust law that exists today, that being the tax-funded and legal practice of unborn baby-killing!

“To prevent unintended pregnancies, we support appropriate sex education, community pregnancy prevention programs and parenting preparation classes and recognizes the need for contraceptives, voluntary sterilization and development of new forms of contraception.”

What constitutes “appropriate sex education?” Plumbing lessons? Or, how about this, and I quote you: “Marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse and our congregations and schools should teach sex education in a Christian faith context.” Of course that would mean that we would also teach how marriage is to be fruitful, producing godly offspring, and how high a calling motherhood is, right? I don’t see how this “need for contraceptives” and “voluntary sterilization” plays into what the Bible teaches about marriage and the family at all, and it sure sounds a lot more like paganized northern Europe than a fruitful land that is being blessed by God.

“The church also supports life after birth, by supporting affordable health care, child care, housing, income support, maternity and paternity leave, workplace flexibility and other services.”

You guys had it right the first time, without all the paperwork, and you already said it: “Males should be taught to assume more responsibility for raising children.” Come on—that’s the key issue: Fatherlessness.

All of those “programs” can be done voluntarily by the local Church, and with real accountability involved. But look at the utter boondoggle that has taken place as a result of the government taking those responsibilities upon itself. We are literally subsidizing sin and sloth. But I digress…

 

 

“Government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion, by enacting and justly enforcing laws preserving the unborn life while not unduly burdening the woman’s life.”

No, it does not. The Scriptures reveal what the legitimate role model of governments should be.

Governments are to a) Punish the wicked. Romans 13:4b: “He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Governments are to b) Commend the good. 1 Peter 2:14: “…governors…sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”

Governments are to c) Administer justice. Jeremiah 21:12: “O house of David, this is what the LORD says:  “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed…””

The only legitimate biblical role that the government has regarding abortion is to treat it just as it treats all other murder, which is to punish the unlawful taking of life, not to regulate it!

“Where pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, results from rape or incest or the fetus has lethal abnormalities, abortion before viability should not be prohibited by law or lack of funding for the poor.”

It’s not bad enough that they’re in favor of murdering the helpless unborn baby, but now they want tax dollars to pay for your wickedness and crime. Even worse, where Churches have traditionally been the institution responsible for taking care of the poor, you would now see the all-powerful state functioning in that role, and without God’s Law as its guide. And again, the concept of “abortion before viability” is an evasion of the grim reality: All abortion stops a beating, human heart.

“Abortions may be prohibited after viability, except where the mother’s life is endangered or the newborn will die soon from abnormalities.”

As soon as one “professional” deems viability standards differently than another, then that unborn baby crosses over into enemy territory with no defense. And here are just two articles and a video that utterly debunk that last line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycl0-zTjLE4

http://www.today.com/style/product-rape-miss-usa-hopeful-now-educates-sexual-assault-2D79756426

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/04/children-conceived-through-rape-open-new-front-in-abortion-culture-wars/

It’s pretty clear at this point that the ELCA, as a denomination, has rejected God’s Law and have constructed a god of their own making, a god who is affirming of almost any lifestyle, and who supports us even when we make the heart-wrenching decision to destroy our unborn babies. For some strange reason, this god sure looks a lot like most postmodern progressives. Weird, huh? But Jesus spoke of you when He said in Matthew 7:26-27:

“And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

There it is—it is for the one who “… hears these words of mine and does not do them” that God’s judgment is reserved. Until the Word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the ELCA, they will continue to exist as a repository for liberal theologians and all manner of idolatries. It is high time, in this land we love and call home, to repent of this unbelief, to embrace the totality of Christ’s Lordship over all of life, and to reject any teaching that rejects God’s wisdom.

God gave His Old Covenant people a choice, setting before them life or death, blessings or curses (Deuteronomy 30:15-20), and in verse 19, Moses exhorted the people: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live…”

I pray that we as a nation will repent of the vile practice of legalized baby-murder, and that the ELCA will, as a denomination, repent of leading professing believers astray as well.

On Friday, August 21, 2015, the following email popped up in my inbox:

Greetings!

I am working on the next installment of the “Tackling the Tough Questions” series for the Mail-Journal Church Page. It appears that these articles will not follow a particular schedule, primarily due to limited space in the newspaper. Because they are timeless themes, the articles can be placed when the production department has room. Therefore, there is no deadline for the following request.

The next TTTQ topic is: Abortion. Would any of you like to volunteer to contribute to the abortion article?

Ray Balogh

Within a couple of hours I responded with this:

I’d like to throw my hat into the ring for that one.

Approximately how many words?

Blessings-

Tim Bushong

What then ensued was an interesting series of events, eventually leading up to the publishing of not one, but two different perspectives on the same page. At the bottom of this post is the article in its entirety, with my contribution outlined in red.

In this installment, I will interact with the introduction to the two different perspectives, and in the next installment I will try to interact with the condensed version of A Social Statement On Abortion from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

At the outset, from a purely logical and reasonable perspective, we can’t both be right. One of us is wrong.

As soon as I was made aware of the Mail-Journal’s plan to print both sides of this issue on the same page, my desire was to have some kind of meaningful interaction with the other side, and provide an objective and ethical basis for the assertions that were being made by both parties (as you can read in the email timeline here).

Here is the introduction, with my comments inserted and following:

“Tackling the Tough Questions: Abortion

By RAY BALOGH Staff Writer

Few issues are as fraught with divisive debate by equally visceral opponents, even among spiritual siblings in the faith, than abortion. The spectrum of advocacy ranges from outlawing all abortions (usually with the exception of saving the mother’s life) to a hand’s-off attitude in allowing the woman and doctor to make the choice (usually, with an expiration date, such as viability).”

(Quick note: That expiration date is based on a completely arbitrary standard of what constitutes viability. Heck, I’m not even viable if I don’t get food, or at least my morning coffee, and I’m almost 55 years old. Plus, I had already used the word “fraught,” so I call dibs on that. He could have used some other word or phrase, like “filled,” “replete,” or “abounding in.” Just sayin’…)

“The conversation is no different in Kosciusko County, and The Mail-Journal here presents two different perspectives on the issue maintained by different denominations.”

Actually, no—that’s not quite accurate. Originally the idea was to have two different perspectives provided by two different people. As it is, the perspectives were provided by one person (myself) and one entire denomination (The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or ELCA). There was no name attached to the article from the other side, but there was a website address provided, whereas my web address was not (even though it was provided in the article that I had originally sent).

To be sure, my denomination (The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches) is staunchly, even rabidly, anti-abortion (which point every pastor in the CREC would gladly concede), but the fact is that my denomination is never mentioned in the article. Trinity Evangelical Church is a local expression of the universal Church, but we are not a denomination, hence the title of this post. But, it is this next section where I really have to take exception:

“Wherever one may come down on the issue, it should be remembered God is the father of us all and we all thrive under his gracious and benevolent hand. We will all dine at the same divine dinner table and would do well to use this human experiment to prepare ourselves for an eternity of dwelling with him and with each other.”

Now, I have to give Mr. Balogh the benefit of the doubt here—I’m not sure if the “us all” and “we all” is referring to “all Christians,” or to “all people,” and of course that would make a huge difference. The context is a “Church page” in a local newspaper after all, so most likely it is less-than-universalistic in its scope. The belief called “universalism” is one in which everyone, regardless of their faith in whatever or whoever, or nothing at all, eventually gains heaven.

But even if the “us all” and “we all” is directed towards all of those who in some way or another claim Christ as Savior, or regard Christianity as their belief system, then there is still the nagging question of these two fundamentally contradictory positions regarding human life and the practice of abortion.

Jesus said that on the Day that we will all give an account of our lives before His seat of judgment, there will be those to whom Christ will say “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”, even amid their protestations of “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?”

In other words, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21-23)

So if the point here is to reassure us that no matter what side of this debate you find yourself—that it’s just a matter of individual conscience or denominational proclivities—then I couldn’t disagree more, and frankly the placement of the two opposing articles under this heading made it seem as if we both agreed with this faulty premise. What the ELCA believes about the universality of God’s fatherhood is anybody’s guess, but I am one of those for whom the term “evangelical” has definitional boundaries and edges. There is an objective “Dividing Line,” as it were. For an evangelical, who gets their namesake from the Greek word translated as gospel, God is the Father only of those who obey this selfsame gospel.

In Romans 2:6-8 we read that God “will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (italics mine).

I am not here discussing the doctrine of justification by faith alone, or the grounds (foundation) of how a person is made right with God, nor the truth of the believers’ ongoing struggle against sin and growth into conformity with Christ. But I am concerned that the Rodney King, “can’t we all just get along?” laxity towards obedience to God’s Law as is taught in many Churches has produced an almost late19th-century style of universalism that, while not explicitly taught, is implicitly held to be true (with obvious exceptions given to really bad guys like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Bernie Madoff).

According to the Bible, talk is cheap. Anyone can say that they’re a Christian, and then turn right around and act just like a pagan. We usually call these people “hypocrites.”

Remember in John 8, where Jesus is carrying on dialog with the Pharisees? Vs. 30: “As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.”

So far, so good, right? That’s what we would say constitutes a Christian—belief in Christ. It’s fundamental, and without it there’s no Christianity.

But we continue in vs. 31 and 32: “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.””

It is at this point that they really began to get agitated with Jesus. Think about it: They had believed (a past tense, point-in-time action), and yet they got upset when Jesus said that only those who continue in His Word were the ones who were free from their bondage to sin. And just so we’re clear about where we’re going, this “continuing in His Word” isn’t the cause of their being true disciples, but it is definitely indicative of their being true disciples. A heartfelt and demonstrative willingness to obey Jesus is an indicator of true faith (James 2:17; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 3:6).

So what does all of this have to do with the topic of abortion? Everything.

Since abortion is itself the killing of a human being (this is an irrefutable fact of biology), and since God’s Law forbids this kind of killing (“Thou shalt not murder”), then it follows that anyone who supports the continuation (and even state regulation) of abortion cannot in any meaningful sense be considered a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can’t in good conscience call anyone who would promote abortion or lobby for its legitimacy one of my “spiritual siblings in the faith”, especially given the obvious connection between legalized baby-killing and what the Bible calls “works of lawlessness.”

It is simply impossible to reconcile support for abortion and faith in Jesus Christ—it can’t be done without wrangling words and pouring different meanings into them. It’s either one or the other—there is no via media, no middle way, that can be co-opted and used to justify continued support for murder. Jesus said that one is either for Him, or against Him. There’s no category of “undecided.” This is not at all complicated, either, if one allows the text of the Scriptures to speak.

Consider Paul’s 1^st letter to his young protege’, Timothy. In chapter 1 he writes:

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:8-9, italics mine).

Here, Scripture is asserting that a) God’s Law is good, and has not been suspended; b) that murder is specifically against God’s Law, and is c) therefore also opposed to the gospel itself, and is diametrically antithetical to everything that is good, true, and just. The irony of this newspaper article isn’t lost on me, either—both of these perspectives are coming from Church groups that have the word “evangelical” in their names. That is surreal. So the elephant-in-the-room question is this: Can we both be defining and representing this “euaggelion” (gospel), in the same way and in the same sense? Of course not, and it would be irrational to think so; that would be an eclipse of reason.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the Bible condemns a certain action or behavior, it sure seems like that is the final word on the subject. Love for Christ is demonstrated by a love for His Word, especially with a love for those sections of the Bible that the natural man hates the most.

So no, I cannot in good conscience call those who propagate unborn baby-murder my “spiritual siblings in the faith.” Nor do I believe that God is the father of us all, if the “us all” includes lawless baby murderers. Neither do “we all thrive under his gracious and benevolent hand” if this brutal and dehumanizing wickedness is supported. To thrive is to be alive, and frankly abortion is God’s judgment upon us, in that He has given us over to our own wickedness so much so that we are allowed to kill our own offspring. That, my friends, is not thriving. The only ones who “will all dine at the same divine dinner table” are those who are willing to obey Jesus Christ, submit to Him exclusively as Lord, and renounce such rebellion as that which takes place behind the sanitary and regulated walls of abortuaries across the world. To those who desire the continuance of abortion, God says this: “…because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Romans 2:5).

In the next post we’ll flesh out the assumptions behind the ELCA’s statement, and examine whether or not that statement is faithful to God’s revealed Word.

The 4 older songs I was happy to arrange myself. I did kind of a standard version of “Be Thou My Vision” (check out this short sample), with flutes, acoustic guitars, and orchestra—it is simply amazing what one can do with MIDI these days! The real surprise for me was the version of the Gaither song “Because He Lives”. Now, if you know much about my background, you would be aware of my thorough saturation in white-bread 60′s and 70′s gospel music, as my folks were involved a singing group called “The Jubileers”.

Ready to hit the road!

Those experiences were my initiation into setting up sound systems, traveling, and early stage performances. The Jubileers performed well-known gospel standards of that time, including many of the Bill Gaither Trio songs—and they got to be the opening act for the Gaithers on a few occasions, too—once at the old Billy Sunday Tabernacle in Winona Lake. Now, I could probably play “Because He Lives” in my sleep, having heard it so many times, but I went on YouTube to be sure, and came across this version—skip ahead to 3:45, and you will pretty much get the whole vibe of the time. Wow—not enough “o’s” in “smooth” to describe the inoffensive pabulum-rich approach to the arts that was standard fare for us poor church kids back then!

So for our version, I wanted to maintain the chords and melody of the original, but also to definitely lose the schmaltzy vibe. I came up with a little melody for the guitar that would serve as the ‘glue’, and I used the standard U2/Bo-Diddley rhythmic stereo delay pattern for the song. What would modern worship music sound like if there had been no U2? One has to wonder…

So, best of success to Wende and her 1st venture into recording.