Every Good Band Deserves Fudge

A Strange Dream With Ghosts In It

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Saturday evening Callie and I got to sleep a bit late. The lights finally went out around 12:15 AM. I'm one of those people who watches TV in order to fall asleep. I set the sleep timer so it won't blare all night and make me have weird dreams. Callie is one of those who gets in bed in order to fall asleep (crazy, I know). She was dozing within just a couple of minutes. I, on the other hand, stumbled across Avatar roughly in the middle of the movie, when it had about 13 hours left before the finale.

So I watched it. It finally went off around 2AM. In case you haven't seen the movie, toward the end a "spirit tree" thing (just think of a "symbiotic circle of life" and a tree with god-like intelligence and wisdom) is felled by the evil capitalist warmongering humans, the heroic but invalid Marine becomes a blue creature with full range of motion and essentially becomes the leader of the blue folks' tribe, and so forth. All this happens on a distant planet in the future.

Not surprisingly, I dreamt a dream that night. I remember very little of it. I might not have remembered it at all if I hadn't tried to wake myself from the dream and the effort eventually becoming a yell (in real life). I eventually woke up, first halfway into that odd twilight sort of sleep during which I was still asleep but I could vaguely see things in my room though they seemed almost imaginary, then finally I awoke completely when Callie said, "Baby (yes, she calls me that from time to time), wake up! You were yelling out in your sleep." My response was something like, "I know. I did that to wake myself up but it wasn't working. Thanks for waking me up."

I remember a few details from the dream, but not much activity in it, if there was any. I was in a long hall. In the hall with me was a plethora of ghosts (or spirits or something of that ilk). Several of them looked a bit like the Nazgûl in the Lord of the Rings movies, yet somehow they weren't scary. All were white with a bluish tint from head to toe. I don't recall there being any flowing robes, but neither can I remember what they wore.

There were pillars, spaced about 8-10 feet apart, carved into the walls. In each of the alcoves created by the pillars on either side of the hall stretching as far distant as the eye could see, stood (or sat; couldn't tell) a ghost person, with the hall eventually fading into darkness. It's reminiscent of the hall I've seen in my imagination in which Alice found herself when she'd reached the bottom of her fall at the beginning of her adventures in Wonderland but without the lamps hanging from the ceiling. It was dimly lit, with the warm flickering of organic light from torches rather than electric light, though no torches were visible, either.

The corridor's walls were apparently stone, blue in general with a twist of gold inlay here and there. I was standing on the right side of the hall looking down its length into the darkness, past all the bluish-white people/things. The only one of them doing anything of note (pun not intended; you'll see) was the one sitting next to me. He was playing the piano, although I don't remember hearing any sound from the instrument. He played while looking down, then looked up (but not at me), and continued playing as he looked back down.

I realized I was dreaming but I couldn't wake myself up by force of will. That's the point at which I began to make an effort to "push" to wake up, resulting in audible speech. It got louder and I knew I was making the sound in real life, but it took Callie saying something to wake me up.

I'm leaning toward the idea that the dream was the result of a very tired brain that had been "conditioned" by a movie, but I'm quite interested in your commentary.

What To Do With Those Stinking Hypocrites

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:57:00 +0000

Some people are worth our help, our grace, and our forgiveness. But some are worthless. Right?

No? I fear that evidence in our lives proves that many of us hold to this philosophy.

Over the past couple of years I've had the opportunity to share some of my past -- some things of which I'm not at all proud -- with a few brothers in Christ. Not at some group confessional, but in one-on-one situations when I've felt that some of my screw-ups (rather, their solutions) would help those friends in situations they've been going through.

The reason they're able to listen to those stories and not write me off as a completely dispicable person is that they know I'm not still that guy. I've had to repent of some big things, and now my goal, my desire, is to continually change to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Some of you, probably most of you, would give me that same grace given current conditions. You may know me personally or have read enough here to know that I don't want to be the old Dean anymore, and that God has done some serious things in my life. He's made minor and massive "adjustments" that were painful to me, seemed illogical, and weren't even changes I wanted for myself.

But what if you knew me when I was going through those situations? What if you knew that I called myself a Christian yet I did things that completely belied that description; things you'd probably call "evil" without a second thought? (No, I've not killed anyone or done anything nearly so heinous as that.)

You'd probably call me a hypocrite, at best. You'd likely choose not to associate with me, and I can't really say I'd blame you. You might even tell others to stay away from me, that I was deceitful and shameful. Some of you might use "sentence enhancers" to describe me. Surely you'd talk negatively about me in hushed tones (to other Christians, which would mean it wouldn't be "gossip," of course).

Chances are good that you know someone like this right now. When you read what I just wrote you probably thought about him, and it's quite possible he isn't even as "bad" as I was. Maybe it's the deacon who pretends to be a good guy but he's actually a complete jerk and has a foul mouth and a temper. Or the lady who has a plaque with a Bible verse on her desk at work but is an overbearing, loud, self-centered witch. (You can't exactly say that aloud, but you've thought it.) It could be the friend who "goes to church" but tells racist jokes and has zero to do with Jesus the other 166 hours of the week.

You know, those people. The ones you generally want to have nothing to do with.

During the thick of things in my life, I had two friends who were believers who knew me well. They knew what I was doing and they knew the facade I put up. Do you know what they did? They didn't call me a hypocrite and hate me. They knew I was a hypocrite and loved me anyway. They didn't express that love by trying to expose my sin to others or by putting a good distance between themselves and me. They showed it by praying that God would expose my sin however He wanted to and would bring me to repentance, and by directly confronting me with my sin and doing so with compassion -- not condescension.

Few people seem to have the conviction or audacity to do that. I'm glad those two friends did, though. Because of their reactions to my sin, God changed my life forever. Immediately? No, it took time. More than they probably thought it would. Turns out those guys were in it for the long haul. I will always be grateful for that.

So about the dad who's a professed Christian but is a verbal tyrant to his wife and kids... Yes, it is your business if you call yourself a believer. The girl who lies about people -- and lied about you... She may unfortunately be your sister in Christ, which puts you in the hot seat.

If your impulse is to disassociate yourself from a brother, to avoid him, to write him off, to be disgusted, I submit that it's more likely (with some exceptions, though they are just that -- exceptions) that the Word tells you to do the opposite of those things. It's not your "privilege" to decide which people are worthy of your help. It's your duty as a follower of Christ to live out the same grace God has shown you over and over.

Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are Godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ. If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important. - Galatians 6:1-3 (NLT)

Church Government: Training Ground for Secular Government?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

A good friend sent me a copy of a blog post by Director of Religious Studies at the University of Wyoming (and newspaper columnist) Paul Flesher in Wyoming. Flesher's blog and column are both called "Religion Today".

The post he sent me was entitled "The Best Training Ground for Democracy: A Business or a Church?" Unfortunately, Flesher hits the nail squarely on the head when he describes why church leaders are generally well-prepared for the nuts and bolts of a secular government.

One of the statements in the post made me retch, yet I doubt many American Christians see very much wrong with this arrangement, because they readily engage in it:

"A church's management challenge is to provide what the congregation as customers want, for the cost that the congregation as investors are willing to pay through their tithes and donations. If the management fails in this balance, they can be removed." (emphases mine)

Ugh. Management? Customers? Investors? "Willing to pay"? Absolutely sickening to me. But those things describe many churches perfectly. These are the kinds of things that eventually convinced me that the system most Americans know as "church" is not actually based on the Bible, but is based upon a system of human invention.

This could apply to the government all day long and I have no problem with it. But a church? The Church?

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who has heartburn over this.

EGBDF - The Album - Wish (Intro)

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:35:00 +0000

Today I continue with the low-down on the songs on my home-made album, EGBDF. Song number six is called "Wish" and is the one song with which I was graced with a cowriter.

I have a tendency to write murky lyrics. They're tough to understand sometimes, probably because I don't give them enough of a foundation upon which one can run with his imagination. "Wish" falls into thus category, I think. My brother in Christ, prolific songwriter Mark Williams, co-wrote the lyrics and among other parts, penned the bridge, one of the more elegant lines in the song.

But before I write about "Wish," I'd like to know what you think it's talking about. I've often wondered if it communicates the narrative or meaning that was intended. Take a look and leave a comment with your thoughts. It's perfectly acceptable to say that it doesn't seem to make sense.

Verse 1
Born and raised in Dixie; slow-motion dreams.
Open invitation, same old routine.
Instant recognition: just one more face.
Terminal condition; is it worth it?

Chorus
I won't wish on a fallen star,
Though sometimes that's all I can see.
(And) I won't wish, but I'll still believe.
The choice is up to me.

Verse 2
Born again in Dixie; old country church;
Lifetime dedication, love reimbursed.
Destination heaven when this life ends.
There are no regrets 'cause it's been worth it.

Bridge
When fallen angels sing their lullabies,
Temporary brilliance becomes permanent night.

(Chorus repeats a few times)

Okay, take it away! What does all this mean?

EGBDF - The Album - Searcher's Goal

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:06:00 +0000

Today I'll hit song number five from my multi-selling smash-hit mini-album EGBDF. There's a little more lyric insight on this song as well as some sure-to-be-mind-boggling recording techniquery here.

Searcher's Goal

"Searcher's Goal" has some lyrics that I was really proud of, but I'm not sure they came across with any straightforward meaning:

With sights ahead,
I feel the eyes staring from behind.
Arms embrace what I despise,
Reaching for what I can't find.

This is the sensation of feeling like everyone is watching, and you make a big, huge mistake; something you know you shouldn't do but you do it anyway for whatever reason. Kinda like what Paul said he had a tendency to lean toward in Romans 7:15. "I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate." (Read it in context to understand all of what he was saying.)

The second verse says this:

If choice is black and white,
It seems I fall into the gray.
Impressions say a thousand things,
Stepping on the words I say.

Again, this is about wrestling with right and wrong, and no matter what I profess with my mouth -- who I say I am -- actions speak louder than words.

The narration in the next section contained a phrase from my favorite work of fiction, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", read by Michael York, the relevant part being, "'What is the use of a book,' thought Alice, 'without pictures or conversations?'" It doesn't have a whole lot of relevance to verse two of the song, but it's the first phrase I thought of that wasn't as hackneyed as "A picture is worth a thousand words" (which was a theme in verse two).

Having discovered that "the searcher's goal lives inside" -- Christ in me, the hope of glory -- verse three should be self-explanatory and much more immediately understandable than the other verses.

Instruments used:
Look back at the notes on "The Answer Song" and "Dedication" to find out what "axes" were used. I had the same drum setup that I used on "Dedication" (remember, I only used the Roland R-5 on "The Answer Song").

The single keyboard chord in the song comes on the last note of the song. I used my Rhodes 660 for that.

Recording gear:
This song was also recorded at my friend Paul Proffit's living room studio, so the recording gear list is identical to that of the two aforementioned songs.

Production notes:
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the only words in the song that don't have stacked harmonies on them (I think) are "the searcher's goal" -- the title of the song. It wasn't by design, but I remember listening to it and at some point that dawned on me.

Instrumentally, I believe my favorite part in the song is the little break before the chorus where there's only bass, kick drum, and a snare hit. That's my King's X part of the song. (Heh...)

I originally wrote and recorded completely different lyrics for this tune. The chorus was terrible, but I was just trying to flesh out ideas at that point. It had long, drawn-out phrases and started with the word "I." The sweeping reverse sound at the beginning of each chorus is a leftover of that recording. Let me 'splain...

I learned a secret and thought I was among the elite. You could flip the reel backward on the recorder, put reverb on something, and record the reverb. When you flipped the reel over and played it forward, you'd have... wait for it... reverse reverb! That's what I did with the old vocal track and left it on the final mix. That's the sweeping sound you hear at the beginning of each chorus. Took a good 30 minutes or more to get everything just right.

Today that would take about two minutes and a few clicks. If you hose it up? Hit to Ctrl-Z to undo it. It was good to engineer in the days before digital recording. Ah, the glory days of razor blades and splicing blocks...

EGBDF - The Album - Easy To Smile

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:45:00 +0000

Continuing the series of posts on the background of the songs on my little album project, EGBDF, this evening hits "Easy To Smile". I believe this is my favorite song on the record, possibly my favorite song I've written. Since it's my favorite, this post is longer than the previous ones.

Easy To Smile
I had a Thursday (?) off from Robbins Music Center and didn't have a session at the studio that evening, so naturally I went to the studio first thing in the morning (probably around 10:00 AM. That was early in those days.). I decided I'd write a song and record it that day, so I went over a few ideas in my head on the 30-ish minute drive out to Harmony Studio in New Market, AL.

I don't remember if I had any lyric ideas by the time I arrived, but I did have a general concept of the song in mind, so I sat down at the Yamaha baby grand and played over the chord changes I'd thought of. It wasn't something I wanted to trash, so I went ahead and put a couple of mics on the piano, estimated where to set the input gain on the mics, armed the tracks on the recorder, hit record, and ran into the main room and played. It took two or three times to get an acceptable level, and once that was done I stopped the recorder and finished writing the chord changes.

From there I programmed the drums and started to think of a melody and a theme for the lyrics. Once the drums were done I recorded them, then went out to the piano to record the main part. I had to drag the Alesis BRC ("Big Remote Control") out into the main room since I was there alone, and did a few takes from start to finish before getting one I didn't dislike.

I had a very good idea of the lyrics by that time, so writing them was not too hard. I knew I wanted to make the song a little cerebral-sounding, hence the line, "And people wondered how the man without a dime garnered his perpetual smile." The word "garnered" actually isn't the best choice, but I needed a two-syllable word for "got" or "kept" or "had," and "garnered" seemed to do the trick.

Here's another song about "Johnny," just like "The Answer Song". But this is a different Johnny. This guy was poor all his life and by the time we hear the song, he's passed. I don't mean that morbidly, but I really thought it made the song work better.

There's the general background. Moving on to the physical stuff...

Instruments used:
I can't remember what electric guitar I used, but I believe it was the same cheap Stinger pseudo-Les Paul copy I used on "Roadside Park", but I'm not sure. Fairly sure I ran through the cheap Stinger mini-stack. Since the guitar parts aren't prominent in this song it wasn't as critical to me that they have an incredible tone. (That's good, because they don't.)

I used the Peavey Fury bass with new La Bella strings on it. I was very happy with the bass sound in the end.

The piano was a Yamaha baby grand. It was slightly out of tune, but given the choice between that and a Korg T-3 in the control room, the Yamaha won handily.

Recording gear:

The terribly popular (in the day) Mackie 8-bus 24-channel board took the inputs and fed them to two Alesis ADAT recorders. This was the basic signal path.

I think I used two Shure SM81's on the piano.

The vocal mic was an Audio Technica AT4033, one of the first almost-affordable vocal mics for the project studio community. I think they retailed for $699 back then. Still love the way that mic sounds. I remember saving up for one for a few months. I finally was able to buy it. I was elated. A week later there was a bill Callie and I couldn't pay; probably the utility bill. I had to sell the mic. Mercifully, it sold almost immediately. I hadn't even gotten to record anything with it. (The one I used on this song belonged to Harmony Studio.)

I used the Symetrix 525 compressor on almost everything except the piano and electric guitars. I may have even run the entire mix through it when mixing down.

I believe there was an Alesis Quadraverb in the rack, along with a Yahama SPX-90II (the original SPX-90 was better -- had an analog input you could overdrive and get some great snare reverb). There was also a Lexicon PCM41 in the rack. I loved the PCM42, but the 41 was an acceptable substitute. I ran the vocals through it with a modulating 23-or-so millisecond delay to get a bit of a chorus/double effect on the lead vocal. Hopefully I didn't over-use it.

General production notes:

I wanted this song to be a little more sparse, a little less-produced instrumentally than usual, so I wound up playing only piano, bass, electric guitar, and programming drums. Of course, there were tons of background vocals.

This song differed from others in that I actually did background vocals rather than straight-up harmonies on the chorus. The decision to keep the "Aah" so loud on the chorus was really arbitrary. I thought about mixing them lower but decided against it in the end.

I was thinking "Beatles" when I did the radio-sounding voice. No idea if it sounded like any Beatles material but I liked it. The song originally ended with a resolution, "I'm sure he would have wished the same for you," with that same radio sound and a piano outtro, but it sounded very contrived and cliche, so I clipped that part off.

My favorite part on the whole album is probably around 2:02 in the song, where there's a very wide-open drum fill/pause, and the bass hits with the floor tom. Very simple, and I actually played the part pretty tightly. That's the kind of thing I like; not busy, technically-incredible parts (which I'm really not capable of playing, anyhow).

Next song will be "Searcher's Goal", which started out to be a completely different song.

EGBDF - The Album - Dedication

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 05:29:00 +0000

This is the third in a series of posts about my album, EGBDF, which you can find on iTunes, Amazon.com, etc. You may or may not find the series interesting. It gives background about the songs, how they were recorded, etc.

Dedication

This is probably the most heavy-handed song I've written. It's about drug use as escapism; trying to get away from worries in the real world. "Dedication to Hallucination" would be the extended title.

I noticed that a large percentage of the songs on the album (it's an EP, really) are stories about people. This one features Mary in the first verse and Bill in the third verse. I don't know a Mary or a Bill that had issues with drugs, just to be clear. I wish I'd chosen a name other than Bill (no offense to the legions of people named Bill who bought the album).

Factoids: you can sing "Mary had a little lamb" to verse 1 and it works pretty well. I was trying to subtly refer to cocaine in the chorus with the phrase "when you draw the line." I thought I was being really neat in the third verse by saying that Bill had been rescued from himself 2,000 years ago but prayed last night. Not hard to figure that out, though.

The original final mix had a different chorus at the end; a resolution to the situation, really, but it sounded very corny and awkward lyrically so I spliced in a couple of the previous choruses for this version. If you listen carefully you can hear the edit between the last two choruses (or chorii, as I like to pluralize the word) as the guitar plays a descending lead part and it's a chord that suddenly becomes single notes.

I recorded this song before the Meat Puppets did "Backwater," by the way. The 7th that the vocals do in the chorus are reminiscent of that song.

Instruments used:
The electric guitar and bass used on this tune were the same ones used on "The Answer Song". Strings on the electric were in decent shape for this one, though. I used a cheap Takamine Jasmine acoustic (maybe an S35 or its equivalent model of the day; can't recall) during the verses.

I had the bass too loud for the first five notes of the song but liked the mix well enough to not bother mixing it again. I do wish I'd gotten a less-muddy tone for the bass in the mix. It's one of my favorite bass parts on the record.

Drum sounds were a combination of the Roland R-5 and my Roland Rhodes 660 keyboard. The 660 provided the drums and the R-5 was used for cymbals (I mixed in some of the 660's hi-hats because I liked their crispiness at the time).

Recording gear:

The little Fostex R8 1/4" reel-to-reel eight track and the Fostex 424 mixing board got the song to tape. Matter of fact, the gear list is identical to that of "The Answer Song".

I forgot to mention the awesome panty-hose-and-coat-hanger pop filter. Cheaper and every bit as good as a Popper-Stopper (TM).

The low-fi vocals on the two bridges were accomplished by jacking the EQ around a whole lot.

Speaking of EQ, I wasn't happy with the overall EQ on the mix. Treble slices too much and there's no punch in the bottom end.

On that wonderful note I'll wrap up the background of "Dedication". Four more songs to go!

EGBDF - The Album - Roadside Park

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:01:00 +0000

To recap, I've decided to post notes about each song on my earth-shattering album -- what went into it, what kind of equipment I used, etc.

This is about the second song, "Roadside Park".

Roadside Park
As a kid, my extended family lived in Memphis, Tennessee.. I grew up around my nuclear family -- three other people; not cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. Although that's different from the way my wife and my parents grew up, I've never counted it as a disadvantage or as a scenario where I've missed anything. On the contrary, it gave me a great love for my mom, dad, and brother.

On the occasions we'd visit Memphis (which were quite frequent), we had to do so without the aid of these modern "interstate" thingies. It was a trip of 218 (or 208) miles, I believe, and you could immediately tell when you entered Mississippi because the ride suddenly got bumpier thanks to terrible roads.

Along the way there was this thing called a "roadside park." I don't know why, but the trip to Memphis just didn't work for me unless we stopped at the roadside park. There wasn't really anything to do there except get out of the car and stare up at the trees, feel the wind blow, and generally relax and unwind from the almost-two-hour trip we'd had thus far.

From memories of that landmark, now a thing only of memories, came the song "Roadside Park". A place where there isn't really much to do, but that's okay... "a rest in the shade of the sunshine."

Instruments used:
I programmed the drums on an old Korg T-3 keyboard (which belonged to the studio where I worked in the evenings, Harmony Sound), running into my Roland TD-5 Percussion Sound Module.

There were a couple of cheap Stinger electric guitars in the studio and a couple of really cheap Stinger mini-stacks. I took advantage of these gems in order to get the monster sound you hear on the record. (Okay, in truth the guitars and amps were not very good. Possibly the worst I've played.)

There was a Peavey Fury bass (I think it retailed for $199) in the studio, and to be honest, whenever I strung it with La Bella strings, it sounded absolutely fantastic. No, really. But I ran the bass through as much distortion as I could muster. Doug Pinnick of King's X fame used bass distortion quite successfully, and that was my inspiration. But my bass part just sounds like bass through a distortion box. His sounds great.

A note about the drum part... I went for a minimalist approach on this song, which was something I usually don't do. I don't ever intentionally over-program, but I try to program what a good drummer might play. On this song I tried to imagine what would be played by one of the best drummers I've ever recorded: James Blair (or J. D. Blair). Blair played in Huntsville for a while and then went on to play for many excellent artists, among them Shania Twian. I think he may be my favorite drummer ever. He could "say" more by hitting one tom than any other drummer could say by playing a whole song. He grooved. He spoke with his playing, and he is one of precious few who can actually do that.

Recording gear:
I've said so much by now that I'm out of words and ready to end the post, so I 'll be short here. Recorded this song on a Fostex G16 1/2" reel-to-reel recorder, ran through a Mackie 24-channel 8-bus board, and mixed to Sound Forge on a mammoth Pentium PC. Used several effect units in the process, including one of my favorites, a Symetrix 525 dual-channel compressor. Always thought it sounded quite good and didn't color the sound too much. Used an Audio Technica AT4033 mic for the lead vocal.

All in all, this turned out to be one of my favorite songs on the album. Lyrically it really doesn't go anywhere, but that's the whole point.

EGBDF - The Album - The Answer Song

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:42:00 +0000

My old friend Jim Sturdivant posted an overly-gracious review on Facebook of my six-song album, EGBDF. He noted that he wouldn't mind hearing more about how it was done. Thinking back over that brought a smile to my face, so I've decided to post notes about each song -- what went into it, what kind of equipment I used, etc. I doubt it'll be of interest to many people, but in the off-chance that there's a gear-head from the early 90's who couldn't afford nice recording equipment, it may bring back memories.

I'll start with the first song (the link will take you to the song, which you may purchase for the bargain price of only $0.89)...

The Answer Song
This one was recorded around 1993, I think. I don't know why I decided to do a rap track. This one's terrible. I didn't want to try to have "soul" or anything like that, because not only do I not have a cool rap accent, I sound very white. So I figured it would be very unusual and surprising, even amusing, if I just used my regular old voice.

You may notice that the first line of the chorus and the first sung line in each verse have essentially the same melody. The verse is in the relative minor key of the chorus so I thought using the same melodic hook for both would be cool. Don't know if it wound up being cool, but I did it, and there you have it.

My biggest regret on this song is the intentional artificial-sounding drum machine pattern on the chorus. Wish I'd stayed with a drum part that sounded more like what a drummer might actually play. I usually obsess about that.

Instruments used:
My trusty Roland R-5 "Human Rhythm Composer" (a drum machine; not an "instrument," really) provided the drums and percussion. I always tuned the hi-hats down a few cents because I thought they sounded a little less artificial that way.

I played a T. Shepard Strat-style guitar -- a yellow one -- with a graphite neck. It belonged to my friend Paul Proffitt, whose home studio I used. The strings were ruuussssty, and I had no extra sets of strings so I used steel wool on them so they wouldn't cut my fingers. It worked but as you might imagine, they sounded quite dead.

I ran through an old Ibanez distortion pedal and went directly into the board. That pedal was unusual because it didn't sound absolutely horrible when running direct, like most stand-alone distortion pedals do. (On second listen, I believe I may have used a Rockman headphone preamp on this song. Not the more awesome Rockman Soloist, but the cheaper one, before the Guitar Ace came out)

I used a cheap, cheap Steinberger bass copy. Ran it directly into the board; no direct box.

Recording gear:
The mixing board was a Fostex model 454, purchased from a pawn shop. All the pots were dirty so I had to sweep the knobs and faders back and forth frequently to get the crackly trash out of them.

The recorder was a Fostex R8, a 1/4" reel-to-reel machine that had eight tracks. Because of the limited number of tracks I had to "bounce" (combine) the drums and bass to a pair of tracks, then as I added each vocal I had to bounce them down, as well, to leave an open track for the lead guitar.

I ran out of tracks quickly on this one. I believe there are seven vocal parts going on at once during the chorus. Notice that the lead vocal and lead guitar don't overlap. That's because I ran out of tracks and had to put the lead guitar on the lead vocal track.

I used a Yamaha hand-held vocal mic (also found at a pawn shop; didn't even know Yamaha made microphones until I saw that one. Really liked it.), used a Yamaha GC2020BII rackmount compressor -- easily the worst compressor I've ever used, but it got the job done -- and a Yamaha SPX-90 II and budget-line R100 for effects.

Used my own reference monitors, Peavey (yes, Peavey) PRM308S. Possibly the best product Peavey ever made.

The mix was done directly to... cassette tape. Only the highest quality would do. :-)

Loads of Love

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:33:00 +0000

I have the privilege of working with a group of people who get together on the first Saturday of each month for an effort we call Loads of Love (link goes to our Facebook page -- feel free to "like" the page). I don't post this for publicity, but we're praying about expanding the project to include another day of the month (maybe another location, but most laundromats weren't interested in hosting, for whatever reason); we'll need volunteers for that.

Here's a description of Loads of Love from one of our fliers:

On [date goes here] we invite you to Five Points Laundromat (815 Wellman Ave, 35801) to wash and dry your clothes (up to three loads - for blankets and heavy items, one to two loads) free of charge or obligation. Just show up with dirty clothes and we'll provide detergent, fabric softener, bleach, and the washers and dryers so they'll be clean when you leave.

Loads of Love happens the first Saturday of every month, from 8:30 until 11:30 in the morning. Coffee, orange juice, water, and snacks are a part of every Loads of Love event!

Yesterday was a great one. We helped about 40 people with their laundry. We have the chance to pray with them, share Christ with them, listen to what's going on with their lives, and let them get to know us better, too.

We're grateful for every donation of funds. Every bit goes to feed washers and driers unless we're told that we can use it for laundry detergent, etc.

If you live in the Huntsville, AL area and would like to help out with Loads of Love, comment below or send me an e-mail! Next one will be February 4.

Perspective Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:54:00 +0000

I listened to an older podcast from Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, California this morning. Francis Chan was the teacher and the title of his message was "How To Respond When Bad Things Happen."

I have to admit that when I scrolled to the title and clicked the play button, I assumed it meant "How To Respond When Bad Things Happen To You." When I began to listen I found that Chan was talking about "How To Respond When Bad Things Happen To Other People." The sermon was delivered immediately following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. He wasn't talking about bad things happening to me; he was talking about bad things happening to people to whom I could show compassion and give help.

With that realization I was ashamed. Ideas had already flipped through my mind about what would be talked about in the message -- how to react when I lose my job, when my marriage is on the rocks, when people despise me for no apparent reason, when I've made a stupid mistake, etc. I've heard sermons on all these things. But all of those ideas had me as the subject and God as the One who would lift me up out of my bad place, or at worst, God the Omnipotent Genie who would fix all my problems.

I'm one of those who has said, "If the Church had been following its mandate through history we wouldn't see such rampant poverty, hunger, and crime throughout the world. We wouldn't expect for our government to take care of needy families," and similar things that have made me feel pretty sure God's been impressed with my pious wisdom. In the meantime, I wonder if I've been the hands or feet of Christ and have been encouraging the Church to go together into the world to meet those needs.

My assumption this morning about the context of Chan's message reveals more about me than I'd like to admit, and is very likely the perspective of most in America who call themselves followers of Christ or Christians. It's "me and Jesus" -- how can God help me through my pet trial? How can I show my perspective to the Church and the world?

May God correct our perspective.

How Would You Describe Me?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:30:00 +0000

A few days ago a friend at work presented me with an idea that might possibly tell me everything I need to know about myself -- or maybe just an most important thing I need to know about myself -- from a perspective that's outside of my own.

He asked the following simple question of an acquaintance at work and received an answer that he didn't want to hear. He asked, "How would you describe me?" The response was, essentially, that he's a die-hard football fan. That would bring smiles to many die-hard football fans, but what he wanted to be told was something that had to do with Jesus Christ in him. The answer sparked a fairly dramatic change in his day-to-day activities.

What if you asked your coworker, "How you you describe me?" Would the answer have "Jesus" anywhere in it?

Merry Christmas!

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:41:00 +0000

Our Christmas Eve fondue was a tremendous success. I can't recommend BestFondue.com enough. We always love the idea of fondue on Christmas Eve (and have only missed it once in the past number of years), but the execution isn't always that great.

Last night it was amazing, though. We made the second beef broth fondue and the mushroom dipping sauce (which was listed under the hot oil fondues). Our food consisted of a couple of large filet mignon steaks, thinly sliced, broccoli, mushrooms, and baby purple potatoes. I'm hungry again thinking about it.

I'm very thankful for my family and my friends on this day. I'm thankful for Jesus Christ, and it's beyond simply a privilege to be able to celebrate the day that the Word became human and made His home among us.

(Image via Smashing Magazine)

Christmas Eve Tradition

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:24:00 +0000

About ten years ago, Callie and I decided that we would start a new Christmas Eve tradition. We quickly settled on fondue. And so it was born: Lusk Christmas Eve Fondue.

It hasn't always been successful. We tried a beer-and-cheese fondue two years ago after having gone to The Melting Pot and carefully watching the server prepare what turned out to be an amazing meal. Our Christmas Eve fondue was disgustingly terrible that year. Most times we've done a hot oil fondue, but it's typically a bit flavorless no matter what I do to season the meat.

Right now I have a beef broth simmering on the stove for tomorrow night's fondue. I think it's going to be a winner.

Do you have a Christmas Eve (or Christmas day) family food tradition?

Your Five Favorite Christmas Songs?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:55:00 +0000

The Christmas season tends to make me really happy. Except for the parts that involve shopping in the midst of hyper-populated stores (this year Hobby Lobby and Sam's Club win the "isn't this number of people a violation of fire code?" awards).

At its ideal moments, Christmas lights and music whisk my mind back to my childhood in the 70's, when my parents had green shag carpet in their room and my mom wore trendy dresses with poofy sleeves. In my mind, though Christmas defies time and space, it exists in a few eras: 2000 years ago, the 1970's, the 1940's, the late 1800's, and the middle ages. The last three of those are particularly accessible in my imagination via music. This is why I tend to dislike modern Christmas music. While many are about Jesus' birth, they just don't represent Christmas past to me.

My perennial favorite artist/group award goes to the Ray Conniff Singers. They take me back to my early childhood; Ray Conniff was always on the record player during the Christmas season back then. Same thing with Billy Vaughn. Last year I purchased the mono version of "Christmas Carols" (this album was originally recorded in both stereo and mono versions).

Given that background, here are my five favorite Christmas songs. This list was more difficult than the one that named my least favorite ones.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel (Veni, Veni, Emmanuel)
The Holly and the Ivy
The Coventry Carol (the link goes to an Amazon.com freebie!)
Pat-a-Pan
The Sussex Carol (On Christmas Night All Christians Sing)

I wish there were room on the list for "The Wassail Song (Here We Come A-Caroling)" and "Sing We Now of Christmas".

Now, if I had to use songs from this century, my list would look like this:

Sleigh Ride (orchestral or Johnny Mathis' version)
It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year (Andy Williams)
The Christmas Song
Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town
A Charlie Brown Christmas (the Vince Guaraldi Trio album). This 16-song album is a must-purchase download at the Amazon MP3 store -- only $5.00!

Time for your input -- share your favorite five (or more) with everyone in the comments below!

Your Five Least Favorite Christmas Songs?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:56:00 +0000

Yesterday I was struck with a serious question. I had no choice but to tweet it and put it on Facebook for my very best friends to consider. You may have read it already:

If "I don't want a lot for Christmas," yet "all I want for Christmas is you," isn't that song ultimately one big insult?

With that, you can probably guess that "All I Want for Christmas is You" handily earns a spot in the list of my least favorite Christmas songs of all time. This isn't an easy list for me to make because I'm so opinionated. Lots of songs should make the list, but only five lucky ones will.

By the way, I thought about making this post about favorite Christmas songs, but that's just not as fun.

I'll be focusing on popular Christmas songs; not the obscure tunes that almost everyone hates. There's a high probability that you will like -- nay, even love -- multiple songs on my list. I'm willing to take that chance.

So without further ado, here is The Dean's List: My Five Least Favorite Christmas Songs of All Time (if you'd like to purchase any of these stinkers for whatever weird and disturbed reason, I've linked them to MP3's at Amazon.com):

All I Want for Christmas is You
The Christmas Shoes
All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth
Last Christmas
Santa Claus is Coming to Town (the butchered Jackson 5/Bruce Springsteen, etc. version, NOT the unassailable classic song upon which Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass based their gripping drama of the same name.)

I've chosen one song on the list to explain its inclusion. Ranting about each song would be very impractical from a time standpoint. I'd be here too long. Let's run with Newsong's "The Christmas Shoes" (who knew the title had "The" in it?):

There is so much I want to say about this song. It's possibly the most contrived urban legend I've ever heard, which is how this song unfortunately came to life (some will argue that it's based on a true story. I don't believe that for a moment). Shoes?? For a kid's dying mother? I probably shouldn't state the obvious, but very likely, well... she's not going to have an opportunity to wear them. And it's Christmas Eve! The boy should be at his mom's bedside, not leeching off of some stranger on the street. The lone child singing the last line is consumer manipulation at its worst. I can almost hear the producer saying to his associates in the recording studio, "You know what will really get 'em? We'll have a kid sing the last line!" and everybody in the room breaks into kudos for this bit of unexpected production genius.

Enough of that. You get the idea. Now, if my list were, say, a "Top Eight" list, I could easily think of three more songs. Since this is a "Top Five" list, though, I have to make a whole new one:

The Dean's List: I Really Dislike These Christmas Songs, As Well:

Little St. Nick (my daughter loves this song. I feel terrible having it on my list)
I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas (same comment as the previous song)
Hey, Santa (this apparently isn't the correct name, but I believe these are the first lyrics in the song. A little help?)

The floor is open for you to share your list or just to give me some serious grief for dissing your favorite Christmas song!

IDFLC Syndrome

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:48:00 +0000

My daughter and I geared up for the Christmas season moderately early this year. Lights were on the edge of the roof of the house and in the yard before Thanksgiving, and the Christmas tree went up Thanksgiving night.
Christmas music was in effect by then, too. My wife even called me "Clark Griswold" two or three times. Really.

The month has been rushing by so quickly, though, with the standard amount of December stuff happening, that I seem to have acquired the dreaded IDFLC Syndrome.

It Doesn't Feel Like Christmas.

Nevertheless, the Christmas season is upon us whether it feels like it to me or not. I know this. My personal perspective in no way impacts the truth that our special celebration of Jesus' birth will happen on December 25 and festivities and music and decorations will bookend it, but it would be nice to "feel" it throughout the season.

This general sensation isn't something new or isolated to blue Christmases. Removing the festive holiday setting and thinking about day-in, day-out life throughout the year, God is always at work around us (hat-tip to Henry Blackaby) but from my perspective it sometimes seems like He's forgotten about something or isn't working in my idea of a God-like way; usually regarding my special concern or situation at the time.

Just as the Beach Boys sang in one of my non-preferred Christmas songs (but one my daughter loves), "Christmas comes this time each year."

And just as the Word says:

I look up to the mountains-
does my help come from there?
My help comes from the Lord,
who made heaven and earth!
He will not let you stumble;
the one who watches over you will not slumber.
Indeed, he who watches over Israel
never slumbers or sleeps.
- Psalm 121:1-4 (NLT) (emphasis mine)

So You Think God Is Through With You...

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:17:00 +0000
I'd like for you to invent an excuse for me to explain why I haven't written anything lately. I just don't want to offer the usual, "Blogging has been pretty light lately because life has been heavy," or something. I'm tired of making excuses and I'm betting some of you are also grand at it.

Once you've done that, read the rest of the post, but don't read on until you've given me my excuse. Please leave it in the comments here, even if you're a lurker who never puts comments on blogs, only on Facebook.

Done? Great. We'll move on, then.

To shoot from the hip, lately I've felt a bit like God was finished with me. Not "finished with me" in that He was so put out with me that He flopped back in His chair and said, "Okay, that's it. I'm done with that Lusk boy," but almost as though I'd done whatever it was that I was intended to do from the day I was born, and from here on out I should just expect to watch what He would be doing in the lives of other people.

He seems to have shattered that idea, though, and I have to admit that I'm rather glad I was completely wrong. I've learned over the years that God tends to work within time frames that don't make much sense to me until after they've passed, and usually in ones that stretch out longer than I'd have suggested to Him if He'd asked me in the first place. I say that I've "learned" that, but I can also say that I regularly forget it. It's like learning something in geometry class in whatever grade it is that one takes geometry class. Years later you may remember some general principles, but you don't remember a specific formula until you have to put it into use. Then you have to learn it all over again, but this time it makes sense because you actually had to use it in the real world. (Okay, maybe geometry was a terrible example.)

That's where I am today and I wanted to share it with every single one of my adoring fans. (Hi, Mom & Dad!!!)

I've not forgotten that I haven't finished the series on hermeneutics. You should read the first three parts. They're here, here, and here. I promise to get back on track immediately unless one of you provides me with the Mother of All Excuses in the comments.

Until then...

What Is Your Essential Annual Christmas Gift?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:14:00 +0000
I remember when Hallmark didn't make Keepsake Ornaments. I believe the first time I saw a collectible/gift ornament was around 1981 or 1982. Back then they tended to be regular ol' spheres with a print wrapped around them (at least, that's all I was familiar with). Our parents began to give me and my brother collectible ornaments around that time and they became "staple gifts," so to speak, every Christmas for several years.

When I got married we followed suit, but with Hallmark-style specialty ornaments. This continued for a while after we had kiddos.

Eventually we collected too many and they stopped being quite so awesome or cute or novel. Consequently, specialty ornaments fell out of Lusk favor (although we still get them from time to time). Now I tend to get a nutcracker for each of our two kids. I don't think my wife really likes nutcrackers because now we have too many of them now (as if that were possible). I'm such a typical American consumer in this respect, I'm afraid.

Over the years several things have been on my list and my family's, some short-lived and some long-lasting, some keepsakes and others consumables. Here are just a few:

- Ornaments (obviously)
- Nutcrackers (also obviously)
- Holiday Barbie of the year
- Life Savers candy storybook
- Ribbon candy

What gift, if any, is on your essential annual Christmas list?.

Rockin' Around Epiphany

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:24:00 +0000
I think I come across as an anti-traditionalist, but I'm really just typically against tradition for the sake of tradition. In so many cases that's harmful and counter-productive.

Given that, it seems odd to me that I thrive off of Christmas traditions. Though I almost always over-think, I won't go into the origins of the Christ Mass, arguments for tie-ins to ancient pagan rituals or festivals, the evils of Santa Claus, or even launch into a tirade about the commercialization of the holiday. I just love the Christmas season and I'm willing to discard almost all of the controversy about its traditions. I don't think I do this with anything else in existence. Just Christmas.

This post will be unusual in that it doesn't examine things from a spiritual aspect. It's pretty materialistic, I guess, and really shows how self-centered I can be. Run with me on that and try to avoid raking me over the coals, please. You may identify with something here (including vintage toys and Christmas music)

I had an epiphany the other day.

It's possible that the memories you have yet to make will turn out to be better than the ones you wish you could experience again.

I haven't always felt like that. Nosiree. Here's some extended background.

I'm sentimental about Christmas past. Incredibly so. I still have my first Christmas stocking. I occasionally Google for toys from the era of the early 70's so I can imagine the excitement all over again. I remember Shoot Out In Space, the coveted Evel Knievel motorcycle (right now there's one for $229 at Amazon.com, my cheap-but-so-awesome Starbase Zeus playset, Gnip Gnop, and much more Christmas toy goodness. I always wanted a Stretch Armstrong but my dad said it was a sadistic toy (that's when I learned the general meaning of "sadist").

My favorite Christmas music tends to be from the 40's and 50's. My dad had so many albums from this era and that's what we listened to every Christmas when I was a boy. I've gone to Amazon.com and iTunes and dug up numerous Christmas albums by the Ray Conniff Singers, Billy Vaughn, Arthur Fieldler, The Abbey Choir, etc. I can't overstate how much I generally dislike new Christmas songs or how apathetic in general I am toward traditional Christmas songs that have been re-recorded since the 80's.

At some point I graduated to the "where did all the magic of Christmas go?" stage. I think I was around 13 years old, but I'm not sure. It was mind-bogglingly terrible. For years afterward, from the time I was a teenager through my adulthood (which is still going on) I tried to find decorations, specific nativity sets, ornaments, etc., that would remind me enough of those Christmases long ago to make me feel that ultra-incredible sense of child-like excitement and "magic." It never came back. It was a sad and horrible feeling -- almost as bad as a loved one passing away each Christmas. I can't describe it. Some of you may have experienced this or may still experience it. Or I could be the only one who's completely messed up.

Our children came along and although I've loved every Christmas since then and have found great pleasure in seeing their excitement at Christmas, I've found that it's impossible to recapture Christmas magic from my own childhood. And honestly, that's made me sad. (I think it's been crazy selfish of me, too.)

A week ago I was listening to Darius Rucker's "Candy Cane Christmas" and realized that I love the song. Yes, really. I almost I enjoy it in the same way I enjoy Christmas music from my childhood. Later in the day it dawned on me that one of my favorite Christmas albums ever is Relient K's "Let it Snow Baby, Let it Reindeer" (an incredible value at $6.99 for 17 songs at Amazon.com). A day or two later, as I was putting up Christmas decorations with my daughter, now 12 years old, it hit me that over the years I've been experiencing some crazy kind of new "Christmas magic."

I do love to remember Christmas with my mom, dad, and brother. I still enjoy Googling for vintage G.I. Joe stuff in an almost obsessive manner. But I'm grateful that I eventually came to realize that it's just possible -- dare I say likely? -- that the Christmases I've yet to experience with my family and friends may have a special, new "Christmas magic." Even better than my childhood Christmases? I'm not sure, but I'm more than willing to see what happens.

A Crash Course In Hermeneutics - Explicit Content!

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:00:00 +0000
Today we move on to Great Rule-of-Thumb number three. This one's a bit more of a hard-and-fast rule than the others. It's led to some of the most well-known differences of opinion in Christian theological circles, like the question of whether a person can come to Christ of his own will or if he must be specifically drawn by the Holy Spirit, the dispute over eternal security of the believer, etc. (Most of the time I believe this happens because people grab onto what someone has taught them rather than learning from their own careful study of Scripture.)

With that in mind, I'll be using a much less-controversial illustration of the use of this "rule" than did R. C. Sproul in his book Knowing Scripture, from which these 11 principles were taken.

Rule #3 - Interpret the implicit by the explicit

Merriam-Webster.com defines implicit this way: "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed." Explicit is defined like this: "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent."

Therefore implicit = not directly stated in Scripture but strongly (or mildly) suggested. Explicit = specifically and clearly stated in Scripture. This rule says that when the Bible seems to imply something that goes against something else that is clearly stated, we go with what Scripture clearly states.

This rule obviously makes a lot of sense. We can get some crazy ideas from any piece of literature if we try to read things into it rather than read what it plainly says. That's very true for the Bible, as well.

For starters, there are a couple of Christmas implications in the Bible -- ones that have been thoroughly debunked many times. Tradition says that there were three wise men who visited baby Jesus. Further tradition puts them at the manger. Neither is stated in the Bible (and to tell the truth, neither is really implied, and that's why I'm not using these for illustrations). There were three gifts given to Jesus by the magi, and the same verse states that the wise men visited Jesus at His house, not the inn where He was born.

So here's Rule #3's official illustration from Scripture. It's an easy one. In Galatians 4:13-14 Paul makes a statement which some say implies that Jesus was an angel: "but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself." (NASB)

If we had only that verse to read between the lines to determine Jesus' origin, it might be possible to suppose that He was an angel. However, it's easy to establish that this weak implication is incorrect.

Colossians 3:9 (NLT): "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body."

John 1:1, 14 (NLT): "In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God... So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son."

John 10:30 (NLT): "The Father and I are one."

All three of the passages immediately above make it clear without doubt that Jesus was not an angel; not a created being. They clearly and explicitly state that Jesus was God in human form, shattering any implication that might otherwise be drawn from Paul's thanks to the church at Galatia.

If this rule is applied without grace for other believers when studying deeper theological issues, it can lead to some serious disagreements and even nasty arguments. This is, for example, the basic reason we have two groups that serve the same God but are opposed to one another (or one another's teaching), sometimes angrily so: Calvinism and Arminianism.

As I stated in previous posts, your Bible study should always be accompanied by prayer and by expectation that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and your heart. It should never be done to try to make the Word "prove" what you already want to believe, and it should never be used as a club to beat someone else over the head.

Rebirth or Last Will and Testament of the Church?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:08:00 +0000
I've not forgotten about part 3 of "A Crash Course in Hermeneutics". It will be posted soon.

Before my long-time friend Christy Ellis sent the text of this document to me, I'd never heard of "The Last Will and Testament of Springfield Presbytery," which first appeared in The Herald of Gospel Liberty in 1803 (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2-3). As I began to read it, it unfolded in such a way that I realized that the authors were as nutty as I am. Do I agree with all of it? No, but see if you can tell what they're getting at:

"The Presbytery of Springfield, sitting at Caneridge, in the county of Bourbon, being through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary bodily health, growing in strength and size daily, and in perfect soundness and composure of mind; but knowing that it is appointed for all delegated bodies once to die and considering that the life of every such body is very uncertain, do make and ordain this our Last Will and Testament, in manner and form following, viz:

"Imprimis. We will that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large: for there is but one body and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.

"Item. We will, that our name of distinction, with its Reverend title, be forgotten, that there be but one Lord over God's heritage, and his name one.

"Item. We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that, the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

"Item. We will, that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the holy scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, [2] traditions of men, the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

"Item. We will, that the church of Christ assume her native right of internal government--try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of their authority, but Christ speaking in them. We will that the church of Christ look up to the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into his harvest; and that she resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are Apostles, and are not.

"Item. We will, that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose her own preacher, and support him by a free will offering without written call or subscription--admit members--remove offences; and never henceforth delegate her right of government to any man or set of men whatever.

"Item. We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose: for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell.

"Item. We will, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance, pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh."

There is more. You can read the complete text here.

It's worth noting that not everyone in the church took too well to this document, which was officially signed/witnessed by six men I assume were elders. Some apparently felt coerced into agreeing to it, or maybe they just felt embarrassed later and tried to save face by maligning the man who brought the document to the church body.

Three years later one of the men wrote this in a document called (wait for it...) "A Brief Historical Account of Sundry Things in the Doctrines and State of the Christian, or as it is Commonly Called The Newlight Church":

"When we first existed as a church, we had the Presbyterial form of government. But Richard M'Nemar, that eccentric genius, who was then believed by most of us to possess a high degree of piety, power, and great light in religion, took it into his head that our existence in a formal body, as a Presbytery, was contrary to scripture--that our bond of union was a carnal bond--that we ought to be united by no bond but Christian love--and that this delegated body stood full in the way of Christ, and the progress of the revival; which revival would run like fire in dry stubble, if our Presbytery was out of the way. With these enchanting views, and others as visionary and vain, he prepared a piece at home, and brought it to the last meeting of our Presbytery held at Caneridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky, June, 1804, entitled, "The Last Will and Testament of Springfield Presbytery." None of us had the least thought of such a thing when we came to that meeting; and when it was proposed, we had many objections against dissolving our Presbytery. But, after being together several days, those enthusiastic fancies so far gained the ascendency over our judgment, that we consented to subscribe the obnoxious instrument."

It was disappointing to me to read that last gentleman's statement. Sort of reminded me of Obstinate and Pliable turning back from their walk with Christian in "The Pilgrim's Progress" (link goes to a FREE Kindle download of the classic book at Amazon.com) after one encounter with trouble. Eventually Pliable listened to people who told him how stupid he'd been to begin the journey toward the Celestial City, so he joined in with those who were ridiculing Christian.

This same situation is reflected today in what has become a mass exodus from the culturally-understood model of "church." (I would call it "traditional," but in actuality today's Church does not build on the original tradition or practice of the early church.)

What are your thoughts? Is this kind of "movement" -- then or now -- a good thing, or is it an action and mindset that is destructive to the Church?

All bold emphases in quoted text above are mine.

A Crash Course In Hermeneutics - The Clint Black Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:57:00 +0000
Today (a day late) we'll get at rule two of the hermeneutics crash course. Again, Biblical hermeneutics is the process or methodology of accurately interpreting the Bible. Your Bible study should always be accompanied by prayer and by expectation that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and your heart. What I give here are helpful procedural or common sense tips, not hard-and-fast "rules."

With that, let's dig into the new one: The Clint Black Rule.

Rule #2: Read the Bible existentially

Rule 2 probably sounds odd if you're familiar with the philosophy of existentialism, and it's even more odd that Clint isn't even mentioned in the rule. Don't worry. We're not talking about a potentially atheistic philosophy here, and I'll get to the the Clint Black tie-in in the next paragraph. In his book Existentialism, author John Macquarrie says it is "the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual." The key word is "existence."

Here's why Rule #2 can be thought of as "The Clint Black Rule." Think about his album and song 22 years ago: "Put Yourself In My Shoes" (I don't know the song but I'm familiar with the album name). Get inside the person or people you're reading about. Crawl into his or her skin, as repulsive as that may sound. Put yourself into the life of the person in the story. Be passionately involved in what you read.

When you read Matthew 23, imagine what it would be like if you were a Pharisee -- one of the super-religious people, whom everyone looked up to -- and Jesus told you in front of a crowd that you were like a tomb that was painted nicely on the outside but actually contained dead men's bones. How would you feel? Remember that they "knew" they were in the right. Or how would you feel if you were Jesus speaking to that crowd? Think His heart was beating quickly when He made such a huge statement?

To be sure, there may be statements that sound insulting to us (like Jesus saying, "Woman, what does this have to do with me?" to His mom) that wouldn't necessarily have had that intent in Israel 2,000 years ago. That's why it's good to remember that Rule #2 is a helpful guideline; not a procedure that's essential to correct interpretation of the text.

Trying to think of a catchy tie-in for tomorrow's rule: instructional Scriptures provide the perspective for historical Scriptures. I wonder if Shania Twain made an album about that...

A Crash Course In Hermeneutics

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:36:00 +0000
I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the word "hermeneutics." From BibleStudyTools.com comes this brief origin and definition of the word:

The word "hermeneutics" is ultimately derived from Hermes the Greek god who brought the messages of the gods to the mortals, and was the god of science, invention, eloquence, speech, writing, and art. As a theological discipline [Biblical] hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible.

With that we'll kick off a multi-part series! I anticipate that it will be five posts. Our house church group has begun to go over a basic outline of Scripture Interpretation that I put together and called "A Crash Course In Hermeneutics." In preparing to teach, I found that there are very few available resources geared for small group discussion and teaching of fundamental Biblical hermeneutics. That's crazy because it's such an important area -- one in which every believer needs to grounded. It isn't just for "professional" Christians.

I used R. C. Sproul's book Knowing Scripture (Second Edition, InterVarsity Press, © 2009 by R. C. Sproul) as a foundation because it's quite solid, easy to read, and there's a section that gives 11 general "rules" that are a great starting point.

These guidelines don't cover everything, don't make the mistake of thinking they do. But they'll get us well on our way. I'm not sure if I'll lay out one or two "rules" in each post after this. Just one today, though, because I've already written so much, and the first one will sound controversial.

Feel free to chime in with your comments!

Rule #1: Read the Bible like any other book.

"Whoa there, Dean! The Bible isn't just 'any other book!'" Of course it isn't. I'm not saying it is. I stand behind what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says; the Bible is divinely inspired -- God-breathed. I believe it is infallible. But the upshot of this rule is that in the Bible, a noun is a noun, a verb is a verb, etc.

The Bible doesn’t take on some special magic that changes basic patterns of literary interpretation. There's a Latin phrase, sensus literalis, that means "literal sense." "The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed." (from Article 15 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics).

Questions in Scripture do not suddenly become exclamations just because we want to read them that way, historical narratives don't become allegories or parables. Read the Bible with that knowledge. Sounds obvious, but it's a big "rule" that is violated regularly.

So there we have it; one "rule" down, ten to go!

Image credit: Squidoo.com

Another Story From the Subconscious

noreply@blogger.com (Dean Lusk) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:30:00 +0000
Saturday night I had a dream.

It was a weekday and I found myself driving my police car to school. Yes, I was back in school again -- middle school -- and yes, I had a cop car. It seemed very normal at the time. Why I was driving at middle school age I'm not sure. I drove halfway to school and parked in front of my grandparents' old garage (the long, white one my dad helped build when he was a boy), changed cars to whatever other car I was supposed to drive, and continued on to school.

I rememer nothing of the day but I recall that my son went to another school. Not sure how he got there. Seems like we were both in middle schools.

I recall that the roads were jammed on the way back to the garage where I had to get the police car after school.

I got there, opened the door of the car (I believe it had turned into a pickup truck at this point) and started it, having some difficulty turning the key in the large blue plastic ignition assembly. When it started I was going to put my hands on the wheel and change gears to drive away, and that's when I saw that the steering wheel was gone. So was the steering column, the radio, gauges, etc. The dash was a totally empty blue carpeted panel with a few holes where things like the steering wheel went through.

I wasn't totally sure I was in the right vehicle so I checked around for others, but it was the only one around. I walked to the door of a mobile home that was nearby to check and see if the keys were inside, but didn't even get to the front door because for some reason I felt like I shouldn't. It wasn't intimidating, but I just had a feeling I shouldn't knock on the door. It was a small and slightly older mobile home, by the way, and looked very familiar, though I'm not sure why.

I don't know where we were, but a little later I was standing and listening to a police officer or a relative, I'm not sure which, explain that someone had, indeed, stolen the steering wheel out of a car that had been parked and the doors left unlocked. I was nervous, thinking that I might be responsible for covering the cost of the theft.

Unfortunately I don't remember much more from the night's weird brain waves, so I'll end here and invite your comments should you decide to leave any.