Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose

I stumbled upon this post by Westminster professor Carl Trueman from way back in 2007:

Listening to Janis Joplin the other day, I was struck by two things. First, my eleven year old son (who had never, to my knowledge, heard Joplin) commented as he heard the first bars of `Me and Bobby McGee’ that he didn’t know I had a Joplin album. To recognise the voice like that at 11 must make him a blues-rock prodigy.

Second, I suddenly realised why I liked her (and, remember, she did win `The Ugliest Man of the Year’ contest at her High School#. It’s the Lutheran lyrics of Bobby McGee: `Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.’ Surely this captures the Lutheran notion of the freedom we have in Christ. OK, she may not have seen it #or Kristofferson who, I think, wrote the lyric#; but I’m sure Luther would have approved and downed a good German beer in her honour. Only when we realise we have nothing to lose because we are in Christ can we truly give ourselves in service to others. That’s why Lutheran #and Protestant) ethics are really so demanding.

via Janis Joplin and Martin Luther – Reformation21 Blog.

I need to add that Kris Kristofferson, the author of the song, was, in fact, brought up in the Lutheran church.  I don’t know where he is spiritually now–perhaps some of you know more about that–but he has other songs that exhibit what we might call a Lutheran sensibility (e.g., “Sunday Morning Coming Down”).

Anyway, I’m struck that Prof. Trueman was struck by that defintion of freedom.  He does not, however, unpack what he means.

How does the line from “Bobby McGee”  express the “freedom we have in Christ”?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    My freedom in Christ means I no longer fear God’s Law. I’m a new creation; Christ lives in me; the Spirit dwells in me. I freely and willingly obey God’s Law. (Though the Devil is quick to point out the imperfection of my obedience. To which I reply, “Christ was perfect in my place.”)

    I’m not sure how the line “freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose” applies. I think I’d have to work hard to make it apply, and stretch more than one concept in the process. Maybe that’s why Carl Trueman never unpacked his thought.

  • Tom Hering

    My freedom in Christ means I no longer fear God’s Law. I’m a new creation; Christ lives in me; the Spirit dwells in me. I freely and willingly obey God’s Law. (Though the Devil is quick to point out the imperfection of my obedience. To which I reply, “Christ was perfect in my place.”)

    I’m not sure how the line “freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose” applies. I think I’d have to work hard to make it apply, and stretch more than one concept in the process. Maybe that’s why Carl Trueman never unpacked his thought.

  • larry

    You are right he does not unpack it so it kind of depends on how he means it. So I’m leery of it coming from the Reformed camp and under that paradigms concepts. “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose”. Could be just another “law motivation” term and likely is. Kind of like the SB evangelism law “it’s a privilege”, the implied eventual meaning is always “you better or maybe you are not saved/elect, etc…”. Christian freedom cannot be really understood under such paradigms because the “gospel” (i.e. other gospel) is always seen such that it must produce, eventually, for the law. The gospel is merely a temporary island in the middle of the two eternal poles of the law. And thus the Gospel serves the Law rather than vice versa. Eventually. One might see it this way, the Gospel (and its freedom) are eventually lost if the Gospel eventually does not “produce” what the Law needs, especially after conversion. Which misses Luther’s point on a life of repentance in the 95 Thesis. IF the Gospel does not eventually produce, then it becomes altered into “love” that begets a Law-gospel if you will. If the Gospel does not produce then it is altered very subtly and so is consequently Christian “freedom”. By this “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” becomes pure bondage to the law and produces nothing but sin. The essence of sin is not the “negative sin list”.

    Keep in mind the “simul Justus et peccator” in the sacramentarian paradigm is not the same as it is in Luther’s. In the sacramentarian paradigm it is conceive as a more or less calculus whereby one is – post conversion – X% sinner and Y% saint. “Conversion” for Calvin, Arminian and Roman theology is fundamentally the same, along ontological lines or being or essence. This is crucial to grasp because it is the re-introduction of Aristotle back into Christian faith (this was the error Luther saw tainting Med. Rome). Rather the (true) simul justus… is sinner in reality saint in hope. The reality for Luther is escatologically in faith only and not ontologically. As Paulson points out the simul justus et peccator man is not one person in which two wills battle out the psychology, but is two persons in one man, the old man Adam still under the Law and the Law effects him the same as a complete ‘non-convert’, increases sin, etc… The new man in Christ has the Law already fulfilled for him and dismisses it. Luther distinguishes between the “Law” and the “will of the Father”. What the old Adam cannot “get” (ever) is that the Law is both good and yet never ever attains to anything whatsoever concerning righteousness, it is not Christ nor can it be. The “good” of the Law, the old Adam, sees more or less as a way to achieve righteousness and eschew more or less gross sins. This is the “old pious wish” Luther speaks of. This is why eventually the old Adam sees some value, if not only post conversion, in the Law and why eventually he eschews, even if only implied, that the law does nothing unto righteousness – even post conversion. But the real good of the Law is that it always kills this old Adam, this is the good of the Law the new man sees whereby one ONLY has Christ as his/her righteousness, always and continually never ceasing. And therein lay the Christian freedom.

    Luther well shows this: “By no means, therefore, is the righteousness of the law or of works to be understood only of ceremonies, but rather of the whole decalogue. For whatever good is done outside the faith of Christ, even if it makes Fabricii and Reguli, men who were righteous before men, yet it no more savors of justification than do apples of figs. For we are not, as Aristotle thinks, made righteous by doing right, execpt in appearance, but (if I may so express it) when we are righteous in essence we do right. It is necessary that the character be changed before the deeds; Abel pleased before his gifts.”

    So it depends on what paradigm “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” is meant. It is perfectly like Luther if one understands that neither past, nor present nor future, no post conversion “one had nothing left to loose” because the “old pious wish” of the old Adam, was, is and always will be a fraudulent grasp of the office of the Law. The Law is the tiny island in between the poles of the eternal Gospel, it is this Word, Gospel (forgiveness of one’s sin), that is the Verbum Dei Manet Aeturnum, also the 100th Psalm, “His mercy endures forever” (literally).

  • larry

    You are right he does not unpack it so it kind of depends on how he means it. So I’m leery of it coming from the Reformed camp and under that paradigms concepts. “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose”. Could be just another “law motivation” term and likely is. Kind of like the SB evangelism law “it’s a privilege”, the implied eventual meaning is always “you better or maybe you are not saved/elect, etc…”. Christian freedom cannot be really understood under such paradigms because the “gospel” (i.e. other gospel) is always seen such that it must produce, eventually, for the law. The gospel is merely a temporary island in the middle of the two eternal poles of the law. And thus the Gospel serves the Law rather than vice versa. Eventually. One might see it this way, the Gospel (and its freedom) are eventually lost if the Gospel eventually does not “produce” what the Law needs, especially after conversion. Which misses Luther’s point on a life of repentance in the 95 Thesis. IF the Gospel does not eventually produce, then it becomes altered into “love” that begets a Law-gospel if you will. If the Gospel does not produce then it is altered very subtly and so is consequently Christian “freedom”. By this “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” becomes pure bondage to the law and produces nothing but sin. The essence of sin is not the “negative sin list”.

    Keep in mind the “simul Justus et peccator” in the sacramentarian paradigm is not the same as it is in Luther’s. In the sacramentarian paradigm it is conceive as a more or less calculus whereby one is – post conversion – X% sinner and Y% saint. “Conversion” for Calvin, Arminian and Roman theology is fundamentally the same, along ontological lines or being or essence. This is crucial to grasp because it is the re-introduction of Aristotle back into Christian faith (this was the error Luther saw tainting Med. Rome). Rather the (true) simul justus… is sinner in reality saint in hope. The reality for Luther is escatologically in faith only and not ontologically. As Paulson points out the simul justus et peccator man is not one person in which two wills battle out the psychology, but is two persons in one man, the old man Adam still under the Law and the Law effects him the same as a complete ‘non-convert’, increases sin, etc… The new man in Christ has the Law already fulfilled for him and dismisses it. Luther distinguishes between the “Law” and the “will of the Father”. What the old Adam cannot “get” (ever) is that the Law is both good and yet never ever attains to anything whatsoever concerning righteousness, it is not Christ nor can it be. The “good” of the Law, the old Adam, sees more or less as a way to achieve righteousness and eschew more or less gross sins. This is the “old pious wish” Luther speaks of. This is why eventually the old Adam sees some value, if not only post conversion, in the Law and why eventually he eschews, even if only implied, that the law does nothing unto righteousness – even post conversion. But the real good of the Law is that it always kills this old Adam, this is the good of the Law the new man sees whereby one ONLY has Christ as his/her righteousness, always and continually never ceasing. And therein lay the Christian freedom.

    Luther well shows this: “By no means, therefore, is the righteousness of the law or of works to be understood only of ceremonies, but rather of the whole decalogue. For whatever good is done outside the faith of Christ, even if it makes Fabricii and Reguli, men who were righteous before men, yet it no more savors of justification than do apples of figs. For we are not, as Aristotle thinks, made righteous by doing right, execpt in appearance, but (if I may so express it) when we are righteous in essence we do right. It is necessary that the character be changed before the deeds; Abel pleased before his gifts.”

    So it depends on what paradigm “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” is meant. It is perfectly like Luther if one understands that neither past, nor present nor future, no post conversion “one had nothing left to loose” because the “old pious wish” of the old Adam, was, is and always will be a fraudulent grasp of the office of the Law. The Law is the tiny island in between the poles of the eternal Gospel, it is this Word, Gospel (forgiveness of one’s sin), that is the Verbum Dei Manet Aeturnum, also the 100th Psalm, “His mercy endures forever” (literally).

  • Pete

    Bob Dylan said, “When you think you’ve lost everything, you find out you can always lose a little more.” (from the song, “Tryin’ To Get To Heaven”.) Possibly a reference to the “old pious wish” noted above.

  • Pete

    Bob Dylan said, “When you think you’ve lost everything, you find out you can always lose a little more.” (from the song, “Tryin’ To Get To Heaven”.) Possibly a reference to the “old pious wish” noted above.

  • Dan Kempin

    Listening to Janis Joplin, though I love her music, invariably makes me sad. I think I have a problem enjoying art without also considering the artist. (I think that’s also why I am not a big Hemingway guy.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Listening to Janis Joplin, though I love her music, invariably makes me sad. I think I have a problem enjoying art without also considering the artist. (I think that’s also why I am not a big Hemingway guy.)

  • Helen F

    Dr. Veith, could you explain the Lutheran sensibility of “Sunday Morning Coming Down”? Thank you.

  • Helen F

    Dr. Veith, could you explain the Lutheran sensibility of “Sunday Morning Coming Down”? Thank you.

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Ed

    “Freedom’s just another name for nothing left to lose.”

    In Christ I already have everything I need. The freedom of the Christian is a freedom from the Law, a freedom from religion, a freedom from a spiritual security based on perfomance. Because I know I cannot add to or take away from what Christ has accomplished for me I am free to fail without fearing that God will somehow reject me. The Christian has nothing left to lose because he has already gained eveything!

    This freedom means I can sleep at night. I want to keep the law, I want to love my neighbor, I want to “do right”. But at the end of the day there will always be a list of things that I have done or failed to do that the Accuser could use against me. There will always be more people to care for, more people to “save”, more people that I have not loved as I love myself, more people than I have the financial or spiritual resources to love. If it were not for the freedom of Christ I could never experience what Sabbath means.

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Ed

    “Freedom’s just another name for nothing left to lose.”

    In Christ I already have everything I need. The freedom of the Christian is a freedom from the Law, a freedom from religion, a freedom from a spiritual security based on perfomance. Because I know I cannot add to or take away from what Christ has accomplished for me I am free to fail without fearing that God will somehow reject me. The Christian has nothing left to lose because he has already gained eveything!

    This freedom means I can sleep at night. I want to keep the law, I want to love my neighbor, I want to “do right”. But at the end of the day there will always be a list of things that I have done or failed to do that the Accuser could use against me. There will always be more people to care for, more people to “save”, more people that I have not loved as I love myself, more people than I have the financial or spiritual resources to love. If it were not for the freedom of Christ I could never experience what Sabbath means.

  • michael henry

    Coming from a dope user who died without Jesus Christ it means nothing.

  • michael henry

    Coming from a dope user who died without Jesus Christ it means nothing.

  • L. H. Kevil

    I must be missing something here. I thought “nothing left to lose” meant that everything had already been lost. So murderers believing they are already damned think they have nothing left to lose that is not already lost and so have the ‘freedom’ to go ahead and commit more crimes. Not what you want to hear from baptized believers. It’s quite the opposite of being in Christ and therefore having the assurance of never losing anything of eternal importance.

  • L. H. Kevil

    I must be missing something here. I thought “nothing left to lose” meant that everything had already been lost. So murderers believing they are already damned think they have nothing left to lose that is not already lost and so have the ‘freedom’ to go ahead and commit more crimes. Not what you want to hear from baptized believers. It’s quite the opposite of being in Christ and therefore having the assurance of never losing anything of eternal importance.

  • FoC’er

    “nothin’ left to lose”—sounds like desperation. This is a good example of eisagesis, reading into a text what simply is not there. Kristofferson’s song is about a drunk with a hangover who wants to wash away the regret of a wasted life by recalling a less troubled youth. Sells well to some.

  • FoC’er

    “nothin’ left to lose”—sounds like desperation. This is a good example of eisagesis, reading into a text what simply is not there. Kristofferson’s song is about a drunk with a hangover who wants to wash away the regret of a wasted life by recalling a less troubled youth. Sells well to some.

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Ed

    She may have died in her sin without ever knowing the Truth, but that does not mean that she never expressed anything that was true! The question for us to ask is, “is it redeemable?”

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Ed

    She may have died in her sin without ever knowing the Truth, but that does not mean that she never expressed anything that was true! The question for us to ask is, “is it redeemable?”

  • DonS

    “Only when we realise we have nothing to lose because we are in Christ can we truly give ourselves in service to others.”

    I’m with L.H. Kevil @ 8. Trueman misinterpreted the phrase “nothin’ left to lose” in the context of the song, interpreting it as “nothing to lose”. We have nothing to lose because of Christ; the protagonist in the song had nothing left to lose because in her mind all was lost anyway. There’s a certain freedom that attaches to having nothing left to lose, but it’s a lack of caring about what comes next — a numbness — rather than the joy we have because of our freedom in Christ.

  • DonS

    “Only when we realise we have nothing to lose because we are in Christ can we truly give ourselves in service to others.”

    I’m with L.H. Kevil @ 8. Trueman misinterpreted the phrase “nothin’ left to lose” in the context of the song, interpreting it as “nothing to lose”. We have nothing to lose because of Christ; the protagonist in the song had nothing left to lose because in her mind all was lost anyway. There’s a certain freedom that attaches to having nothing left to lose, but it’s a lack of caring about what comes next — a numbness — rather than the joy we have because of our freedom in Christ.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Well, I just like Kristofferson as a songwriter period. And these are two of my more favorite songs of his. Past couple weeks, I’ve been listening to a lot of Outlaw Country.
    Here is my take. Me and Bobby McGee, whats it about? A time in life when with nothing left to lose, to lovers hit the road to enjoy life. And this is not typically seen by Christians as what life is supposed to be about, enjoyment that is. Tends to be people are worried about what others think, their reputations, their ladder. The thing is everything we hold onto in this regard is as worthless as “sh!t” to paraphrase Paul in the great letter of Philipians, and when we finally figure that out, we have nothing left to lose, we begin to enjoy life. A good picture of this is Tullian Tchividjian’s book “Jesus+ Nothing = Everything,” where Billy Graham’s Grandson seems to have discovered Lutheranism, and might wake that Giant his Grandfather warned American Protestantism about. We have nothing to lose, we have freedom in Christ, who gives us all we need, who is both our Justification and our sanctification. We have Freedom to be enjoyed.
    As to the other song, if you can’t figure out what drinking beer on Sunday morning has to do with being Lutheran, well find your cleanest dirty shirt and have another one for desert, it might hit you.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Well, I just like Kristofferson as a songwriter period. And these are two of my more favorite songs of his. Past couple weeks, I’ve been listening to a lot of Outlaw Country.
    Here is my take. Me and Bobby McGee, whats it about? A time in life when with nothing left to lose, to lovers hit the road to enjoy life. And this is not typically seen by Christians as what life is supposed to be about, enjoyment that is. Tends to be people are worried about what others think, their reputations, their ladder. The thing is everything we hold onto in this regard is as worthless as “sh!t” to paraphrase Paul in the great letter of Philipians, and when we finally figure that out, we have nothing left to lose, we begin to enjoy life. A good picture of this is Tullian Tchividjian’s book “Jesus+ Nothing = Everything,” where Billy Graham’s Grandson seems to have discovered Lutheranism, and might wake that Giant his Grandfather warned American Protestantism about. We have nothing to lose, we have freedom in Christ, who gives us all we need, who is both our Justification and our sanctification. We have Freedom to be enjoyed.
    As to the other song, if you can’t figure out what drinking beer on Sunday morning has to do with being Lutheran, well find your cleanest dirty shirt and have another one for desert, it might hit you.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Well, perhaps Bobby McGee shows a Lutheran sensibility, but keep in mind that “Mercedes Benz” has got to be about the prosperity “gospel”. And what about her screams? Is that charismatic?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Well, perhaps Bobby McGee shows a Lutheran sensibility, but keep in mind that “Mercedes Benz” has got to be about the prosperity “gospel”. And what about her screams? Is that charismatic?

  • Jon

    “Lutheranism” isn’t Jesus + nothing, it’s Jesus + the Book of Concord. Or, better, Jesus + Luther’s personal convictions about all kinds of things. Where Lutherans differ is over what follows the + . Hence ECLA v. Missouri and Wisconsin v. Missouri, etc.

    As for Joplin, she was real, wasn’t she? And gone from us much too soon.

  • Jon

    “Lutheranism” isn’t Jesus + nothing, it’s Jesus + the Book of Concord. Or, better, Jesus + Luther’s personal convictions about all kinds of things. Where Lutherans differ is over what follows the + . Hence ECLA v. Missouri and Wisconsin v. Missouri, etc.

    As for Joplin, she was real, wasn’t she? And gone from us much too soon.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Point taken, Bike Bubba. But I don’t think Janis Joplin was a Lutheran. Kris Kristofferson, who wrote “Me & Bobby McGee,” was the Lutheran. Once again, the writers get overshadowed by the performers, even though the latter often just sing what someone else has written for them.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Point taken, Bike Bubba. But I don’t think Janis Joplin was a Lutheran. Kris Kristofferson, who wrote “Me & Bobby McGee,” was the Lutheran. Once again, the writers get overshadowed by the performers, even though the latter often just sing what someone else has written for them.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Freedom is Jesus plus ‘nothing’.

    And that means nothing else…at all…is required.

    I know a lot of Lutherans who have trouble with this…let alone the vast majority of the world’s Christians.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Freedom is Jesus plus ‘nothing’.

    And that means nothing else…at all…is required.

    I know a lot of Lutherans who have trouble with this…let alone the vast majority of the world’s Christians.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Jon,
    So you have read the Book of Concord? And after reading it have come to conclude that it puts forward anything but Christ’s active and passive obedience for the Justification and sanctification of the believer? Interesting.
    What I found more interesting in reading Tullian, is that he has found quite a bit of inspiration reading Lutheran authors.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Jon,
    So you have read the Book of Concord? And after reading it have come to conclude that it puts forward anything but Christ’s active and passive obedience for the Justification and sanctification of the believer? Interesting.
    What I found more interesting in reading Tullian, is that he has found quite a bit of inspiration reading Lutheran authors.

  • Julian

    This is probably Kristofferson’s best known line (he’s written far better ones, in my opinion, and his early songs were loaded with Christian imagery and themes sung by low-down sinners), but my personal favorite was a remark he hurled at a heckler once.

    “If I want any sh*t out of you, I’ll squeeze your head.”

    Worth remembering as we go into campaign season.

  • Julian

    This is probably Kristofferson’s best known line (he’s written far better ones, in my opinion, and his early songs were loaded with Christian imagery and themes sung by low-down sinners), but my personal favorite was a remark he hurled at a heckler once.

    “If I want any sh*t out of you, I’ll squeeze your head.”

    Worth remembering as we go into campaign season.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I can’t stand Janis Joplin, sorry — neither her vocal stylings or whatever genre(s) she represented. That almost certainly colors my ability to assess her music as per this post.

    Anyhow, Veith said (@15),

    Kris Kristofferson, who wrote “Me & Bobby McGee,” was the Lutheran.

    Sorry, but is there a basis for this factoid beyond those ridiculous lists of “famous Lutherans” that float around the Internet? Because, literally, that’s almost all you find when you Google [Kris Kristofferson Lutheran]. I mean, this factoid is so otherwise unknown that this very blog post shows up on the first page of Google results for that search!

    Point being, not only does it seem to me that some artistic eisegesis going on with respect to these actual lyrics, but it seems informed by, well, potential misinformation.

    Once again, the writers get overshadowed by the performers, even though the latter often just sing what someone else has written for them.

    Is this surprising? Is this even bad? Would anyone prefer to hear Kristofferson himself sing this song? I’ve already stated my position vis-a-vis Joplin, and even I don’t think I’d prefer Kristofferson’s version.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I can’t stand Janis Joplin, sorry — neither her vocal stylings or whatever genre(s) she represented. That almost certainly colors my ability to assess her music as per this post.

    Anyhow, Veith said (@15),

    Kris Kristofferson, who wrote “Me & Bobby McGee,” was the Lutheran.

    Sorry, but is there a basis for this factoid beyond those ridiculous lists of “famous Lutherans” that float around the Internet? Because, literally, that’s almost all you find when you Google [Kris Kristofferson Lutheran]. I mean, this factoid is so otherwise unknown that this very blog post shows up on the first page of Google results for that search!

    Point being, not only does it seem to me that some artistic eisegesis going on with respect to these actual lyrics, but it seems informed by, well, potential misinformation.

    Once again, the writers get overshadowed by the performers, even though the latter often just sing what someone else has written for them.

    Is this surprising? Is this even bad? Would anyone prefer to hear Kristofferson himself sing this song? I’ve already stated my position vis-a-vis Joplin, and even I don’t think I’d prefer Kristofferson’s version.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    tODD,
    Actually Kris does sing this song on one of his albums, and I liked it better than Janis’s version.
    As for his being Lutheran, I’m never sure how accurate those lists are, of course I suspect from his last name that there might be truth to him having grown up Lutheran, but then I also suspect that might be the only reason he is included in those lists. In any case, you really have to work on your taste in music.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    tODD,
    Actually Kris does sing this song on one of his albums, and I liked it better than Janis’s version.
    As for his being Lutheran, I’m never sure how accurate those lists are, of course I suspect from his last name that there might be truth to him having grown up Lutheran, but then I also suspect that might be the only reason he is included in those lists. In any case, you really have to work on your taste in music.

  • Dust

    I don’t think freedom is nothing left to lose, that’s more like desperation!

    Freedom is fear of losing whatever is yours, and that is the kind of freedom a Christian can enjoy, now and forever!

  • Dust

    I don’t think freedom is nothing left to lose, that’s more like desperation!

    Freedom is fear of losing whatever is yours, and that is the kind of freedom a Christian can enjoy, now and forever!

  • CRB

    Bror,
    Have you ever heard Kris’s Silver-tongued devil and I album? One of his best!

  • CRB

    Bror,
    Have you ever heard Kris’s Silver-tongued devil and I album? One of his best!

  • Dust

    big oops….in 20, should be freedom is no fear of losing, yikes!

    and, furthermore, the more valuable the things you have, the more the fear or concern about losing them, generally, but not so for us…we have the pearl of great price and nothing can ever take it from us, we are more than conquerors thru Him who loved us….

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    big oops….in 20, should be freedom is no fear of losing, yikes!

    and, furthermore, the more valuable the things you have, the more the fear or concern about losing them, generally, but not so for us…we have the pearl of great price and nothing can ever take it from us, we are more than conquerors thru Him who loved us….

    Cheers!

  • fws

    What the Law does is to take away every thing we have. That is precisely what the Law in action does. Christians call this process “mortification” which means deathing in latin.

    The sad thing is that ALL men are experiencing this. This is why we can deeply relate to the words of a young drug addict who seemingly lived a very dissipated life.

    Only the baptized also have a Life that is hidden away in Christ. Was Janice baptized? Was Kris? For the reason I stated above, I would be more interested in the answer to that question than the less interesting one of whether or not Kris was ever catechized as a Lutheran.

  • fws

    What the Law does is to take away every thing we have. That is precisely what the Law in action does. Christians call this process “mortification” which means deathing in latin.

    The sad thing is that ALL men are experiencing this. This is why we can deeply relate to the words of a young drug addict who seemingly lived a very dissipated life.

    Only the baptized also have a Life that is hidden away in Christ. Was Janice baptized? Was Kris? For the reason I stated above, I would be more interested in the answer to that question than the less interesting one of whether or not Kris was ever catechized as a Lutheran.

  • fws

    jon @ 14

    Brother Jon. I would encourage you to take a deep breath. One of the persons you are addressing here, who is an LCMS Lutheran is me. I happen to be a gay man. Watch the interactions here over time. Lots of folks disagree with me lots of the time on alot of things here. But they generally include me here in the category of “us” rather than “them’.

    That seems to be evidence that would sorta challenge your perspective I am suggesting. And I second Bror’s kind invitation to actually take up the Book of Concord and give it a read!

    If you think the exercise here is just mindlessly embracing whatever has the label “Lutheran” and dissing whatever does not conform to a myopic clinging to Luther and the Book of Concord I would urge to take a chill pill.

    And one more thing Jon: I am so glad you are here. Stick around.

  • fws

    jon @ 14

    Brother Jon. I would encourage you to take a deep breath. One of the persons you are addressing here, who is an LCMS Lutheran is me. I happen to be a gay man. Watch the interactions here over time. Lots of folks disagree with me lots of the time on alot of things here. But they generally include me here in the category of “us” rather than “them’.

    That seems to be evidence that would sorta challenge your perspective I am suggesting. And I second Bror’s kind invitation to actually take up the Book of Concord and give it a read!

    If you think the exercise here is just mindlessly embracing whatever has the label “Lutheran” and dissing whatever does not conform to a myopic clinging to Luther and the Book of Concord I would urge to take a chill pill.

    And one more thing Jon: I am so glad you are here. Stick around.

  • larry

    “Tends to be people are worried about what others think, their reputations, their ladder”

    Good one Bror!

    The lawyers are always “spying out” Christian freedom so they can spiritually put one in irons. It’s literally what they “live” for. If one attempts to defend against them with more/other Law eventually they will shackle one. Rather as they keep reaching for your wrists to put on the shackles, just splash some baptism in their faces, baptism always stops the Law and says, “death here, your jurisdiction ends here and can go no further”. The Law can no more cross baptism than Pharaoh could the Red Sea. This is what is behind Luther’s famous “I am baptized”.

  • larry

    “Tends to be people are worried about what others think, their reputations, their ladder”

    Good one Bror!

    The lawyers are always “spying out” Christian freedom so they can spiritually put one in irons. It’s literally what they “live” for. If one attempts to defend against them with more/other Law eventually they will shackle one. Rather as they keep reaching for your wrists to put on the shackles, just splash some baptism in their faces, baptism always stops the Law and says, “death here, your jurisdiction ends here and can go no further”. The Law can no more cross baptism than Pharaoh could the Red Sea. This is what is behind Luther’s famous “I am baptized”.

  • Pingback: Janis Joplin- Hesitation Blues « Throughhisown's Weblog

  • Pingback: Janis Joplin- Hesitation Blues « Throughhisown's Weblog


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X