And now for some more observations on the secular song front.  In part two I turn to Erin McCarley and Ecclesiastes.  First I’ll start off with the perspective I have of Ecclesiastes per one of my favorite teachers, Bob Gladstone.  Ecclesiastes is the only valid philosophy/wisdom apart from the reality of a resurrection (to come, of course).  If there were no eternity postmortem that we had to face, then Ecclesiastes has the right outlook on life: everything is meaningless.  Fear God and obey His commands, but it’s all in vain (1:2 and 12:8, 13). 

And now to the song.  I never heard of Erin until I looked up a song that got my attention…”Love, Save the Empty”.  For a long time now relationships and family have been important subjects to me, so the opening line of this song is all it took to make me curious: “Little girls don’t know how to be sweet girls, momma didn’t teach me…Little boys don’t know how to treat little girls, daddy didn’t show me.”  I thought to myself, “Why would somebody who doesn’t care too much for God care at all about this?  What would it matter to her if girls don’t act like girls and boys don’t really respect girls?  (After all, modern gender teaching tells us that there really is no difference between guys and girls [perhaps with the exception of some anatomy] and that it’s ok that little boys don’t know how to treat little girls…they’re merely exploring!)” 

Before I lose some of you who are already raising the objection, “How do you know she doesn’t care too much for God…Just because she doesn’t sing Christian music doesn’t mean she isn’t a Christian,” I refer to another song of this singer/songwriter called “Pitter Pat”.  (In all fairness, you probably raised that objection in part 1 of this two-part blog, but I decided to talk about it now anyway.)  This is actually the song that screams “ECCLESIASTES” to me (it might be worth reading all the lyrics to get a better feel for where I’m coming from) and reinforces my thoughts on “Love, Save the Empty”.  It’s a song that is full of struggle in which the opening verse declares that she “took [her] faith and [she] breathed it out.”  Having let go of her faith she then finds herself walking through “a cloud of flashing lights” and “bright lies.”  That cloud was the passage way into the struggle she was about to describe throughout the rest of the song.  Just consider the list of things she struggles over: bitter-sweet memories of having made love to somebody, memories that she can neither face nor erase; losing a sense of right and wrong, justifying it, only later to realize she is left a fool; the clock ticking away as the angel on her shoulder reminds her of the decision she has to make.  And what does she perceive as remaining?  Pain in her heart as a result of her love-making.  Talk about meaningless!  And it all started with a simple breathing out of her faith.

So what of “Love, Save the Empty”?  Returning to a common theme, she finds herself in someone’s bed wondering why she gave it up to him.  Obviously feeling some sort of despair she goes on to wonder, “Is this how I shoot myself high…just high enough to get through?”  It reminds me of so many testimonies I’ve heard of people who said they were trying to fill the “void” with sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.  (Ok, so maybe people don’t say rock ‘n’ roll…it just seemed to fit.)  She rightly recognizes it as false affection that only results in an internal breakdown. 

She moves on to describe a little boy who stares at the sky with nobody to look back.  How could anybody look back if there is no God?  How, then, does he live his life?  He has a perpetual façade that brings him false attention…only to crash and also have an internal breakdown. 

So what is the prayer of this godless woman(do godless women even pray)?  It’s actually a very good prayer, if you ask me.  Her prayer is this:  “Love, save the empty.  What I mean by that is, Love, save ME, because I am empty.”  And with all the breaking down she pleads, “Love, hold us together.”  There is one major irony to this prayer.  God is love (1 John 4:16).  How can God save you if you have “breathed Him out” and declared Him to be nonexistent?  Like the man who prayed, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13), she almost gets it.  But what she fails to get is the work she must do to acquire the longing of her heart, and that work is “to believe in the one [God] has sent,” (John 6:29), namely Jesus.  Until that happens, she will be left chasing the wind screaming, “Love, save me!”  But what I’m wondering is if while she’s running in vain, if she will stumble on a believer (or better yet, a group of believers) who not only defend the gospel, but confirm it as well, realizing that true love is only found and increases in the knowledge of Him who is love (cf. Philippians 1:7,9).

I have a personal project that I'm kinda working on...well, I at least was and want to get back to.  I just reopened some of what I've written and thought I'd share it with whomever is interested.  I'd like some feedback if you have the time and don't mind.  Half the fun for me is in the discussion.  I focus on a small passage, but for better context it would be good to read John 13:1-30 (or as far as you like).  So, here it is...

John 13:2-3

These verses seem to point out two contrasting, if not distinct, issues at play in the setting of the upper room.  Both reflect the internal nature of Jesus, not simply the relative circumstance he found himself in and the facts involved.  Jesus is ready to show the disciples the full extent of his love (v. 1), but there is a potential roadblock to his ability to express it.  This roadblock is not the overt “Never!” (v. 8) that comes from Peter externally, but his knowledge of his betrayer sitting with him in that very room, prepared to leave and hand him over to be crucified.  This kind of roadblock is an internal struggle that asks, “Why should I love like this when it will be treated with such contempt?”  If such an internal struggle were allowed to persist, the comfort of there being only one betrayer among twelve could easily have been overshadowed by the fact that the rest would eventually scatter and he would be left alone (cf. Mk. 14:27).  In other words, the struggle wouldn’t be over only one who was going to turn away from him, but all twelve.  Instead, having not trusted in any man (2:24)[1], Jesus clings to a reality that is greater than the situation he faces, the knowledge “that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God” (v. 3, NASB).  The natural outflow of such knowledge leads to freedom (cf. cf. Prov. 11:9); a freedom that allows Jesus to condescend and lay aside his authority, become as a servant (cf. Philippians 2:7), and thereby elevate his disciples (cf. Ps. 18:35)…even in the face of betrayal and abandonment. 

A funny thing happend on my way through Proverbs 31.  I noticed what kind of husband the wife of noble character had (verse 23).  He doesn't really seem to be somebody worth noting, after all, what's the big deal about being known at the city gates and sitting around with bunch of old people?  You tell me how many cities you've had to enter by going through a gate.  And then tell me what more the old people there were doing of any value beyond keeping the pace of traffic to a crawl.  It's a good thing that context matters.  It's also a good thing that I know that context matters.  After all, would you want to read a blog about the greatness of old men who sit around twiddling their thumbs while making wise-cracks at those who pass by. 

So what kind of man is it?  Back in the day, the "elders" (not necessarily because they were old) were the men who were full of character, wisdom, integrity, etc.  The gate was the place where these elders met to settle civil disputes or impart wisdom to those who sought understanding (cf. Prov. 8; 31:8-9).  The men who were privileged enough to have a place at the gate were the most honored and respected men in the community.  Pure in heart, loving the truth, unshakable in their faith.  They're the kind of men you could trust your children with.  The cream of the crop.  And it is interesting to note that one of the attributes of a noble wife is a high quality husband, which is presupposed in the verses preceding the characteristics of a noble wife.  In other words, a noble wife should expect nothing less than a noble husband.  And for men expecting high quality, they are first to be a person of high quality.  Then they'll be privileged enough to be one of the traits of a noble wife.  "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD" (Prov. 18:22).  It is no small thing to live up to such a favor that comes from the Lord.  And if a wife of noble character is rare, her husband is no less rare.