After spending an evening at the home of a successful businessperson, the fellas and I went to Harpo's to sing karaoke on Saturday. Jay said he'd buy me a shot of something if I sang "Cherish" by Kool and the Gang. You all know I'd do it anyway:) So I did. I wasn't terribly impressed with myself, but I love that song. Apparently, so did the rest of the bar. (On the other hand, we took the place over.) I'm always singing it, which suggests two things, both of which are true: I love memorable love songs with catchy choruses, and I'm a hopeless romantic, bound for some kind of puncture to my sappy idealism. Lord-willing, it will happen once I'm stuck with her, and I love her too much to run away. Marriage, in other words. Perhaps that is its own foolish idealism. No matter. I strike thee down, cynicism! I laugh in thy face, devil, destroyer of all good things.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments