Skip to main content
I was thinking about Counting Crows, and this great batch of lines from a song of note: She looks up at the building/says she's thinkin' a jumpin'/she says she's tired of life/she must tired of somethin'. I can think of exactly twice in my whole life when the thought of ending it all crossed my mind. (That still probably means there's something horribly wrong with me. Fine.) But it's weird how Jesus being Lord is this ever-present reality saying, "No!" to that kind of thinking. I didn't even know or belong to Jesus that first time. But somebody told me somehow that I'd miss out on something important, that my life had true consequence. Our true hope in life is resurrection and consummation. It's not really religious or theological at all in the end. Just reality.
I'm not even remotely sad about anything, in case you're wondering. I was just reflecting on how pain and suffering has seemed to bring clarity to me in my life. Because we all seem to be yearning for love, to receive it, to give it, don't you think? At the margins, we disagree about what love is at times, but just like Supreme Court Justices watching porn, we know it when we see it.
What is the last day, if not the ultimate victory of (God) Love? The hard part is convincing people (ahem, myself) where the true love resides. We have this intuition for it, but it's wildly inconsistent. Left to ourselves, we'd never find love. I'm casting my lot with Jesus again, right now. Each day, I see myself turning elsewhere for love, etc. but it ends with no finality, no victory.
Maybe I am a fool, but the Jesus I read about in the New Testament seems capable of keeping promises. Worth betting on. I can't get it out of my head: "What if this thing [the NT] is true?" (If so, that old covenant is true also.) So, if I were to announce the truth of these covenants, that God is real and has spoken, and will judge the world, it doesn't seem like there's room to be the societal glue social scientists are always claiming preachers have been. Good thing, seems harder than teaching from the Bible. Thus concludes a long winding treatise about nothing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un