Skip to main content
Before I get to something substantive and theological, there are 3 things I am positively amped (that's right, AMPED) about. Tomorrow (or today, in roughly 10 minutes) when I rise, my seminary grades for the last term will be made known to me. (It's about time, boys, with all due respect.) Also tomorrow, the Michigan primaries for both Democrats and Republicans will take place, and we'll be that much closer to knowing who our (main) two parties will nominate for President of the United States. (It inspires me just to type that; I couldn't be cynical about this even if I tried!) Thinking back on it, my mother instilled in us a quiet, yet forceful patriotism and love for this USA. We're not unquestioning apologists, by any means, but we have/had this hope that this country can be what we want it to be, that people can indeed change things for the better. I have grown up simply knowing that:

1. It's un-American to talk loudly/make excessive noise/boo when our president is giving a major speech; (like when a group of folks is viewing it on TV)
2. It only makes sense to vote at least every 2 years;
3. The people/person we didn't vote for is a human being, and it's also un-American to wish them ill even if they really are an immoral, lying liar. (smile)
4. The American people make the right choices in elections (looking back on it) a lot of the time.
5. High elected offices are not the easiest jobs, so we ought to temper even our harshest criticism with the realization that the vast majority of us would assume the fetal position within a week of holding said offices, no matter how smart we think we are.

I applaud whenever the president is introduced for the State of the Union, and I have done so as far back as I can remember. I thought everyone did this, even in their living rooms. Apparently, that's trite and naive. I put my hand over my heart during our national anthem, and sometimes I sing it. Again, I thought everyone did this. I don't recall ever thinking that America was held hostage by any of the occupants of Oval Office. Frankly, I can't really remember hoping for the end of anyone's presidency; even today, it seems profoundly immoral to think that. I'm a sheep, I know. Fine, be bitter and angry; people like that never change anything for the better. In spite of ourselves, Americans have done good in the world. The Republic has endured many things, some challenges so great that, by rights, this nation should have fallen. But we are still here, after some 230 years. Our founders must've been on to something. We'll endure, despite whatever horrific policies certain politicians we dislike will enact. I believe this because not all of us think only of ourselves; not all of us are ignorant of the magnitude of the gift that is our republic. Indeed, a great many know that we must cherish and protect our rights and those of our fellow citizens, even when they exercise them in a way we dislike. So long as we are free--no, so long as God the Just rules and reigns, we have no reason to lose hope. Even if we did not live in so free and blessed a nation as this one, hope would abide; faith abides; love, most certainly, as well. How could we possibly take refuge in a detached cynicism in such a place, though visions of America are as numerous as sand on the seashore? Though politics is a war of sorts, and its contests ought to be marked by profound disagreement (for truth of any kind scarcely becomes known with ease) we Americans are happy warriors, because we have committed ourselves (very successfully, on the whole) to a set of noble processes, to which we will adhere unswervingly, even in the face of political and ideological defeat. That is the very definition of patriotism, to me. So when I speak of unity, I am referring not to a unaminity of thought, but to that unswerving loyalty to our Constitution, which speaks to our common humanity, and our common inheritance in liberty as Americans. This is why I'm excited about our election.

(What a pompous paragraph.) I'm also extremely excited that Brett Favre is so close to the Super Bowl. Some said he was too old. They were wrong. When I think of an athlete I'd want to be, it's often him. He seemingly truly is a regular guy. If I could be the personal chaplain to a famous athlete, he's my first choice. I'm not sure why, exactly; football isn't even my favorite sport. But Favre shows us above all that football (and sports in general) should be fun, even when millions of dollars are at stake. I saw Brett play his best game the night after he suddenly lost his father before Christmas in 2003. I saw him demolish my hometown team on Monday Night Football in his 200th consecutive start at quarterback (a streak still current, roughly four years later). I can recall watching him play his worst game against that same home team (when he threw 6 interceptions) and I knew I had begun to appreciate this man when I wasn't remotely happy about winning that game, a playoff contest in 2001. When Favre's skills were at their height, I don't recall appreciating what I was seeing, understanding its rarity. So if I am too effusive in my praise for an aging legend, please forgive me; I'm making up for lost time. Go Packers!

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