Skip to main content
It comes to pass as I sit here and write this that my quest to find God's whole Truth (essentially to know Christ more fully) is not near over. Some days, I can picture being a Catholic with all that it means, while others, I simply sense of whole pile of unfalsifiable dogma, wrapped in a blanket of unfalsifiable ecclesial infalliability. I'd like to leap, and dare God to bless me, but as "Uncle Marty" might say, that's neither right nor safe to me at this time.

Worse still, I love my place as a student at a Reformed seminary. I think the men and women they will graduate will be shown to be noble warriors for the cause of Christ, and it is my distinct honor to call so many friends. People are in great need, and so many will find rest for their souls in such people. And each day would be a battle I'd gladly take up. The world most certainly does not revolve around me. Yet I am confident enough to say that my denomination and the people we serve would be better off with me in their lives. And priesthood of all believers or no, anyone who'd bother denying a special bond between the members of the ordained clergy is a filthy liar. I've looked forward to that, too.

Permit me this one vanity: I can preach it, brother. I don't really care (that much) to be thought of as a good preacher, but the very act of it has brought me joy, and that only in practice settings. But I just know: I'm good at part of this, at least.

Very few nobler things have arisen in Reformed (and/or) Protestant life than the expository sermon. Open the Scripture, and throw it down in the power of God's Spirit. I know you feel me. Schism or heresy aside, you Catholic brothers secretly dream of Catholic Spurgeons, Whitefields, and Edwardses. Stop lying to yourself and us :) I will drop it verse-by-verse on your forehead like MJ dropping 51 and 45 on back-to-back nights at 39. I have sometimes dreamt of being an elected official who could give a great sermon upon request. Not like those thinly veiled political commercials the Democratic candidates always get to make, while the party of alleged separation between church and state utters nary a peep. It's about the little people, you know? Predictably, Al Gore's text one morning had been James 2. State thievery clothed in religious authority and doctrine is still thievery. Next time you hear Obama utter that famous line, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" add on, "with other people's money" just for a laugh. If you understand that joke, you are, or have been some kind of conservative/libertarian/Republican/non-statist/non-Democrat. If it were a drinking game, I think we'd be in trouble. But I digress.

What would happen if our elected officials didn't just play-act at being Christians? [It'd be like 1800.--ed.] Or maybe while making such a to-do about separating the two spheres, we've conflated them, and God in Christ lost, at least in our hearts, and in our squares. [Are you a theocrat?--ed.] Hardly. Notice the order. But Jesus isn't just for show, either. But for the record, if I ever ran for office and you invite me to your church to preach/speak/etc. expect a sermon or the like, with nothing overtly political whatever. I think most Christian people do a better job of separating the two than most of the people hectoring them about it. I digress again.

A sharp critique, if I may: I often hear Catholic people lament the ongoing biblical ignorance of Catholics, despite at least a couple of generations of explicit teaching from the leadership firmly exhorting the faithful to read it. Well, as an evangelical Protestant at least for the moment, let me say this: Every once in a while, have a priest exposit a text, and only that text. Refer to said text repeatedly in the process. Make it clear that at least a substantial part of his authority at that moment arises from the indicatives and imperatives of that text. One need not set aside Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium, or any other thing. Make the people students of Scripture. If we Protestants have made errors, who better than a highly biblical, literate laity to show us, aided all the more by centuries of Church tradition? And for St. Peter's sake, stop taking it so easy on your priests re: the original languages! If they are the proper, appointed teachers of the gospel, (as you say) they should be able to be as least as literate concerning them as your average Protestant seminary-educated guy. (i.e., me) And your Scripture content overview classes ought to be as rigorous as mine, if they are not. (e.g., "Outline the book of Jeremiah.") No, I can't do that right now, thanks for asking. I don't know what I'm going to do. But I do know that every Catholic who's ever said, "I used to be Catholic, but then I read the Bible" is your problem, not mine, or Martin Luther's (despite what he may be guilty of).

Comments

Jamie Stober said…
"Schism or heresy aside, you Catholic brothers secretly dream of Catholic Spurgeons, Whitefields, and Edwardses. Stop lying to yourself and us :) I will drop it verse-by-verse on your forehead like MJ dropping 51 and 45 on back-to-back nights at 39."

My good friend, that has now got to be on the list as one of my top five all-time favorite quotes from anything I've ever read. I would love to be there to hear you drop it like that!

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