Skip to main content

A Grace

I was reflecting on what I wrote last night--mine in a certain sense is a battle for self-acceptance--in the aftermath of some family troubles (please pray for us) when I believe the Lord gave me this insight: I have David's heart. When I thought it, my next thought was, "Don't kid yourself, buddy." But David was far from monolithic in his time here; he had great highs in his walk with the Lord, and great lows. But always the strongest desire in the core of his being to be with God. Have you ever felt this tension, between what you know of yourself in your sinfulness, and yet that your strongest desire is to be loved and accepted by Him?

Back when, at the Old School, I took some training in preaching. (Yes; try not to faint.) When they taught us, they said: "Avoid 'be like' sermons." As in, be like David, or be like the other heroes in the biblical story. As an aside, so-called "expository preaching" involves unfolding a particular biblical text: the purpose for which it was written, the audience, its place in biblical theology, an applied purpose or problem for one's own situation, and the textual features that may be relevant to living life as a believer. And then you'd just preach it, man. I'm going to be blunt: Most homilies in the Catholic Church suck, at least here in America. And the reasons are very simple: Some of her ministers do not know the love of Christ. And you cannot give what you don't have. And secondly, her ministers mistakenly assume not only biblical knowledge, but biblical faith. They are rudely awakened when the people persist knowingly in grave sin, and do not show forth the fruit of the Spirit, but the conceit is still there.

It should be noted, however, that the heart of Catholic liturgical life is the Eucharist, not the homily. So that gives us a context to adjust our expectations accordingly. Still, even accounting for the different preaching method and purpose, there is work to be done. St. John Chrysostom, pray for us! If you want to know why people persist in various theological errors as Protestants, despite the fact that it seems so clear to you or me what the catholic and apostolic faith is, try to understand: there is power in holiness. I can know all I care to know about the true doctrine of the Church and the Eucharist, etc. but a Protestant knows holiness when he sees it. And he knows its opposite also. The Reformation in some sense is justifiably a rebuke to a lifeless Church.

I digress. I don't fear to tell myself to be like David and the other saints now, because an effort on my part has a theological context of grace and the whole biblical story to back it up. Perhaps for others in the Church, that is not so. Though we as Protestants had read and heard the story many times, we never presumed that we did not need to hear it again. We could learn from the separated brethren in this way.

So then, it is really a crisis of catechesis that it reflected in the homily. We have the treasure of the fullness of truth. It's time to use it.

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