Skip to main content

Here's My Sign

There's a scene in one of my favorite movies, For Love Of The Game, (note that there is not in fact another "The" in the title) where our co-protagonist Jane is caught off-guard by Billy's forwardness on what amounts to a first date. So, she makes a semi-joking comment that people should wear signs about themselves. It would save everyone time, she says.

Well, mine would have more than one word, unlike in the movie. Of course, I got to thinking what I'd put on mine. Forgive me if this betrays some frustration, but mine would say, "I am neither same-sex attracted nor asexual, and I am most certainly not your brother."

On the other hand, it's true that I'm not exactly the same as you, ever so desirous I may be to feel as "normal" as possible. Living with a physical disability from the beginning makes you different. I couldn't really understand it until I listened to Stanley Hauerwas. I am vulnerable--even emotionally--in ways that you are not. I must trust others in ways you do not. I find it even amusing that I am a living rebuke to self-centeredness, because at any moment, I may have a need that requires the assistance of whomever is there. I almost crashed down a hillside last night, and two random guys felt the need to rush over to help out. They could have been murderers, for all we know. There is a child-like innocence about me that I both cherish and despise.

Every person wants to feel strong and in control. That could be pride, many times, but it's also part of our dignity as human beings in God's image. We have something to give, all of us. If you deny me that, you're denying God who made me. Yes, there is something dreadfully wrong. I know it as well as you. You think I failed to notice that I am not 9-time Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis?

I once joked in a somewhat off-color way that I would start a conversation with a group of women by flatly stating, "Everything works." I grant you as a Christian that this would be crude, but I'm a filthy liar if I tell you I haven't wondered if that wasn't exactly what someone wanted to know.

But I no longer live with the conceit that we are the same. And yet, there are still those profound human things that I still want and need. And things will go better if I know you understand that.

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