Skip to main content

Let Down

It was the quick double-buzz of the Facebook Mobile app, indicating that a message had been sent. Even though it was early in the morning, I was pumped. It meant that someone was trying to communicate with me. You probably have no idea what that actually means, but that's OK.

I'm always expecting one or two; I was hoping it was one of those. I used to get annoyed when my phone would ring; now, I'm not sure what I feel. I still don't like talking on it that much, but sometimes The Deb calls, and I don't mind.

Anyway, it wasn't a personal message; it was one of those group messages, and it had nothing to do with me. What a huge waste!

It's probably part of my sanctification process, these long stretches of silence. But I hate silence. At least people-silence. I will take sound-silence any time, with the notable exception of music. One thing I know about Hell is that there is no music. Profound Thought: Hell is the complete absence of Love, so if I'm right about music there, draw the conclusion: To make music is a profound act of love. Even angry music is wounded love.

You meet people sometimes who are not drawn to music in any way. At least that's what they say. I don't trust those people; just to review, I don't trust people who can't cry, and people who neither listen to, nor make music. [What if they are music people, but they can't cry?--ed.] They have a chance.

Comments

Kelly Boutross said…
I know *exactly* what you mean. Those darned Facebook group messages can mean some major momentary let-downs. :-D

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