Skip to main content

Love Came Down

Never forget the Cross. That's an axiom. Upon it, the Lamb of God took away all the sins of the world. There is more we could say, but I won't, for prudence and clarity.

I realized the other day that we should not forget the Incarnation. He would be Priest and Victim at Calvary, but his willingness to do it was plain when he became one of us. God isn't some ogre in the sky, waiting to smack you with a clipboard; he came to take away your guilt, your shame, all of the things that make you (and me) less us than we are supposed to be.

The fear of Hell won't make you love with any love worth sharing. The heart-knowledge that, on that day, we got a fresh start that will never be undone, that will change the world. Feels a bit odd writing about this on Pentecost Sunday, but really, the Holy Spirit pours the love into our hearts, by which we know and see that we are loved.

There is no more waiting, no more "How long, O Lord?," in a certain sense, because God answered our cries in Christ. I used to think the saints were crazy. Yes, they are the saints, and it wasn't in any impious way, but I wondered how they could suffer so much, and have so much joy. A ton of them have asked God to suffer. Once you know at the deepest level of yourself that God is your Father, there isn't anything that can take your joy. They became witnesses of the Lord in suffering, precisely because the Light of the world is greater than any darkness.

My friend Johnny sang it this way: "'cause tonight's the night the world begins again." God's love and mercy makes today always the time to begin again.

Holy Spirit, pour into our hearts the love that will change the world. Remind us that we are children of the Father, who will never be orphaned. Speak it deep in our hearts, deeper than any fear or temptation will ever reach. We ask this through Christ, Amen.

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