Skip to main content

It's Not "Totally Unexpected"; It's Obvious

Did you hear that story of Robin Rinaldi, who gave up her wedding vows for a year? Do I need to tell you what happened?

There was the story of a pastor who decided to try atheism for a year. Guess what happened.

Each time, modern secular "forward-thinking" society nods its approval, and also professes surprise. I'm going to say that's mostly dishonest. They have always known of the intimate connection between profession and action; that's why Cranmer changed the liturgy; that's why Comte founded a "church."

We actually have this foolish notion first of all that all possible choices we make are value-neutral. The other part is that we think they are on equal footing. If you express revulsion and disgust at a murderer, he'll disgust you further when he says, "Hey, don't knock it until you try it," but he's got a point. We become like what we do.

Grace doesn't really allow Christians to say, "Fake it until you make it" to a person struggling with faith, but really, it is wise and good to continue doing what believers do, even if it doesn't seem honest. The fact that what we profess is supernatural doesn't change the fact that we're whole people. And we're animals, in a real sense. We have habits. We should not expect that a broken habit attached to a profession will allow that profession to remain for long. If you stop going to church, you will be an unbeliever, quite apart from the consequences of that one error.

I think of a couple people who now profess to be atheists or agnostics, and I think that we may not have distinguished between a difficulty, which is an intellectual problem, which can be helped by having smart people around, and a doubt, which is an act of the will. For instance, take that instance in the Gospels, where in one place it says the two thieves hurled insults at Him, whereas in the other, one did, but one professed faith and received the promise of eternal life while he died alongside Jesus. I could find a thousand of these, and I might say, "Yes, I can see why this could be troubling for the inquirer; let's find the answer" without ever thinking, "They lied to me! Sod it all, I'm going to the bar, and the gentlemen's club. See you in two weeks!" Doubt is a habit of soul; it's not cured, or even helped, by answers. Its root is pride, which is why the end of the definition of "heresy" in CCC, 2089, says, "or...an obstinate doubt concerning the same." In any case, develop human habits that fit the habits of soul that you want. Then maybe ask if what you think you want is really what you want.

You've probably met a 3-year-old who asked about a thousand questions, all in that same form: "Why?" She probably just wants to know that you care. It's adorable, even if it gets annoying. But I'm sure we've seen that guy in a public meeting who stands up and says, "I want some answers!" He doesn't want answers; he wants us to know he is mad, and he wants to be taken seriously. I wonder how many of these "atheists" on the bestseller lists are really just like this guy? Don't be that guy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar