Skip to main content
I face the daunting task of exegeting (er, extracting the meaning out of) 1 Cor 11:23-30, as I have said. As I looked at a few commentaries, it seemed interesting that the sins mentioned just prior had little to do with minor errors in practice; rather, they were reflective of a disregard of the inherent dignity present in their brothers and fellow communicants. I'll not comment much further, as to avoid having to cite someone! But interesting it is to note that, in order to observe rightly, we must consider others. Indeed, consider them better than ourselves. And Christ the Anchor holds us together. I don't know myself without somehow knowing and loving my brothers and sisters. I cannot know Christ without taking a moment to ponder those others for whom He also died. If Christ gave his life without hesitation, how can I bring a charge against another without seeing my sin first? Is this not what we were taught? I use high words because this is not a time to be unclear.
I must say that I'm not sure that "Each man ought to examine himself" has anything at all to do with my approximation of personal sin, or whether I have reached a point of theological understanding about the Supper. (Though, if I treated it like a trip to Showbiz Pizza, I'm likely guilty of the body and blood.) Must I know the Mystery? Must I come into worship free of all guilt? No. But let me look to Christ, the Author and perfecter of our faith. Let me love my brothers and sisters without reservation. Let the Lord bless me, and tell me whose I am. Let us not fear. And let us go forth to love and serve the Lord! (Thanks be to God.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...