Skip to main content
I was cruising the inter-webs again, and a friend posted this: "I thought such awful thoughts that I cannot even say them out loud because they make Jesus want to drink gin straight out of the cat dish." -- Lamott

I laughed out loud. And then I reflected on why that was funny to me. That would never happen; Jesus isn't driven to drink like so many of us are. He never needs to "take the edge off"; there's no need to cover up feelings; just feel them in that perfectly holy way. Furthermore, I'd say drinking out of a cat dish is sub-human in the proper sense; I laugh at the thought of Jesus doing it because he is the quintessential human, [philosophical hesitations, ahem] our goal, our path, our means. I'm certain the world itself comes apart at the thought of Jesus doing--or even considering--something sub-human. I probably scared myself because I pictured it and found it funny. And yet again, I thought of a song. And a large part of the answer to the question is, "He is!" But isn't it great to wonder at it: He was never a slob. Jesus sanctified every inch of the ground he walked. The dirt under his fingernails was holy dirt. Even the humblest and mundane things were elevated to supernatural acts. Stew on that next time you go to the loo. And truly, He was home, in one sense. I imagine that if he hadn't been "a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief," he'd be the life of the party. He could yell out, "I got nothin' but love for ya, tho" and he'd be the only one telling the truth. I know that Joan Osborne song made life easier for thousands of church leaders, allowing them to blather on (possibly even effectively) about the Incarnation just as I am doing now. But hey, it's one of those songs you didn't know was important at the time. It sure didn't seem provocative to me then as it does now. Isn't that interesting? What do you think about that?

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...

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...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...