Skip to main content
I Want To Be My Father's Son
I have a mentor/friend/father-figure type of person in my life now who recently wrote about losing his mother very young. Those memories and feelings are very deep and personal; I tread very lightly here. And surely losing your mother is different. Still, I lost my dad when I was young. I remember watching a TV show called "Home Improvement" where the dad, "Tim Taylor", discusses losing his father young. (Actually, this show sticks out to me because it was often funny, and because he talks about this a lot.) I remember him saying that he idolized him while he was there, and did so when he was gone. They didn't live together long enough for the son to see the flaws in his father, to be his own man, to even fight with him. I probably have an idealized image of him; then again, if he was anything like his brothers, he was a good man, so far as that is possible for man. Heck, my mother, his ex-wife, has nary a poor word to say about him. And she never did, in the seven years they were divorced while he lived. He spoke a word to his sons from beyond the grave via a poem he kept that I'll bet he meant to give us when the time was right. His widow gave it to us a few years ago, when the time was right. I've only read it once; it was too hard to do more than that. It's on my desk, hidden. It's a pretty good restatement of, "Do not worry about tomorrow..." as the Lord taught us. My brother is just like my father, or how they describe him, and definitely lives this out. He's a good man, too. We could all use some forgiveness, and we all need Jesus, whether we know it or not. But if "good man" doesn't describe most of the men in my father's family, it has no meaning. So if my father, my uncles, my brother, and whomever else are "goats" at the Resurrection (Matthew 25) by way of sin, I can live with my Lord's judgment. Who is more just than he? But I hope and trust that they are not held to account for ignorance caused by others' sin. (Like sketchy priests.) In any case, for the record, when I hear the words, "Roman Catholic Church" I do not think "Whore of Babylon who perverted the gospel." Rather, I think, "Those who, in the name of Christ, committed the bodies of my family to the ground in the hope of resurrection." Theology gets real simple when you're talking about life and death. Jesus. Forgiveness. Resurrection. Eternal life. I've got more to say, but this is all for now.

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