Skip to main content
No, I Cannot Pray and Chew Gum at the Same Time, Thanks for Asking
I found myself praying for a buddy just now, forgetting that I had a piece of gum in my mouth. It's not that I couldn't do it; it just felt a bit unserious. Father or no, this is still Almighty God we address. I barely wanted to type that. [Oh, smeg, here comes an anti-evengelical rant!--ed.] Have you gotten the distinct feeling you were in a place where people were talking about God in worship, but not to him? 94% of the time, it's not even intentional. But no wonder we're all confused: it seems like everything in evangelicalism I have seen is geared toward some nebulous "seeker" I have never met, or to his comfort and non-offense. And not that this is bad; I want the people who don't yet know Christ to come; I want the people who could know him more deeply (that'd be all of us) to come, too. But if we're not us as Christians, to what or to whom are we drawing these people? If it's even .1% true that "the medium is the message," it stands to reason that we risk confusing ourselves as committed Christians if we toy around too much. Did no one think of this? The whole reason we have loads of anti-church, disaffected (white) Boomers is that, however they were sinned against, those liturgies they grew up with are like emotional or mental super-glue. If Father or Pastor Joe wasn't a good man somehow, "Torch it, we're starting over." And now I'm stuck with your business model. Thanks; thanks a lot. I have no burning urge to kick it old school, as it were; I'm just not very smart. Let's not reinvent the wheel when we're talking life and death. As I've written previously, every church I ever attended or visited gets the same three questions: "Who is God?" "Who am I?" "What are we doing here?" (in life and in Sunday worship) With all due respect, I personally don't care about the talents of your music team, whether you have a men's ministry, or who the youth leader is. [Side Rant: I was at church yesterday, and God love him, I think the pastor gave the worst sermon I ever heard. It's not what he said; it's what he didn't say. And I couldn't figure out why I thought it was so deficient until just now. The thought actually occurred at the time: "Oh no! He just preached 30 minutes as though everyone in this audience is already saved." Not most of us. Not some believing and needing growth, some not. If he said to repent, I don't remember it. If he exalted the glories of the Incarnation or Resurrection, I don't remember it. It was a "vision" sermon. I hate "vision" sermons. And he forgot to read the text! Didn't we go to the same seminary, sir? You just can't do that. That's the homiletical equivalent of something really awful. [You know, that preacher you like, his sermons suck, too. It's like Senior Lit all over again.--ed.] Maybe. But I always can see the highest and the best, and that Jesus is the Way. I may find out later that he "pulled a Biden" (see 1988 Presidential election) on something from a book, but I always say, "Wow, I need to read that book; I didn't know Jesus was in there!" Anyway, at the risk of self-congratulation, it freaked me out when my colleagues said, "You preach like there's mostly unbelievers in the room." And I said, "Well, we have to preach the gospel." If you think about it, is there any of us so unstained by the world that we don't need to hear the first things 8000 times? No. Therefore, I'd say, within the bounds of familiarity and friendship, the message is nearly the same in content, if not in form.] Just give it to me straight, dude. I'm meeting with God, not buying a house.

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...