Skip to main content
I need to follow up on what I said yesterday; I thought I covered my bases in terms of my intention not to speak with any binding or wide-ranging authority. In addition, though I was discussing something important, I surely felt some parts would go down easier when leavened with a little humor (the success of which you are free to dispute). And I definitely am not trying to shut down discussion among different groups of people (various groups of women, or men and women); in fact, the opposite is the case. But I definitely needed to say what I said. I'm open to disagreement, correction, and whatever else. That post, however, was my view of things as a relatively young, single, pseudo-evangelical with an admittedly big mouth and a keyboard. My small yet quickly arriving sample size of correspondence on that piece is of two kinds: 1. "How dare you hate on 'Lost'! It's the greatest show ever made/on today/I've ever seen!" And my only comment on that is that you're probably right. I don't care. 2. "Why don't we all wear burkhas then, you fascist!" And I'll get my buns kicked for this, but the only thing wrong with the whole plan is that it covers over (pardon the pun) the second-class nature of being a woman in some places, the abuse of women, and it blames the victim when those abuses occur. "Frumpy" actually has a fairly wide range; it's my shorthand for "modest." It's not a hard and fast rule; all I was saying is that it seemed to me in general that we'd stopped talking about it, and it's reflected in our dress. The wider culture would tell you that you were frumpy or plain if you showed as a woman that you had thought about it. That's generally true. [And why don't you post a link to another country song so AKR vomits her coffee, or at least rolls her eyes?--ed.] It'd be funnier if you hadn't said anything. And besides, I am one of the lost sheep of Israel on this point, and she is resigned to my ignorance. I may well enjoy tons of music of a classical bent in the end, but I can't see ever hating Lionel or Kenny or Martina et al because of a certain simplicity, or late composition, or whatever. On the other hand, Aquinas is probably right that there are infinite grades of beauty, truth, etc. (with God as the end of them all) so there must be some things which are better than other things, though both are not sinful. But it pains me to admit it. I'll probably listen to The Jets as my final act of rebellion. Wow, that side-rant should marked accordingly. Anyway, any offense re: modesty is largely unintentional. ["I Can't Help It, I Must Annoy The Country-Haters" Musical Diatribe/Video: I have always loved this song. I know Patty Loveless got some noise from Christian groups because it could be heard as an ode to adultery or fornication, but I will give her a pass, because I saw a clip of this song where she dedicated it to her husband. Can't argue with that. On the other hand, isn't it funny how when a song says something isn't wrong, it usually is?]

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