Skip to main content
I've discovered something interesting about myself and blogging: You can't really say what comes right to mind, despite what blogging is. "Blog" is shorthand for "weblog," which had been short for, "web-based online journal." A little pet-peeve, if I may. Particular entries on a blog are entries, or "posts," in the common speech. They are not, contra a beloved evangelical leader who shall remain nameless, called blogs themselves.
Correction: He's not beloved, except maybe by me. He's a disturber and a troublemaker, and that's why I like him. I probably had to turn in my evangelical card and decoder ring, but I still enjoy making as much trouble for people as possible. It's a trouble we need right now.
I can see you, you know. You've got your ESV Bible, your seminary acceptance letter in hand, an impressive array of checkered shirts, and a habit of saying "context" way too many times. But maybe you didn't go that way, either. Maybe you've been burdened with others' problems of poverty, racism, and a thousand other things. If you're a jerk, you look down on your brethren secretly or not for not being quite as concerned as you are. If you're not a jerk, you at least feel your faith should do or say something about these things. And that's good.
In either case, you need to listen to me. If you'll pardon the crudity, you have no idea what in God's name you are talking about. At all. And I don't mean that in the cheesy "Mastered by Divinity" way that you'll learn to laugh about as your way of saying that you grew from this experience, whether you did or not. I mean,--without intentional disrespect--that the very greatest among you know close to nothing. What you know now is highly selective; what you will know then is also highly selective. And that would be fine, but for the fact that the questions that truly matter are the ones you'll be discouraged from asking. Well, the first, you are more than free to ask, so long as you give the "right" answer: "Who is Jesus Christ?" The second follows from the first, or at least it should: "What is the Church?" It's not as though no one you'll meet ever asked this, nor do I suggest that no one has an answer. But I will say that as you truly explore and discover the answer to the first, the second will recur. And again. Even after you feel it has been answered. Even after other people get tired of answering it for you.
Do not quench the Spirit, and do not quench your question, even if you lose your whole life in the asking. Jesus, after all, did say this very thing.
Of all the things I learned in the days I was one of you, Reformed seminarian, I'm the most grateful that I learned to ask these two questions. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Comments

My trouble is the more I ask the second question and the more I engage the historical sources throughout church history related to it, the more complex the answer becomes. I use to be able to give a 30 second blurb. ;-) History has a way of making things messy.

Our mutually attended seminary has a good grasp of history, but I must say I'm doubly impressed with my Lutheran brethren. I've not met any one group of people who seem so well (and fairly!) engaged in church history.
Jason said…
Feel free to elaborate any complexities you see in the determination of the question. At your leisure and convenience, of course.

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