Skip to main content
I have two Facebook friends who always post statuses at night right before they sleep. Quite frankly, I already know that people who sleep at night are tired. If you were at my house and wanted to wish me goodnight, obviously, I won't spurn it. But I would be utterly unshocked to find that you are tired every night at say, 11:30. If you truly believe this forum to be a giant virtual house and we are the Waltons, tag me. I'll be more than happy to return your appeal for friendship affirmation couched in the form of 'I'm tired' with all the affection I can muster.
Failing that, though, I must conclude that you simply are vain, and you need attention from others up 'til the very moment you pass from consciousness to sleep. I've known vain people; there are worse things. [Yeah, you're vain. You blather on pointlessly in the hope someone cares.--ed.] I agree. But writers are a special kind of vain. A writer knows that you don't have to read the book or open the blog page. You 'converse' with me because you want to. If someone else is more interesting, if the oddly bilateral monologue between author and reader proves unfruitful or untimely, or any other thing, the choice is all yours.
I can easily say in my own defense that I write for me, and I don't mind inviting you along. This broken world begs for the images of God to partner with God in putting it all back together in the whole realm of his created things. Some build skyscrapers and some build finely-tuned German automobiles or myriad other things. I'm trying to help with words. In the last seven years, the thing that has charged me up, has made me feel useful for the first time in my life, is to write. Anyone who has known me also knows I love conversation. But how often do the needs of this life intrude on the conversations no one wants to end? This is why we have memories, I believe. So we can store the things that matter for a later time. Books are special things, too. Someone found it so important to speak something good, true, or beautiful that he got some friends together to make that memory as permanent as possible. We could be wrong about any of that, of course. After all, I'd rather read Ratzinger than Schleiermacher, and you could do your own comparisons. Writing a book may make you highly esteemed, but it won't necessarily make you correct. But that we try means we're made as keepers of something beyond valuable. More than that, we are that thing. Think on that.
I didn't come here to tell you that. I came here to tell you to see "For Greater Glory" when you get the chance. Frankly, I lack the words to tell you why, so I'll keep it brief. I only know that this witness, this heroism, moves me so deeply that I'm not the same. It wasn't a movie; it was a testimony. But if you must know, Academy Awards are due to someone for this. I may be a tad emotional, but a whole theater of sobbing patrons tells me something.

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