Skip to main content

It's Me Again

5 More Thoughts

5. [Cool Movie Voice-Over Guy] "This Lent...One man...For the sake of humanity...will sacrifice everything." Well, no, not everything. Just some things. To hopefully gain the One Thing. Cue the Rich Mullins.

4. If you're too Catholic to know who Rich Mullins is, I pity you. I believe what St. Cyprian said, and what the Catholic Church has always taught. But Rich better be there. I'm not making demands, I'm just saying.

3. I think what I appreciate about him the most in what little I know of his music (though I've surely listened to Songs 8000 times) is that I really believed him when he sang. Honestly, most Christian music sounds like a pep talk, like we're trying to convince ourselves of what we believe, instead of believing it--and doing it.

2. John Mayer doesn't believe or do anything of great consequence, but I appreciate his earnestness as well.

1. For years, I woke up with "Creed," by Rich Mullins. This is what I mean when I say that "derivative authority" is a sham. If this creed is true, if it is an authority in any sense, the authority which gave it must be authoritative as well. There is a value in arbitrarily holding this creed true while rejecting other things from that same authority--for all I know, it's saving your soul--but ad hoc and arbitrary is what I mean when I accuse you of being "unprincipled" on the point. I digress.

Comments

An evil dictator speaks a true, authoritative statement.
If it is a true authoritative statement, then the one who spoke it is true and authoritative.
Therefore the evil dictator is true and authoritative.

It does not follow... re: point 1. :-P
Jason said…
Tim,

Actually, I gotta push back here, because I think it does follow. Consider: Hitler says that 2+2=4. As such, he declares that a billboard be placed on every government building attesting to it. Is it true? Yes. Does Hitler have the authority to declare the law concerning the sign? Yes. He has spoken truthfully and acted authoritatively in this case.

Popular posts from this blog

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...
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...

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...