I have a paper due. I believe it will be about the Eucharist. [Everything's about the Eucharist.--ed.] Well, everything's about Jesus. And so it goes. I'm not good at papers. I usually wait until the last minute, waiting for the lightning of inspiration to strike. I agree that this is not good. But you have to understand me: something has to come together, I have to see the big picture, or it's not going to work.
With this beautiful new software from Dragon NaturallySpeaking, I believe it will really help me. I'm enjoying composing this very post with that program. The first time I did it, it was a bit difficult. When it messes up, it can be difficult to fix mistakes. I've been doing that manually since I began.
Anyway, I think I learned something last night. I have so many interests that perhaps I am an expert in absolutely nothing, except maybe blathering randomly. I suppose I'm going to be a theologian, which will make it important for me to come up with a plan, some focus or area of study. Roger E. Olson had a blog post today about the controverted question of Karl Barth's universalism. I confess that it is a curious question for me. What little I've read of him I really enjoy. Heresy or not, he has a keen pastoral sense and a gift for communicating in everyday language. There is a reason why he was perhaps the most important theologian of the 20th century. I think in terms of dialogue with the Reformed, Karl Barth's theology will become even more important, not less so.
And so, I think that when I'm not doing specifically the work of a Catholic theologian, I'm going to be reading Karl Barth. I already read Prayer, which was transcribed on his only trip to the United States. If he is even remotely as readable in other works as he was in that one, it should be an enjoyable journey. Besides, you never know when you might need a Karl Barth expert. And sorry Tim, I can't let you have it.
One of the frustrations of recent days is the realization that the Catholic Church has not well communicated the truth and reality of the Second Vatican Council. Others will fill the void if we do not. And it stands to reason that they will fill it less accurately than we would. Dogmatic precision is not the enemy of ecumenism, but its necessary motivating force. The only reasonable basis for reunion is agreement, and that agreement cannot be achieved when the terms for debate are stuck in a vague haze of sentimentality. You all know that I can be very sentimental at times. But definitions and their creation is never the opportune occasion for this.
As the days pass, I become even more appreciative of my teachers, and more specifically one, Prof. Douglas Bushman, who constantly reminds me and all of us, "Define your terms!" One of the great hindrances to reunion is what Bryan Cross calls, "the ecumenism of non-return." I suppose it could be legitimately questioned whether the Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded, but to even ask the question that way supposes that there is a home to which we must return as Christians. Without this, it is impossible to even define the faith once delivered, much less to achieve agreement as to its shape. The principle of Sola Scriptura, along with the notion that the church is invisible makes agreement, and therefore reunion, impossible. The anatomy of a conversion is precisely this: finding the means by which the Christian faith was defined in the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church. With those means still in use, one need only submit to those means, and to the men who use them in the power of the Holy Spirit. I am often asked why it was so easy for me to accept distinctively Catholic and somewhat controversial doctrines like those which pertain to the Virgin Mary. And the answer is that my theology has always been a received theology. To change authorities may well be a great life change, and may be surprising to friends and family. But to me, it ended up being a simple matter. I was never comfortable with possessing my own personal fiefdom of theological knowledge and control. Those elements in confessional Presbyterianism which militate against and mitigate the risk of individualism are appealing, but only make the question of authority all the more acute. As I've said before, the question of authority has to be the right one, owing to the reality of the Incarnation, and this is why the word "history" is on the lips of so many who convert, or at least consider it.
As I once wrote, we cannot know that we have been wrong if that consideration has been made impossible by prior commitments. To explore the claims of the Catholic Church is self-consciously to put the prior commitments of the Reformation in the light of historical scrutiny. I was willing and able to do this only because my previous notion of authority and the fig leaf of "derivative authority" were shown woefully insufficient to answer the pressing questions in theology.
You must forgive me; I did not intend this to be an evangelistic rant. Welcome to the blog! More like the freak show. I think I should write that paper now. Thanks for stopping by.
With this beautiful new software from Dragon NaturallySpeaking, I believe it will really help me. I'm enjoying composing this very post with that program. The first time I did it, it was a bit difficult. When it messes up, it can be difficult to fix mistakes. I've been doing that manually since I began.
Anyway, I think I learned something last night. I have so many interests that perhaps I am an expert in absolutely nothing, except maybe blathering randomly. I suppose I'm going to be a theologian, which will make it important for me to come up with a plan, some focus or area of study. Roger E. Olson had a blog post today about the controverted question of Karl Barth's universalism. I confess that it is a curious question for me. What little I've read of him I really enjoy. Heresy or not, he has a keen pastoral sense and a gift for communicating in everyday language. There is a reason why he was perhaps the most important theologian of the 20th century. I think in terms of dialogue with the Reformed, Karl Barth's theology will become even more important, not less so.
And so, I think that when I'm not doing specifically the work of a Catholic theologian, I'm going to be reading Karl Barth. I already read Prayer, which was transcribed on his only trip to the United States. If he is even remotely as readable in other works as he was in that one, it should be an enjoyable journey. Besides, you never know when you might need a Karl Barth expert. And sorry Tim, I can't let you have it.
One of the frustrations of recent days is the realization that the Catholic Church has not well communicated the truth and reality of the Second Vatican Council. Others will fill the void if we do not. And it stands to reason that they will fill it less accurately than we would. Dogmatic precision is not the enemy of ecumenism, but its necessary motivating force. The only reasonable basis for reunion is agreement, and that agreement cannot be achieved when the terms for debate are stuck in a vague haze of sentimentality. You all know that I can be very sentimental at times. But definitions and their creation is never the opportune occasion for this.
As the days pass, I become even more appreciative of my teachers, and more specifically one, Prof. Douglas Bushman, who constantly reminds me and all of us, "Define your terms!" One of the great hindrances to reunion is what Bryan Cross calls, "the ecumenism of non-return." I suppose it could be legitimately questioned whether the Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded, but to even ask the question that way supposes that there is a home to which we must return as Christians. Without this, it is impossible to even define the faith once delivered, much less to achieve agreement as to its shape. The principle of Sola Scriptura, along with the notion that the church is invisible makes agreement, and therefore reunion, impossible. The anatomy of a conversion is precisely this: finding the means by which the Christian faith was defined in the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church. With those means still in use, one need only submit to those means, and to the men who use them in the power of the Holy Spirit. I am often asked why it was so easy for me to accept distinctively Catholic and somewhat controversial doctrines like those which pertain to the Virgin Mary. And the answer is that my theology has always been a received theology. To change authorities may well be a great life change, and may be surprising to friends and family. But to me, it ended up being a simple matter. I was never comfortable with possessing my own personal fiefdom of theological knowledge and control. Those elements in confessional Presbyterianism which militate against and mitigate the risk of individualism are appealing, but only make the question of authority all the more acute. As I've said before, the question of authority has to be the right one, owing to the reality of the Incarnation, and this is why the word "history" is on the lips of so many who convert, or at least consider it.
As I once wrote, we cannot know that we have been wrong if that consideration has been made impossible by prior commitments. To explore the claims of the Catholic Church is self-consciously to put the prior commitments of the Reformation in the light of historical scrutiny. I was willing and able to do this only because my previous notion of authority and the fig leaf of "derivative authority" were shown woefully insufficient to answer the pressing questions in theology.
You must forgive me; I did not intend this to be an evangelistic rant. Welcome to the blog! More like the freak show. I think I should write that paper now. Thanks for stopping by.
Comments