Skip to main content

I Dreamed A Dream (Again)

I had a dream two nights ago. All of my friends were in a house. It was the Lord's house; I know that part. It's a very nice house. Anyway, I sat down right in front of the friend from whom I am estranged. I looked right at her. She kept reading her book, as if I were not there. It was very hard.

It was more than a bit like those scenes in The Christmas Carol and It's A Wonderful Life, where no one can see the main character. We're desensitized to this now, because we've seen it so much. But can you imagine how terrible that would actually be? [Shudder] I wonder if the Judgment will be like this; you see what would have happened without you either way.

I don't know why I'm thinking about this so much. Well, I do. But I wish I were not. I feel pretty much like I did at the time: that the silence is unwarranted, un-Christian, unforgiving, and unfair. And no amount of lecturing or guilt-trips will change that.

I have taken not only this personally, but also those who thought it necessary to rebuke me, as if the emotions were not enough. You weren't there; you don't know what I was thinking and feeling. And no one bothered to ask. Shut your pie-hole.

My capacity for self-debasement only goes so far. But obviously, this is still bothering me.

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