Skip to main content

I'm Not "Winsome." And You Know What? I Don't Care.

I'm a pretty easy-going guy. I get along with most people. I've even been hilariously described as "patient." Ha! The truth is, though, I get annoyed. Even angry. I couldn't deny it. I'm issuing a blanket statement here: I've probably said a mean thing or 5 to some of you. If we know it, you know what I intend to do to make it right.

The internet is a cruel partner. It amplifies personality. I've been told variously that my online personality comes off kind of strong. Fair enough. Some of that is intentional. Would you believe, if you are not like other people, they ignore you? If they don't like what you say, they put you on the outside of the circle, even if they are nice outwardly? I hate that I notice this now.

I both love and hate my Christian formation from the time before I was Catholic. I loved learning about Jesus, and learning to love Him. I loved all the wonderful people who poured themselves into me. I loved that so many of them weren't afraid to get dirty to bring me closer to God.

You know what I hate? Your words. I hate the words you use to silence the voices in your head, the ones that get louder in the moments when your realize that this particular Bible text doesn't fit in your little box. I hate your insularity; what really bothers me is that it masquerades as a broad-minded catholicity. But we know the truth.

You know what else? I'll read whomever I want without fear, because when one knows the truth, one is not afraid to find it where one didn't look. You make a mistake to think that I'm afraid of you, or that I feel persecuted by you. I don't need anything from you. But here's the tough part: you do need something from me.

So, I can be tough, and insistent. When truth and goodness and true peace is at stake, I do not serve you with politeness and niceties. Kindness binds me to tell you the truth. If you believe love is lacking, feel free to say so. But you'll look in my eyes, as far as possible. If you can do that, I'm happy to take a rebuke. But "winsome" is a coward's word; it's the scarlet letter for the one who reveals that the circle is too small.

I'm not speaking of anyone in particular here, but to paraphrase a popular meme from this week, if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that SOB up, and wear it.

Comments

Tiffany Borges said…
Boo to the Yah. I must read your blog. You're the Strunk to my White, man.
Jason said…
I'll try not to disappoint. I checked out a little of your stuff, but I must admit only a vague awareness of this, how you say, "Google+". Wasilla, Alaska? Did I read that right?

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