Skip to main content

You Might Be A Christian If...

5. Someone says, "Proverbs 31," and you either lament your sad estate, or say, "I don't want to talk about the opposite sex right now."

4. You have ever been at a wedding, and wondered at its canonical validity. (Fullness of Truth/Ben Nguyen/Canon Law Bonus)

3. You shout out Scripture references at random, in conversations about other stuff.

2. Finish the phrase: "God is good..." (And no, the correct answer is not, "Give us the chocolate cake!" but I think Jesus does a great Cosby impression.)

1. You have ever wanted to slap the next person who says, "Sunday fun day!"

[Side-Rant: I'm not even a strict observer of the Sabbath in any form. Not even close. I won't judge you if you go out to eat, or watch the Super Bowl. But I'll tell you this: I'm fully aware when it's a Sunday. Sunday is the day the Lord Jesus rose from the dead for you and me. "Fun" just doesn't get it. I'm all for resting, too. That's the point. But let's get it straight: The least we could do is show up and say "Thank you." That's exactly what "Eucharist" means. And most of you reading this know better. That was easily the most scandalous post on the site "Stuff Christians Like": "Skipping Church on Sunday." Some muddle-headed evangelical had to be the first to think this was OK. I'm sorry. But not. If you have never flat-out skipped a sporting event--like a huge one--because God is God, then you have no right to wonder why your "unbelieving" family member(s) doesn't care about your "good news." That's the truth. Have I ever been guilty of this? Yes. One time. I had no legit reason. But never again. And as much as I push people about being separated from the Church, we all need to talk about this one even more.]

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