Friday, January 17, 2014

My Rule

And this means it's my rule for drinking the magic beverages; it doesn't have to be yours. Yet here it is: if I were commanded to put down my drink, and in 15 minutes, I'd be asked to give a lecture in some area of my competence, if I could do it without a noticeable drop in my effectiveness, I have enjoyed responsibly. If not, I've had too much.

Now, some of you could carry on your tasks in any state and no one is the wiser, but I'm not that guy.

Drink up! Heaven probably has a bar. Just sayin.'

It's Pretty Simple

Children have a right to grow up in a family with their mother and father. Actually, they have the right to a Mommy and Daddy who love them, and each other. The fact that many of us have endured far worse and less than this is no reason to say that something else is "normal." It isn't, whether we're talking divorce and "re-marriage," or homosexuality, or whatever.

Someone should say this clearly. It's one of those times where it doesn't serve to spare feelings or prevailing opinion.

Is it so hard to say that the State's purpose in defining and defending heterosexual marriage, AKA marriage, is that heterosexual sex is intrinsically ordered to the creation of new persons? Totally obvious, and yet, not.

I feel like I'm surrounded by a Bubble of Stupidity, from which none of us will ever escape.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

5 Thoughts For Tonight

5. Maybe Bill Belichick is smarter than all of us.

4. "What if we find ourselves beneath the snows/Our warmest words all frozen in our throats?"

3. You can say the words, but sometimes, only God knows what they mean.

2. Write a poem, or sleep?

1. We are too quick to criticize the bishops.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Ad Hoc Run Amok

This is fascinating. But not for the reasons you think. I'll cut right to the chase: the defense of orthodoxy is commendable, but a modalist could simply say, "My rejection of Nicea is no different than our shared rejection of Trent." Or as I once wrote, "Both the fool and the Catholic would accuse you of being ad hoc, and they would be right."

At the risk of sounding like some crazy postmillenialist, history itself is now the arena for the outworking of the incarnational dominion of the Son of God. If that's even remotely true, we are as bound to the means by which that dominion has taken place, to which he has bound Himself. The visible Church. The truth is that the Protestant conception of the visible Church is a loose collection of discrete bodies, not the Church.

We'll leave the light on for you.

Monday, January 13, 2014

That Other Jason Guy

This is very much on point, as usual. At some point, what you might call the "hermeneutics of continuity" runs flatly contrary to the presumption of ecclesial deism, or the basic notion that the tangible human means through which orthodoxy appears to have been communicated are incidental to the correct doctrine. Specifically in terms of what we call the "Federal Vision," the scriptural data is directly opposite of the non-sacramental historic Reformed convictions. Only the premise of that ecclesial deism could even begin to reconcile the contradiction. Thus, "sacramental" accords with "ecclesial," and "non-sacramental" accords with "individual." Those within the tradition who try to mediate that dilemma are setting the stage for an irreconcilable conflict of principles, whether they know it or not.

The gaping hole in the Protestant paradigm occurs when the visible community is no longer an instrumentality for the communication of dogma. The only means through which such a community could be, having been acknowledged as a community of sinners, is a charism of infallibility. But the principle of private judgment (Sola Scriptura) denies this, pervading the whole system with epistemic skepticism, except for the individual himself. This is not only contradictory; it is so obvious as to be galling when it is overlooked.

The invisible Church is a concept that by necessity ignores the dogmatic pluralism in evidence, witnessed by the visible communities' lack of agreement or visible unity. It does this by relativizing their individual dogmatic conclusions. "An invisible Church cannot define itself, or what it believes." And it changes shape and dogma at the whim of the individual. Can any person reasonably presume to be in submission to God when the content and praxis of divine revelation are determined by him? The only difference between Mathison and the fundamentalists he rebukes is that the fundamentalists' rejection of ecclesiastical authority is consistent.