Skip to main content

Reality Bites

The biggest temptation for any person is to live a lie; we all have moments where we just say, "Sod it all, I don't care." I'm the weakest person I know; my file on "sins of weakness" (as opposed to malice) is the biggest one they have, I'm sure. You might be able to say the same.

But I had a firm decision yesterday; I'm not going to deny reality to make myself happy; I'm not going to deny it to make others happy. People do this all the time. Getting along is easier than speaking hard truth. You might have to say, "Mental illness is real, and you need to face it," or "Abortion is murder," or any number of things. Not wanting to rock the boat could be an exercise of prudence, or a failure of fortitude, and it's not always easy to discern.

But if you let people continue in horribly unhealthy or immoral patterns for years at great cost to yourself without doing anything at all to change it, it's probably the latter. It's never too late to change it, but today could be the day.

People can get so deep in evil, they call it good, and call good evil. There's no direct helping that can or should be done. Just prayer. I was reminded that I might lose my cool, but if I can still pray, and with a pure heart, thinking of nothing but that person happy before God in Heaven, I have not truly been stained by anger or bitterness. For others, that reckoning has become a call to conversion, and we pray that God will not hold our unforgiveness against us.


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