Skip to main content

Eternal One

I exercise my cheeky option to write a post only vaguely related to what I'm actually talking about! Yet as I sit here in between writing emails and applying for jobs, I am struck by the goodness of God, just in the very fact that I am alive. That zest for living that gets us out of bed each morning committed to "accomplishing something"--granted, with its own pitfalls and idolatries--is part of the handiwork of God. I am part of the handiwork of God, even if I commit myself to dissolute living. It is a scandal and a tragedy, but I am no less His handiwork.

For what it's worth, I felt God smiling at me. I daresay I don't like myself as much as he does. What else is new? I guess that's why I am telling you; maybe you forgot, in your own case. "I haven't done this, and I haven't done that, and I haven't beaten that vice, and I never feel satisfied." Will we ever, until we are in the Beloved?

I taught RCIA the other night,--over the phone, or something close--even though I'm not qualified to scratch off a lottery ticket right now. But I told them that I had a theme verse. Even though we are Catholic, it is OK to have a favorite verse of the Bible. "God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Jesus died for the broken. You may happen upon some misguided ear-ticklers, who tell you that it is perfectly acceptable and desirable to remain broken, and to celebrate your brokenness, or even to call it something else in celebration. We don't have to do that, or believe that. What we do have to forthrightly consider is that Jesus sees. Not who we would like to be, or who we think we are in the times of the pride of life, but who we are down deep, and in secret. And to think that he embraced that cross, on those terms, well, it moves the heart.

Now that's a better something to get you out of bed in the morning.

Dare to believe that you are beloved, that there is at least one someone who is happy that you exist, no matter what stupid things you have done.

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