Tag: Essay

I frequently lecture myself when there isn’t anyone else around to listen. It’s really kind of embarrassing. I’m sure if there were anyone around to see me, I’d look like some crazy goon, gone mad with senility way before his time. But then, if there was anyone to see me, I’d be lecturing them instead. (This explains why it is so beneficial that I enjoy being alone, but it brings into question how Valerie can stand to be near me.)

Most recently, I was noticing how deathly still everything seemed as I got out of the car and walked to my apartment, compared with how loud it had just been in the car. Continue reading “Spiritual Discipline”

We see in Christian Liberalism not that which is “modern” or “mainline”, but merely that which is contra-orthodox, unendorsed by the Holy Spirit, and as such, she is limpid, dying. She has no need for anyone to attack her, for already she is fading away.

I see her now, a deranged old prostitute, crying out to all her former lovers – “lama sabachtani?” as she paints herself again with the newest ideological fashions. There is no more need to look on her with horror now that she is an old prostitute than when she was young and drew men with her pearls and honey. But perhaps now the True Church will be inspired to finally give her what she has always deserved: a little pity

She is wrong, but she is sick and dying. She doesn’t need to be blasted for what she is because in her heart of hearts, she already knows what she is. She only needs what any tired old woman needs: to be comforted with the grace of the gospel, to be captured away from all that has enslaved her, to be told that no longer shall she be “lo ammi”, but instead, “my people.” She needs to discover that no longer can she be buffeted around by Ba’al, her manied master, but instead she must be held firm by her husband, her loving, gracious, jealous husband.

For it is Jealousy that will save her.

Via Touchstone, I read an article recently on Women’s ordination that’s gotten me thinking about Baptism, of all things. 

Apparently, supporters of women’s ordination, especially among Catholics,  have recently been appealing to history to prove that ordination for women is well within the bounds of tradition.  William Tighe argues against such a position, and seems to do it quite nicely.  But in the mess of it, he mentions that in the First Century, Judaism was a “proselytizing missionary religion.

Gentiles who converted to Judaism—in the case of men by “proselyte baptism” followed by circumcision, in that of women by “proselyte baptism” alone—were full and coequal members of the People of God: they took new Jewish names and the Talmud recalls that Jews who reproached converts with their pagan origins were subject to severe censure. From the beginning, as the New Testament in general and St. Paul on more than one occasion explicitly witnesses, the Church which Christ founded upon the apostles regarded itself as the “Israel of God” or the “true Israel”.

This set me to all sorts of thinking.  I’d known for a while that Judaism was a missionary religion, witness Jesus’ complaint that the Pharisees “travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, …make him twice as much a son of hell as [them].”  But it had never occurred to me how exactly that might have played out when Christianity came on the scene.  Baptism for conversion was the norm for Christianity directly because it was first established in Judaism.  This implies that early Christians may not have made as much distinction between “Israel” and “the church” as we are accustomed to.  As Tighe goes on to say, “By definition, all baptized members of Christ’s Church are ‘sons of Israel’ and so the question of  ‘ethnicity’ is, and always has been, irrelevant to the argument.”

But if that’s the case, why does Paul make such a big deal out of circumcision?  Continue reading “Circumcision and Infant Baptism”

**Why is this essay written in question and answer format?**

Because Question and answer format is cool.

**Beg pardon?**

Sorry. It’s in question and answer format in imitation of Frederica Matthews-Green’s essay “Under the Heaven Tree” in the book *[The Church in Emerging Culture](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310254876)*, edited by Leonard Sweet. Also, it is intended to be reminiscent of the question and answer format of historic printed catechisms, such as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Catechism, and others.

**Why was Frederica Matthews-Green’s essay written in question and answer format?** Continue reading “Questions on Catechism and Culture”

I don’t know why my mind is turning to this particularly, but since it is, I thought I’d post some thoughts:

The debate over abortion tends to revolve around the issue of when and if the preborn become separate alive individual humans. This seems obvious because the morality of killing something revolves around whether it’s human. If it ain’t human, it can’t be murder. However, the argument that a fetus isn’t really human is a rationalization, not a reason. If there were no other precursive reason for getting an abortion, the argument that the fetus was nothing more than a ball of cells (or whatever argument) would have no weight at all: Even a formless glob of cells that will, if left uninterrupted, turn into a fully formed human being is a pretty impressive thing. Humans are by and large pretty wonderful, and there’s no reason not to let that process continue. If I had a wart on my left elbow which, if left to itself, would grow into a fully developed human being, I would have every reason to let it continue. On the other hand, if the fact that a fetus wasn’t human were a *reason* for getting an abortion, then it would be a reason to abord **all** preborn children. So there must be some other motivation before an abortion can occur.

As far as I know there are three actual *reasons* for an abortion: Continue reading “Thoughts on Abortion”

*More from the archives. This is the finished part of an unfinished paper on pluralism I was supposed to write for a class on apologetics, which project marriage and moving forced me to abandon. My professor was pleased enough with my other paper (one half of the requirements) to give me a D- for the class. (Imagine if I had completed all the work!)*

One of the most shocking experiences for me happened during my first year at a new liberal arts college. The class was Logic and the lesson was on the law of non-contradiction: “‘A’ and ‘not a’ cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner.” The example given was a man saying to his neighbor, “My grandfather has passed away, but it’s all right, because I know he’s in heaven now.” The neighbor replies, “How can he be alive in heaven if he’s dead, since death means the cessation of life?” Either he’s alive in heaven, or he’s completely dead and gone. But one girl on the right side of the room raised her hand and asked, “Why can’t he be both?” And she could not be dissuaded. As far as she was concerned there was no fallacy in assuming that he could be in heaven for his grandson, and nowhere at all for the neighbor—in the same sense, at the same time. Continue reading “Pluralism Notes”