Friday, March 29, 2013

As if I wasn't already busy enough...

Since it’s Holy Week I suppose I read had better take a moment to generously deliver you all an appropriately edificational biblical homily. Although, to be perfectly honest, this is a time of year in which I can never help feeling annoyed with Our almighty lord on account of all the extra work his undeniably poor scheduling creates for christian Leaders like Myself.

After all; as if things weren’t busy enough with all that’s been associated with My Courageous stance for the Sacred Right of Bible-believers to purchase Firearms unimpeded by any form of check or qualification whatsoever other than, of course, an assurance that the purchaser does indeed know Jesus as their Personal lord and savior, and is prepared to categorically deny having ever felt anything unwholesome stirring in his loins while watching a John Wayne movie. Especially when thinking about the fact that the Duke’s real name was “Marion”.

And then on top of that little Benny Ratsfinger had to go and quit, forcing me to drop everything and fly to the Vatican post-haste in order to profit from the biggest market for man-lace since Bobby Duncan invented ACNA and the Prelacy of All Believers. The last time everyone attended a papal resignation was in 1415, and while I know the cardinals you all saw on TV looked pretty old, you can trust me when I say that not even they had appropriate vestments left over from then hanging around in the back of their closets. Although something tells me that for most of them that’s about all not in there…

All of which just goes to show that if our omniscient and gracious father had shown just the merest skerrick of foresight he’d have had had the courtesy to give us all a bit of a breather between Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Granted, I can well understand that after lovingly making his son to die in agony for something he didn’t do god was eager to patch things up as quickly as possible before some atheist feminist at the Child Protection Services got wind of the whole affair, but unless government agencies in 1st century Palestine were a whole lot better funded than they are nowadays waiting a couple of weeks before moving on to the resurrection stage of things would have hardly been enough time for matters to progress to the stage where a caseworker has time to start investigating.

That way none of us would have to get up early on Good Friday morning after conducting late night services on Maundy Thursday, and our good-for-nothing Curates wouldn’t be so useless on account of having been made to stay up all night for the Vigil. Then by scheduling the resurrection on a Tuesday two weeks later (but definitely not on a Monday, on account of that being the Vicar’s day off) we’d all be refreshed and ready for another day of serious liturgical festivities. Plus, since things would be business as usual on what is now taken up by Easter Sunday, we would gain an extra offertory on Easter-fortnight Tuesday.

Then again, this kind of disorganization is exactly what we can expect to find when the Bible isn’t taken seriously. I’ve no doubt god is continuously grateful for Teachers like Me who are dedicated to correcting the liberal heresies of the past: you’d better believe that if as disciples had been as suitably prepared as men like Myself and the fine, well balanced, individuals commenting on this matter at Viagraville always are, and carrying concealed firearms under their apostolic robey-things, none of this whole crucifixion thing would have happened. As if any servant of the Sanhedrin could have dragged away my saviour after we’d pumped them full of three dozen rounds purchased in Walmart’s Easter Spring sales.

And now lastly: today marks 400 years since the date John Donne commemorated in Good-Friday, 1613, Riding Westward - a piece which a number of notorious characters to whom I faithfully minister find quite influential. Personally it’s a work I consider vastly overrated (I always say that if Donne and T. S. Elliot were that good they’d have been working for Hallmark instead of churning out all that meaningless egg-headed stuff), and I’m always pleased to find most young evangelicals I meet have never heard of it, while the next generation of Anglo-Catholics are more interested in gazing at their navels while pondering a possible call to the Ordinariate than they are embracing that to which their heritage points towards. Still, as way of seeing just how far we’ve come I’d urge those of you unfamiliar with the poem to read it today. At very least it’ll give you an appreciation of why I’m so confident that in another 400 years the Liberal Immorality of the past will be well and truly forgotten, while the words of Conservative Leaders like Myself and My Imitators shall stand firm for a thousand years.

I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.


Tom O. said...

(1) What was God's response to Korah for wanting to offer an "alternative framework for an authentic relationship with to God," as you put it in your September 11, 2012 blog post?

(2) What was his justification for his alternative framework for an authentic relationship with God? (Hint: it's in Numbers 16:3)

(3) How many gays has fundamentalist Christianity (of all stripes) killed versus how many gays has socialism killed? How many lives of gays has fundamentalist Christianity made miserable versus how many lives of gays has socialism made miserable?

(4) Which one is a bigger threat to the right of gay people: denial of marriage, or loss of democracy due to unsustainable debt, which in turn is due to entitlements (this hypothetical situation, might I remind you, is what is happening in Greece)?

(5) How do you avoid the cognitive dissonance which must result from simultaneously dissing conservatives for fearing socialism while annually creating a FUD post about fundamentalism on September 11th?

(6) You do realize that the word "fundamentalism" actually has a specific meaning, which only makes sense in the context of the Western evolution of Christianity, and thus terms such as "Islamic fundamentalism" are ill-defined at best?

(7) Let's suppose a son announces to his father that he is gay, and the father, in response, kills himself. Should we hold the son and his action of coming out accountable for his father's death?

(8) What is your postcount at Something Awful?

Sorry, but your Frankfurt School style of theology (and logic for that matter) isn't going to cut it.

You see, it doesn't matter even if you don't publish my posts, because the seed of cognitive dissonance I have planted will simply grow larger and larger, until you simply are forced to submit to what is observable and true (the holy scripture) or create an alternative, consistent system of philosophy where only you control the rules (atheism)


The Rev. Dr. Christian Troll said...

It's truly wonderful you take yourself so seriously, little Tom my boy. Because it couldn't be more obvious nobody else does.

Tom O. said...

It's a good thing I take myself seriously, because sometimes it is what prevents me from emotional outraged. So even if you think my serious demeanor is laughable (and slightly autistic), think of it is as merely a method of self-control.

I cannot say anything about your spiritual growth, but I think that liberal theology does a great disservice to Christianity. Jesus confirmed the existence of demons many times in His ministry, and I can say that not basing one's worldview on the Bible (not necessarily through the interpretation of one's pastor, but through an intellectually honest reading) opens one's heart to such manipulation.

That being said, even though I am a fundamentalist (I am not afraid to let my Jesus freak flag fly), I try to view things from a liberal perspective myself.

First of all, I think that we can both agree that the Bible contains some objective truths, which the language clearly states, and that there are some things both of us would reject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of us would consider a person who claimed to be a Christian, but believed that God does not exist, or that Jesus of Nazareth was 100% fiction with no historical existence whatsoever, to be in grave contradiction. We know this, for the Bible clearly tells us so.

Granted, my first series of questions were rather offensive, but seeing that you are not interested in aggression, I hope that you may answer these questions, so that I may understand you better. I would appreciate it if you could break persona for a while...

(1) To what degree do you consider the Bible infallible? Do you consider the Old Testament + New Testament to be the Word of God? Just the New Testament? The New Testament sans Paul? Only the four gospels? How about only Mark and what scholars deem to originate from Q?

(2) Are you a Something Awful forum user? Your style of writing and rhetoric seemed eerily similar to that group.

The Rev. Dr. Christian Troll said...

Ok Tom – you’ve represented your qustions in manner approaching that of civility, so I’ll respond by dropping character and tring to answer you.

Although to be honest I can’t understand why you find what I believe of such importance. Should we indeed one day find ourselves each standing before the Lord Almighty, and each called to give an account for ourself, I very much doubt your interrogation will include an extra session on the person behind this blog’s doctrine of Scripture. Perhaps it might be a better use of your time to put that energy into thinking about the historicity and implications of your own position (whatever that might be) rather than worrying about mine?

The real problem I face in answering you is, however, that I’m never sure what people mean when they ask me (as happens surprisingly often) about my beliefs regarding the infallibility of Scripture. And no, I’m not saying that to be smart, or to in some way evade your question. It’s just that in my experience just about everyone has a different understanding of what they mean by the concept; so any I answer I give gets interpreted through a filter of which I have no knowledge, with the result that I’m invariably held as saying I agree or disagree with some kind of “orthodoxy” in a way that I never intinded.

Besides, I’m always uncomfortable ascribing what I mean by infallibilty to anyone or thing other than God, and despite what seems to be you firm convictions regarding my alleged heterodoxy, I’m actually still a long way way from reframing the the Trinity in terms of “Father, Son, and Holy Book”. Consequently my answer to you regarding Scripture is the same one I give everyone, and the only one I’ve ever held: namely that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (lit. “theopneustos” so if you prefer a translation of this as “God-breathed” I won’t argue), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Providing it’s understood in the context in which it was written – so please don’t think you’ll everhear me advocating Psalm 137 as justification for slaughtering the children of anyone disagress with me. (Although I’ll admit that’s a gag which I think I’ve had Father Christian use in the past, and if not he’s bound to try it on sometime ;-)

I’d never heard of the “something awful” site until your mention of it. As regulars can tell by the hap-hazard way this blog has been updated of late (not to mention my appalling tardiness in replying to everyone’s emails) my life and workload is currently hovering somewhere between “through the roof” and “completely & utterly out-of-control”, so alas there’s no way I’d have time to hang around there writing – even if I wanted to. Which I don’t ;-)
Take Care Tom, and thanks for trying to be a little less aggressive in your questions.