Angels in the Architecture "Where Righteousness and Mercy Kiss"

It has been awhile since I blogged a essay in Angels in the Architecture, but I'm going to try to get back into this. I am teaching through the book in my Humanities class right now, so I'm having to read the essays again.
In this essay, Doug Jones discusses the doctrine of Justification. No real shock there, since when do Protestants not talk about Justification? But Jones comes at this from a slightly different angle. Jones rehashes the issues separating Protestant Justification from Roman catholic Justification. He argues, however, that Roman Catholic Justification, aside from being Scripturally wrong, is philosophically wrong as well. Only the Protestant vision of Justification keeps God's attributes of Righteousness (Justice) and Mercy from warring against each other. Any system that elevates either of these two over the other makes for a lop-sided Justification and fails to do God justice, so-to-speak.
To simply forgive sin without punishment would indeed be merciful, but would leave justice unsatisfied. To punish sin wholly and immediately would be just, but would lack mercy. Roman Catholicism keeps these two at odds while the Protestant doctrine of Substitionary Atonement and Vicarious Sacrifice leading to Justification by Faith satisfies both requirements.
Why must God be just, you may ask? Because it is a self-proclaimed attribute of His holiness (cf. Neh. 9:32-33). Why must God then be merciful? God, Himself, declares this to be an attribute as well (cf. Ex. 34:6-7). Righteousness and Mercy must kiss for true Justification to happen. Only the Protestant vision of this Justification satisfies the demands of a holy and merciful God.

YouTube and visiting other blogs

Sometimes I feel like I have no original thoughts or content for this blog, but it does serve as a dumping ground for other stuff. I tend to watch YouTube and post videos I find there. I also tend to visit a group of other blogs (seen to the right) and occasionally just say what they have said (with due credit, of course). That is the case today. I just visited Andrew Kern's blog (Quiddity) and found a hilarious math video he mentioned. It is all the funnier because I have a student this year who, in jest, tried to get me with this same Math gag.
Enjoy.

Who's on first - Elizabethan-style

I found this a little while ago and linked it to my Facebook account, but never thought to put it up here. This is hilarious. It actually made me go find the original and watch it too. I used it in Rhetoric class to illustrate the concept of word play and how it can be humorous and confusing at the same time.

Do you use the library? Read this.

Fascinating thought from a writer at the New York Times. If Public libraries didn't already exist, could we start one today?
Read his article here.

Addendum to Positively Medieval blog entry

As I began teaching through this book, I realized something I didn't catch the last time through. A significant portion of Wilson and Jones's argument is that the Reformation cut the medieval conversation short. However, what I did not pick up on before is the suggestion that we normalized the way of life dictated by reacting to and living through the Reformation.
Think with me, if you will, of the other end of the medieval period, say, the Edict of Milan. There were essentially two reactions to the Edict of Milan. Monasticism was one reaction. Some Christians said to themselves, "It is not living for Christ if I cannot be killed for being a follower of Christ anymore, so I'll go off into the desert and live a hermit's life and deprive myself of all worldly fellowship and community." The other response was to emerge from the catacombs and instead of remaking Christian culture in the image of the catacombs, taking the best of the culture around them and putting it to good use. Churches and cathedrals were soon built, massive structures given over to the worship of the triune God.
Wilson and Jones are, to some extent, arguing that we descendants of the Reformation have been living in the desert. We decided to normalize the experience of the Reformation and reject anything, ANYTHING, that looked at all like it could have been used by Roman Catholicism. Thus we have protestants who reject infant baptism, vestments, ornate buildings, music in worship, wine in communion, a clear liturgy, and all sorts of other things that have little to nothing to do with the errors of Roman Catholic theology.
What we should have done, I guess, is correct the theology of the Roman Catholic Church and examine with a clear mind whether the rest of it was a abuse of corrupted theological thinking, or simply the conquest of culture that the church is called to.