Current Events

Dear NH State Sen. Lambert: Not just no…

0

…but HECK no.

Witness a nauseating display of unwarranted brag and bounce:

The MonT-SteR’s response:

State Sen. Lambert, with all due respect, we’ve only had one primary, which was essentially a straw poll. And we’ve found in the aftermath that Romney actually lost. On that basis, it should come as no surprise to you when your call to shut up and get in line behind your candidate of choice is met not merely with skepticism, but trenchant disdain. If there are any lessons to be learned from 2008, it’s that milquetoast moderate Republicans lose presidential elections. Thus, I flatly refuse to vote for Romney in a primary. As with McCain in 2008, Romney MIGHT get my vote in the general election IF he ends up being the nominee — but only because he would be the lesser of two evils. Your rhetoric and your demeanor are highly insulting. If anything, I’m more ill-disposed toward Romney than I was before. You should be proud of the winsome case you’ve made for him.

An Open Letter to the Qur’an Burning Pastor

0

Dear Pastor Jones,

I can appreciate your concern for the falsity of Islam. As John Piper notes, bad theology dishonors God and hurts people, and I can’t think of a theological construct more hurtful, more violent, more angry, more damnable than Islam.

Except for bad Christian theology.

As ambassadors of Christ, we are charged with the awesome responsibility of representing Jesus Himself to the world. None of us is perfect, and so at times even the most well intentioned believer can and will fall short. But since we are His regents, we must be careful not to take God’s name in vain by misrepresenting His will, person, and character. Behavior guided by a warped theological grid will inevitably do just that; the result is damaged hearts, relationships, lives, and even cultures. I know this firsthand by virtue of my own failures.

You have cited the radicality of Jesus as biblical warrant for what you are doing. Granted, Jesus did some radical things. He appointed a tax collector and a Zealot (political arch-enemies) to stand side by side as two members of the close-knit Twelve. He set aside the rights of his office as Rabbi and Lord and washed the feet of His followers like a servant. But most radically, He allowed Himself to be led like a sheep to the slaughter. He refused to revile in return those who beat and cursed him, and though twelve legions of angels were at His command, He allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified cruelly on a cross. He died: for you, for me, and… for Muslims.

He is Yahweh-Sabaoth, the Lord of Hosts, but I know in my heart that the teeming throngs of people deceived by Mohammed’s teachings move Him to grief. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should enter into eternal life.

Honestly, I admire your courage; you’re sticking to your guns even though the entire world is frowning upon you and your flock. And I can even understand your desire to “send a message.” We’ve all been wounded by the acts of Islamic terrorists. We’ve all burned with anger as we’ve observed the wanton Islamic violence and intimidation aimed at our people and our homeland. But what you are doing is not love. It is not grace. It is not outreach. It is not redemptive. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your message is actually one of reprisal — in diametric opposition to the Golden Rule.

Jesus’ bravery is demonstrated most clearly not in the overturning of tables in the temple, but in the act of sacrificing Himself for humanity — a race that has shaken its collective fist in God’s face in abject rebellion.

Our government has pressured you not to go forward out of concern for the safety of our soldiers. I beg of you — not merely out of concern for what violence Muslims may commit in response, but fearful rather for the Muslims that could be turned away from their Savior on your account — please desist. There is no shame or cowardice in turning from a destructive or unwise path.

Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love NEVER fails. What force, what political speech, what message could be more powerful than that of Christ’s love for everyone? I pray that, in the days ahead, your decisions and actions will be guided by His love and by the clear leading of His Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Rob

Bloomberg spews venom and vapidity on CBS News

0

Oops. I was so furious over this that when I heard Katie Couric, I thought Today show. And I fired off a missive to Bloomberg’s office with that error in it. A quick-tempered man…

Oh, well. Below is the letter with corrections. I suppose Bloomberg’s office will write me off as an idiot. Another testament to the necessity of proofing.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City of New York
253 Broadway
New York, NY 10007

Mayor Bloomberg:

Your recent comments on the CBS Evening News implicating foes of Obamacare in the attempted bombing on Times Square were contemptible in the extreme. It is most regrettable that you have chosen to equate those who ascribe to the values of our Founders with Islamic militants. It seems to me that one of those two groups has a clear track record of terrorist acts. Who, I ask, is more likely to detonate a car bomb in New York?

Your gratuitous and unwarranted slander of patriotic Americans was as fatuous as it was specious. Congratulations.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA

On Calamity and Divine Judgment

0

I made the comments below in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Given the nightmarish suffering that’s occurring in Haiti at the moment (and some notorious commentary that’s floating about on the subject), it seemed like a good idea to repost them.

It bothers me greatly that the Christian voices that seem to trumpet the loudest in times of tragedy are those who proclaim (and seem to relish) the arrival of God’s judgment in the likes of disasters like Katrina. I recently preached a sermon on Luke 13 that deals with this very issue. Jesus cites two examples of suffering or catastrophe where people were killed by human agency or accidental means. He says to his audience in verses 3 and 5, “Do you think that the people who suffered these fates are greater sinners or worse culprits than everyone else? I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” What He is saying is this: 1) Don’t assume that God metes out judgment in every instance of disaster or personal calamity, 2) by extension, don’t assume that you are more righteous than those who suffer calamity, and 3) as a corrollary to number 2, don’t assume that you are escaping judgment just because disaster hasn’t befallen you.

Did God judge New Orleans by sending Katrina? It’s not beyond the realm of possibility, nor is it without biblical precedent. God is love, but He is also judge, and he does bring the nations to account for their deeds. But Luke 13 indicates that Christians ought to refrain from being so glib in their pronouncements of gloom and doom. The locus of the Church’s ministry in such times ought to be in reaching out with the love, care, and compassion of Christ — not in smug proclamations of judgment from the comfort of an easy chair.

Ever heard of Jonah, folks? You know, the guy who wanted God to fry those brutal, savage, imperialistic Assyrians? Did God allow him to just sit back and wait for Him to destroy Nineveh? Or did He send Jonah in mission to them in hopes that they would repent so they could be spared? And what did Jonah learn in the end — that God enjoys laying waste to entire cities, or that He’d rather spare them? Is God pleased when his people are happy about or hopeful for the destruction of non-Christians? Or would he prefer us to be motivated by His heart for compassion and rescue and reach out to unbelievers?

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Bible tweets?

0

David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don’t know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California’s stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there’s no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.

This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel’s cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn’t expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.

For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn’t an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.

A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:

  • If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
    It’s certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not…
  • Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
    Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster’s going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God’s prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don’t know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”

Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it’s getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.

I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

The tide turns

0

Uh-huh.

A year ago, I wouldn’t have thought this possible. But lately, I’ve had a sense that the global warming hysteria juggernaut is losing steam. Big time.

Between this year’s record, world-wide low temperatures and snowfall and recent data showing that a year of global cooling has practically eradicated more than a century of warming, it seems that Al Gore and his Chicken Little brigade are having a hard time blaming humanity’s collective carbon footprint for any and every calamitous or anomalous weather phenomenon.

Check out this story in the Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.

It’s about dadburned time.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

1

Some thoughts on recent events in rapid-fire succession:

  • McCain’s campaign suspension. Unorthodox, bold, smart. McCain’s certainly a risk taker — even though I’ve found his politics odious at times, I also find it refreshing that he’s willing to think and act outside the overly scripted, focus-grouped, poll-driven box that is modern American politics. Doubtless McCain’s camp brooded over the political calculus of temporarily dropping his campaign, but I think it says something meaningful and positive about McCain that he was willing to do it in the first place. Plus, he’s once again put Obama on defense; all he could do was react. And I don’t think his reaction has been terribly smart so far. If Obama appears at tomorrow’s debate alone, he will look like an ostentatious stage hound fiddling while Rome burns. I think it really does have the potential to be the death knell of his campaign.
     
  • The mortgage bailout. I have to admit that I don’t fully understand the crisis. But my reaction has been along these lines:
     
    • Where do these governmental incursions into the market end? What happens if the U.S. automobile industry starts to tank? Or the airlines? Do we have to bail them out too? Where does it end? We’re on a slippery slope of socialism here, and one need only look to the historical example of the former USSR to see how well that works.
    • Besides, as a taxpayer, I don’t want to be on the hook for business failures I have no control over. Nor do I want to be on the hook for the unrepentant malfeasance of politicians, bureaucrats, and Wall Street fat cats.
    • Speaking of bureaucracy, the idea of giving Henry Paulson — an unelected official — a blank check for $700 billion to use at his discretion seems like lunacy. Our national debt is already $6 TRILLION. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already put taxpayer dollars on the line because they are GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) that borrow heavily from foreign investors to do business. I resent the fact that Paulson et al (President Bush included) are out there fear-mongering, telling us that we have no choice but to further compound the taxpayers’ outlay or face economic meltdown. Isn’t bureaucratic incompetence and corruption partly to blame for this mess in the first place?!? Sorry guys — the economy may be having problems, but I’m skeptical about the Chicken Little approach. If we need a solution, I’d prefer a thoughtful, non-Marxist one to the put-the-taxpayer-in-a-hammer-lock variety.
       
  • Planning to start my interaction with Gary Grieg’s defense of Lakeland soon — stay tuned!
     
  • On a lighter note, I really enjoyed LSU’s comeback at Auburn on Saturday. Looking forward to seeing them develop over the rest of the season. It’s going to be a great ride again this year. Geaux Tigers!

That is all. For now, anyway…

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Labor Day news digest

0

Some things percolating in The MonT-SteR’s head:

  • Thank God that Gustav is weaker than expected and not drowning New Orleans.
     
  • Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President. Politics aside, when you consider that Jim Crow laws were in effect less than a decade before Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ was born (and I’m a thirty-something Gen-Xer), you have to admit that we’ve come a long way. Obama may not be the best choice for President (in my estimation, he’s most certainly not), but it’s a good day in America when an African-American has the opportunity to be the best choice in the first place. Congrats to him, and to our entire nation. It really is an important landmark.
  • Since McCain’s “Meet Sarah Palin” rally on Friday, Gov. Palin has come under intense fire from liberal bloggers who alleged that her 4-month-old son, Trig, is not her baby. They went so far as to say that Palin faked her own pregnancy in order to cover up her oldest daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Photos showing a trim looking Gov. Palin (despite being 7 mos. pregnant) and her daughter, Bristol Palin, with a “baby bump” during the same time frame have been cited as “proof” of this conspiratorial thinking.

    My first instinct was to dismiss this stuff as the typical bilge that is gleefully spewed by venomous left-wing blogs. It turns out, however, that at least one element of the story is true: Bristol Palin is pregnant out of wedlock. According to a statement released by the Palins today to quell the rumors, Bristol has opted to keep the baby and marry the father.

    Some leftists online are breathlessly touting this as the archetypal failure of conservative parenting and abstinence-only education — an unwarranted logical leap that is borne of ideological allegiance rather than evidence. This can happen to the best of parents, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that only conservative parents would be distressed by such a development.

    Others are drooling over the prospect that this essentially kills McCain’s chances in November. Admittedly, it is an interesting question. How is this going to play with values voters who were energized by Palin’s addition to the McCain ticket? Michelle Maulkin over at Hot Air has echoed a thought I had. The Palin family’s handling of this situation is a stark contrast to Obama’s rhetoric, which views babies born to teenage mothers as unnecessary “punishment” that abortion conveniently remedies. That should be encouraging to pro-lifers — it demonstrates that the Palin family shares and holds to pro-life values, even under gut-wrenching circumstances.

    How does The MonT-SteR feel about all this? Not entirely sure. I can sympathize with the Palins, and recognize that children have the freedom to make choices that fly in the face of loving, consistent parenting. Part of me wishes they had been up front about it, but what family out there wouldn’t want to keep something like this as quiet and private as possible? Even so, it appears that the pregnancy was no secret back in Alaska. According to a Time article, residents of Sarah Palin’s hometown, Wasilla, were aware of the whole thing and yet unruffled by it:

    If you haven’t guessed yet, the people here [in Wasilla] are genuinely friendly. Even those in Palin’s inner sanctum who have been told since Friday not to talk to reporters by McCain’s media team, are almost apologetic that they can’t be neighborly and chat, since you came all this way to little Wasilla. And those who can talk, do. All weekend they had the decency not to pretend that they didn’t know the governor’s eldest daughter was pregnant. But they also expected decency in return, that I wouldn’t be the kind of person to make sport out of a young girl’s slip.

    This indicates that there was no attempt at some dastardly cover-up by the Palins. It also means that the so-called Kossacks over at Daily Kos who started this flap should be ashamed of themselves for 1) jumping to unfounded conclusions based on their own judgmental hearts and wishful thinking, and 2) rudely delving into intensely sensitive and private family matters in order to score ill-gotten political points.

    As for me, I’m inclined to like Sarah Palin. I don’t think this episode disqualifies her from being the veep candidate at all. But, I continue to hold a “wait and see” posture before I jump entirely on the bandwagon. I like what I’ve seen so far, but I want to get a better idea of what she’ll bring to the ticket. Hopefully, it isn’t additional baggage. In any case, my prayers are with her and her family as they weather a difficult time under heavy scrutiny by an unfriendly and biased mainstream media.

    We’ll just have to wait and see how this unfolds, and what the average American voter thinks of all this. It’ll be interesting to see the fallout in the daily tracking polls.
     

  • The Lakeland Revival appears to have suffered something of an implosion, leaving in its wake troubling questions about Todd Bentley and the leaders who gave oversight to the movement. I mention this as someone who watched some of the Lakeland meetings via God TV, and was undeniably touched by the presence of God. In addition, a number of respected friends and acquaintances traveled to Lakeland to attend the meetings in person and brought back wonderful testimonies of genuine encounters with the Living God. While I acknowledge the hand of God in Lakeland, there were some things I observed about the meetings and the church’s reaction to them that made me uneasy. For the sake of brevity, I shan’t enumerate them here — it’ll have to wait for another post.

    I had reserved comment on this for awhile, because I wanted to explore my questions and misgivings more thoroughly with God before making any statements; I don’t level criticisms at what appears to be a move of God lightly. In contrast, Christians of certain stripes didn’t have any hesitation about denouncing both Todd Bentley and the apparent outpouring at Lakeland, asserting that it was all unbiblical at best, downright demonic at worst. Others, such as Dr. Gary Greig (whom I also respect), found almost unqualified scriptural warrant and sanction of the entire affair. I actually planned to interact with Greig’s statement on my blog, and will probably do so in the near future. Those who waved off his defense of Lakeland as “pseudo-scholarship” were too dismissive. Dr. Greig is most certainly not a pseudo-scholar. Nevertheless, I felt that some of his thinking was problematic, and I think it needs to be highlighted from the perspective of a reasoned, fellow charismatic (as opposed to smug hyper-cessationists looking for a theological axe to grind with Pharisaical gusto).

    For my own part, I’m in a bit of a deconstructionist phase with respect to some peripheral aspects of the Charismatic movement, which is part of the reason why I reserved comment. I encounter “novelties” in doctrine and practice so frequently these days that I can scarcely keep up with it, and the pressure to just “swallow and follow” (as J. Lee Grady puts it) is palpable. All the while, a voice in the back of my head nags, “Are we sure there’s biblical precedent for this? Besides, it seems to me that we don’t sufficiently know or practice the basics of the faith. Can we step away from the latest, fantastical stuff that comes down the pike to focus on core (and oft-neglected) aspects of Christian faith and practice?”

    I feel this way in part because George Barna has chronicled dangerous trends within American Christendom in recent years, demonstrating that the church at large is failing at basic Christian discipleship. My own anecdotal experience in ministry has confirmed many of his findings. Given that the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement accounts for a growing number of Christians in America, it’s foolish to assume that it is immune to the problems enumerated by studies such as Barna’s.

    Perhaps the apparent denouement of the Lakeland revival (or, at least, Todd Bentley’s involvement in it) is indicative of this. In any case, I confess that I failed to do the investigative work necessary (both factually and scripturally) to make discerning pronouncements vis-a-vis Lakeland with any kind of certitude. Next time something like this comes up, I need to be more prepared to have a reasoned, biblically informed, spiritually sensitive voice.

    In the meantime, grace, mercy, and prayerfulness are prescribed as the Body of Christ walks through Lakeland’s fallout. All I know is that I’d feel terrible if I were in Todd Bentley’s shoes; the last thing I’d ever want to do is drag the name of Christ through the mud. It’s in moments like that, when our fallenness and disobedience to God catch up to us, that the enemy moves in to condemn us and crush our spirits. There are those in the church who are dancing on Bentley’s ministerial grave, and that’s a shame. I suspect that the enemy did the very same thing in the wake of Peter’s threefold denial of the Lord. Let’s not side with the enemy, brothers and sisters; if Peter could be restored by Jesus’ loving hand, so can Todd Bentley.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Rebel against the cult of celebrity

0

The now-notorious Chris Crocker made a somewhat embarrassing YouTube video (warning: the video contains profanity) pleading with the masses to “Leave Britney (Spears) alone!” after her lackluster performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. You may be surprised, but The MonT-SteR thinks Chris Crocker has a point — one that leads our insatiable hearts inevitably to the grace of God. Take a listen and I’ll try to explain.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

More global warming grousing

0

Regular readers know very well that we here at The MonT-SteR REPORT regard the Evangelical Statement on Climate Change (ESCC) as a grossly ill-conceived document — largely because of its dependence on the faulty premise that the scientific community is united in its certainty that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. The ESCC has this to say:

Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

One of the sources they cite in support of this assertion is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Summary for Policymakers, which “projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes ‘most of the warming’ to human activities.” What the ESCC does not tell you (possibly because its authors were unaware) is that 1)the IPCC is not entirely made up of scientists, 2) those who serve on the IPCC are not monolithically united in support of the notion of man-made global warming, and 3) some of those who have resigned from the IPCC in protest against the blind acceptance of pop global warming theory are nevertheless listed as contributors to the IPCC’s report. These facts alone refute the ESCC’s assertion that there is undiluted scientific consensus on the issue, even within the IPCC.

The ESCC also rudely characterizes skeptics of pop global warming theory as a ragtag, minuscule, marginalized segment that is “in denial” about the supposedly unassailable scientific consensus. This assertion simply isn’t credible, especially in light of the growing list of leading scientists worldwide who are reversing their positions on climate change.

Even so, the ESCC encourages Christians that we can trust the output of the IPCC’s assessments and deliberations because it is chaired by an evangelical Christian. Sorry guys — evangelical Christians, no matter how devout or sincere, can be WRONG. And that’s just what the signatories to the ESCC are. The very foundation of the ESCC itself depends upon an underlying premise that is dubious at best, patently false at worst. Oddly enough, the ESCC lays the groundwork for its own demise:

Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data.

Precisely. And the demonstrable lack of scientific consensus on pop global warming theory serves to illustrate that the ESCC’s certitude on the matter is unwarranted. That means, ladies and gentlemen of the Evangelical Climate Initiative (including the likes of people I admire, such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially Jack Hayford), that you messed up. And I think that the commitment to truth that is a requisite of the Christian lifestyle dictates that you ought to withdraw your signatures and support from the ESCC, posthaste.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Go to Top