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
0Dear 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
0Oops. 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 10007Mayor 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
0I 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.
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?
0David 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
0Uh-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
Rebel against the cult of celebrity
0The 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
0Regular 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