Politics
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
Daniel as a model for Christian political involvement
0I’m sure you all are aware that political discourse in our country has become increasingly acrimonious and vapid. Both sides of the political spectrum hurl invective at one another. Demagoguery abounds. Politicians deal in platitudes, and the citizenry is both polarized and distrustful of the authorities like never before.
As a Christian man, I may disagree vehemently with a given political party or an individual candidate. But, biblically, that does not give me license to behave hatefully toward them, or to default to believing the worst about them. Rather, I’m called to honor them, to pray for them, to regard them as stewards who are ultimately chosen by God to faithfully discharge the office they hold. And I believe I’m called to do what I can to help them steward that position faithfully. Sometimes that involves the prophetic responsibility of calling them to account, as the OT prophets often did with the kings, but I won’t get into that here.
I think Daniel’s example is particularly instructive. Think about his situation:
- He was forcibly taken into exile. He had suffered injustice at the hands of Babylon.
- Babylon was a pagan culture that did not recognize the Living God or follow His ways.
- Nebuchadnezzar was a pompous man with a bad temper and a lust for power, and yet Daniel, a man of God, had been involuntarily pressed into his service.
Daniel was betwixt and between, to be sure. And he had every reason to disparage the Babylonians and their king, to wish for their downfall. But I see in Daniel a man who never compromised his faith in God while distinguishing himself in faithful, loyal service to an unholy culture. Even though the king didn’t govern rightly, you never see one ounce of disdain or disrespect coming from Daniel. Rather, you hear phrases like, “O King, may you live forever.” Daniel lived a no compromise life, but he had the honor and respect of those who didn’t know God. And God used his righteous tenacity to reveal Himself to Nebuchadnezzar, who transitioned from glorifying himself to recognizing that God is sovereign over the nations.
I wonder if that might not be a desirable paradigm for our present political culture. You may be happy about who’s in power right now. It may drive you crazy at the moment. But how would Daniel handle it?
Daniel 11:32 states that those who know their God shall be strong and do great exploits in His name. Perhaps that captures the secret of the remarkable life Daniel lived. For my own part, I’m both convicted and inspired by his example. And I pray that our culture is flooded with Daniels in this crucial, desperate hour.
I intend to be one of them.
Keep it up, Dems
0I don’t know about you, but the spectacle of our elected representatives (Dems in particular) standing to cheer Mexican President Calderon as he lectured the American people on the injustice of Arizona’s new immigration law was infuriating. And a bit nauseating.
That’s just the sort of behavior that’s going to garner them some serious comeuppance come November. I can’t wait to vote.
Anyway, I fired off a missive to Senators Warner and Webb here in VA to register my disgust with both Calderon and the Democrats’ behavior. It will be interesting to see if/how they respond. Here’s what I wrote:
The Honorable Senator Jim Webb
248 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510Dear Senator:
It is difficult for me to convey the utter disdain I have for Mexican President Calderon’s comments from the House floor today. He has neither the right nor the place to lecture United States citizens on immigration law enforcement — particularly when Mexico’s own immigration laws are so stringent and, I daresay, merciless.
The only thing more contemptible than President Calderon’s odious comments was the standing ovation Democrats gave him in response.
I would like to ask, Senator, if you were among those who stood to cheer. I hope not. But the courtesy of a reply to that specific question would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA
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
DOOM
0Moe Lane over at Redstate.com called it. Coakley is toast, which may very well be the stake through Obamacare’s heart. To quote Mr. Lane, “DOOM.”
Senator Elect Brown and tea partygoers everywhere, congratulations.
Senator Webb, you aren’t fooling anyone. You and Warner both sold out on Obamacare, and we shan’t forget it. With the denouement of today’s Boston Tea party, the writing on the wall is just too stark for you to ignore.
But it’s too late. You and Senator Warner chose to brush aside the sensible majority you’re supposed to represent when we were angrily, desperately assailing switchboards and inboxes, begging you not to let Obamacare advance in the Senate.
You betrayed your public trust. You both turned a deaf ear to us. And there’s NOTHING you can say or do at this point that will EVER erase that fact.
DOOM.
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
Politics of the Emerging Church
1Dave Brody over at the Brody File cited a recent Newsweek article covering the gains Democrats have made amongst young evangelicals, who voted for Obama in surprising numbers.
Interestingly, CBN News is re-airing a story on the emerging church (go here for a primer if you don’t know what that means) detailing how the movement is generating both buzz and controversy — the latter within older or more traditional evangelical circles.
With its emphasis on community, relationships, ministry to the poor, and adopting a welcoming posture toward people who typically wouldn’t darken a traditional church’s door, the emerging church has a lot going for it. But if the concentration of young evangelicals who support biblically suspect candidates and policies exists within the emerging church (as I suspect it does), evangelicalism may have a bit of a problem on its hands.
In response to Brody’s article, I sent him an e-mail outlining my concerns in summary fashion. Take a read and let me know what you think:
For my own part, I voted against Obama for a constellation of reasons, but my pro-life commitment was at or near the top of the list. As a Christian, I simply cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience; quite frankly, I don’t see how any other Christian, whether young or old, could do the same under any circumstances.
To an extent, I share the concern younger evangelicals have for addressing a broader array of issues, including environmentalism and socio-economic justice. Surely, such concerns have biblical warrant — and when pressed with solid scriptural evidence to that effect, I imagine most older evangelicals would be forced to agree. I think the locus of the division between evangelicals of younger and older stripes centers on how we address these biblical concerns in actual practice.
This is where certain sectors of evangelicalism have gone badly awry in more recent days (e.g., the alliance of Rick Warren, Jack Hayford, et al with climate change alarmists). For example, I have always felt that if anybody is going to be an environmentalist, it ought to be a Christian. But Christian environmentalism would necessarily look different than the colloquial environmentalism typically espoused by closet Marxists and pantheists who proceed from decidedly unbiblical, anti-Christian worldviews. Conversely, Christian environmentalism would speedily lose both its meaning and its impact if believers merely link arms with existing movements in an attempt to be relevant or to demonstrate that the American Church is politically sensitive beyond traditional hotbutton issues.
Certainly, Christians need to be willing to address the breadth of ills that plague our culture. Let’s just be sure that we do it in a way that comports with the Living Truth we steward. Otherwise, we will fall short of being salt and light — good intentions notwithstanding.
On that note, I think younger evangelicals who heartily supported Obama need to ponder the following questions: Do you think it pleases or displeases God that you voted for a presidential candidate who believes the wanton destruction of countless unborn children is legally protected behavior? And, given that we serve the Lord of Life who calls us to defend those unjustly sentenced to death, what other social justice issues are deserving of higher consideration when you cast your vote?
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