Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bible tweets?
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:
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
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.”
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, bible study, Christianity, David Schuster, homosexuality, MSNBC
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Politics of the Emerging Church
Dave 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:
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Dave 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:
I was born in 1972, so I am a Gen X-er. I am also what official demographers would label an "evangelical," but my age puts me between the more traditional evangelicals and the younger ones you refer to in your article. Nevertheless, I readily admit that I'm concerned by the willingness of younger evangelicals to throw in with the likes of Obama.
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,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?
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, church and state, discipleship
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On salt and light
Our small group spent two weeks studying the passages in all three of the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus refers to His followers as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (see Matthew 5:1-16, Mark 9:33-50, and Luke 14:25-35).
We found that our working definition of what it is to be salt and light tends to be woefully shallow and one-dimensional.
I attempted to synthesize the issues raised by all three passages into a summary statement. While this is definitely more expansive than the typical definition you'll get from your average Joe Christian, it isn't by any means exhaustive.
Give it a read -- and let me know what you think:
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Our small group spent two weeks studying the passages in all three of the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus refers to His followers as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (see Matthew 5:1-16, Mark 9:33-50, and Luke 14:25-35).
We found that our working definition of what it is to be salt and light tends to be woefully shallow and one-dimensional.
I attempted to synthesize the issues raised by all three passages into a summary statement. While this is definitely more expansive than the typical definition you'll get from your average Joe Christian, it isn't by any means exhaustive.
Give it a read -- and let me know what you think:
Being salt and light in the world is an all-encompassing way of life that is divinely sanctioned, from top to bottom. It recognizes the unvarnished truth of our station before God, as well as our relationship to one another (within the community of faith) and to the wider world.
Before God, we are spiritually impoverished and in desperate need of His cleansing touch. In response, we pursue God and His righteousness by mourning our sins and dealing ruthlessly with our sinful tendencies -- for God will not brook split allegiances.
Before one another, we adopt a posture of openheartedness -- an eagerness to freely and peaceably receive, serve, and minister to one another in Christ's name, and a recognition that worldly hierarchicalism in all its forms is a prideful and bitter poison that has no place amongst Jesus' followers.
Before the world, we walk not in the brash, self-righteous flamboyance of the pointed finger or the upturned nose, but with mercy, with the kind of winsome, gentle, fervent devotion to God that speaks far better than mere words can. And when the world rejects or seeks to hurt us for this, we humbly entrust ourselves to God, being counted among those of whom the world was not worthy.
Blessings,Before God, we are spiritually impoverished and in desperate need of His cleansing touch. In response, we pursue God and His righteousness by mourning our sins and dealing ruthlessly with our sinful tendencies -- for God will not brook split allegiances.
Before one another, we adopt a posture of openheartedness -- an eagerness to freely and peaceably receive, serve, and minister to one another in Christ's name, and a recognition that worldly hierarchicalism in all its forms is a prideful and bitter poison that has no place amongst Jesus' followers.
Before the world, we walk not in the brash, self-righteous flamboyance of the pointed finger or the upturned nose, but with mercy, with the kind of winsome, gentle, fervent devotion to God that speaks far better than mere words can. And when the world rejects or seeks to hurt us for this, we humbly entrust ourselves to God, being counted among those of whom the world was not worthy.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity
Monday, September 01, 2008
Labor Day news digest
Some things percolating in The MonT-SteR's head:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
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
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Christianity, John McCain, Lakeland Revival, Sarah Palin
Saturday, July 12, 2008
RIP, Tony Snow
I was very sad to learn this afternoon that Tony Snow -- journalist, commentator, news anchor, radio host, musician, intellectual, public servant, and family man -- died of cancer early this morning at 2 a.m.
He was one of a kind in politics. Friends and colleagues have labeled him something of a renaissance man, which he certainly was; just look at all the roles he fulfilled and how expertly he discharged them. He's credited (however begrudgingly by some) with changing the culture of the White House press corps during his short tenure as press secretary.
How?
I first heard Tony Snow on talk radio, and I was impressed with the breadth of his knowledge, as well as his eloquence and erudition on the fly. I always found him very stimulating to listen to. But his unique way with contentious callers was even more impressive. It didn't matter how stridently they disagreed or how vehemently (or insultingly) they argued, Tony had a cool head that just didn't get rattled. Even when he was hard-hitting in his rejoinder to an interlocutor, there was an undeniable kindheartedness that came through -- so much so that my wife, who doesn't really like political theater or commentary, would say, "Tony's a good guy," and gladly listen to him. I suspect that his ideological polar opposites found themselves doing much the same thing in spite of themselves.
"Civility in political discourse" is reverently and longingly bandied about a great deal these days, usually in association with a call to "bipartisanship" -- a political cuss word that, in today's climate, means ideological compromise for one side of the aisle and not the other. Tony Snow embodied civility in political discourse, and he proved that it can be done without sacrificing core principles.
Others have spoken of him as a man of deep faith, which was doubtless the reservoir of his gentility. I remember a mailbag segment on FoxNews Sunday featuring a viewer's scathing attack on Tony's belief in the resurrection of Christ, likening it to belief in Xenu and the Easter Bunny. Tony's response was rendered in unabashed fashion, but with a kindly smile: "Atheistic jabs notwithstanding, yes, I believe!"
It seems fitting, therefore, to close with some of Tony Snow's own words from a Christianity Today article about reconciling the faith that so guided and informed his life and the disease he finally succumbed to this morning:
Farewell, Tony. Your heart, intellect, and aplomb endeared you to so many; among public figures on the scene today, you really were one of my heroes. Thanks for giving the most you ever could offer to God and man. You will be sorely missed.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I was very sad to learn this afternoon that Tony Snow -- journalist, commentator, news anchor, radio host, musician, intellectual, public servant, and family man -- died of cancer early this morning at 2 a.m.
He was one of a kind in politics. Friends and colleagues have labeled him something of a renaissance man, which he certainly was; just look at all the roles he fulfilled and how expertly he discharged them. He's credited (however begrudgingly by some) with changing the culture of the White House press corps during his short tenure as press secretary.
How?
I first heard Tony Snow on talk radio, and I was impressed with the breadth of his knowledge, as well as his eloquence and erudition on the fly. I always found him very stimulating to listen to. But his unique way with contentious callers was even more impressive. It didn't matter how stridently they disagreed or how vehemently (or insultingly) they argued, Tony had a cool head that just didn't get rattled. Even when he was hard-hitting in his rejoinder to an interlocutor, there was an undeniable kindheartedness that came through -- so much so that my wife, who doesn't really like political theater or commentary, would say, "Tony's a good guy," and gladly listen to him. I suspect that his ideological polar opposites found themselves doing much the same thing in spite of themselves.
"Civility in political discourse" is reverently and longingly bandied about a great deal these days, usually in association with a call to "bipartisanship" -- a political cuss word that, in today's climate, means ideological compromise for one side of the aisle and not the other. Tony Snow embodied civility in political discourse, and he proved that it can be done without sacrificing core principles.
Others have spoken of him as a man of deep faith, which was doubtless the reservoir of his gentility. I remember a mailbag segment on FoxNews Sunday featuring a viewer's scathing attack on Tony's belief in the resurrection of Christ, likening it to belief in Xenu and the Easter Bunny. Tony's response was rendered in unabashed fashion, but with a kindly smile: "Atheistic jabs notwithstanding, yes, I believe!"
It seems fitting, therefore, to close with some of Tony Snow's own words from a Christianity Today article about reconciling the faith that so guided and informed his life and the disease he finally succumbed to this morning:
Picture yourself in a hospital bed. The fog of anesthesia has begun to wear away. A doctor stands at your feet; a loved one holds your hand at the side. "It's cancer," the healer announces.
The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. "Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler." But another voice whispers: "You have been called." Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter—and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.
There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue -- for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.
The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. "Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler." But another voice whispers: "You have been called." Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter—and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.
There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue -- for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.
Farewell, Tony. Your heart, intellect, and aplomb endeared you to so many; among public figures on the scene today, you really were one of my heroes. Thanks for giving the most you ever could offer to God and man. You will be sorely missed.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, politics, Tony Snow
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Primary encounter
While crossing the parking lot to enter my local polling place today, I saw a man talking on his cell phone. He looked visibly distraught; his hand was cupped over his eyes as he stood. As I got closer, he cried out in anguish and dropped to one knee, all the while holding the phone to his ear.
I paused as I opened the door, watching him. He was obviously deeply pained by something—it seemed he was getting terrible news of some kind. My heart went out to him, but I wasn't sure what to do. Do I talk to him, or would that be viewed as an intrusion in a moment of private grief? Then again, his grief didn't appear to be all that private at the moment. It was severe enough to be arresting; he couldn't even make it to his car.
Not sure what action to take (if any), I went inside. This public mourner had caught the attention of the poll workers inside.
"Is he okay?" one of them asked me as I handed over my voter registration card.
"I don't know," I replied. "It sure seems like he's getting some bad news."
A couple people continued to watch through the window, as did I. He still hadn't moved on. There, on the sidewalk outside the polling place, he continued to kneel, hand over his eyes and head bowed.
I'm going to do something, I thought. So I voted as hastily as I could, accepted an "I Voted" sticker on my way out the door, and walked up to the man.
"Excuse me, sir," I said as I put my hand on his arm. "I know you're on the phone, and I don't mean to interrupt, but is there anything I can do for you?"
He looked at me with bleary, reddened eyes.
"There's been a death—" He was so choked with grief that he couldn't even finish the sentence.
"I'm so sorry," I said. "What's your name?"
"Rhett."
"Rhett, can I pray for you?"
He nodded his head.
"Can I ask who died?" I said.
At this, he simply burst into tears. And there, in the parking lot at the polling place, I prayed with all the fervency and empathy I could muster. I asked the God of all comfort, the same God who knows what it is to suffer loss and even death, to draw near to Rhett and his family. I prayed that, despite their grief, they would know the surpassing peace that only God can grant us in times of personal pain. I ended by speaking blessing over him, and by giving him a hug. He thanked me, and—after taking a moment to compose himself—went inside to vote.
I drove away from the polling place in tears, saddened the loss that Rhett was feeling. I continued to pray for him as I drove, and then it hit me: Does he have a church family? Is he part of a community that will close ranks around him and bear his burdens during this time? Rob, for goodness' sake, you're a pastor! Go offer further ministry to him, and invite him into your own faith-community!
I turned the car around, but by the time I got back to the polling place, he was gone.
As I shared this encounter with my wife, I did some weeping of my own. While it was a joy and a privilege to be able to offer the simple comfort of a caring voice, a heartfelt prayer, and a hug, I could have done so much more. I was just a little too slow on the uptake.
Next time, I pray that I have the presence of mind and spirit to do a more appropriate level of follow-through in a situation like that. In the meantime, friends, I invite you to pray for Rhett and his family.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
While crossing the parking lot to enter my local polling place today, I saw a man talking on his cell phone. He looked visibly distraught; his hand was cupped over his eyes as he stood. As I got closer, he cried out in anguish and dropped to one knee, all the while holding the phone to his ear.
I paused as I opened the door, watching him. He was obviously deeply pained by something—it seemed he was getting terrible news of some kind. My heart went out to him, but I wasn't sure what to do. Do I talk to him, or would that be viewed as an intrusion in a moment of private grief? Then again, his grief didn't appear to be all that private at the moment. It was severe enough to be arresting; he couldn't even make it to his car.
Not sure what action to take (if any), I went inside. This public mourner had caught the attention of the poll workers inside.
"Is he okay?" one of them asked me as I handed over my voter registration card.
"I don't know," I replied. "It sure seems like he's getting some bad news."
A couple people continued to watch through the window, as did I. He still hadn't moved on. There, on the sidewalk outside the polling place, he continued to kneel, hand over his eyes and head bowed.
I'm going to do something, I thought. So I voted as hastily as I could, accepted an "I Voted" sticker on my way out the door, and walked up to the man.
"Excuse me, sir," I said as I put my hand on his arm. "I know you're on the phone, and I don't mean to interrupt, but is there anything I can do for you?"
He looked at me with bleary, reddened eyes.
"There's been a death—" He was so choked with grief that he couldn't even finish the sentence.
"I'm so sorry," I said. "What's your name?"
"Rhett."
"Rhett, can I pray for you?"
He nodded his head.
"Can I ask who died?" I said.
At this, he simply burst into tears. And there, in the parking lot at the polling place, I prayed with all the fervency and empathy I could muster. I asked the God of all comfort, the same God who knows what it is to suffer loss and even death, to draw near to Rhett and his family. I prayed that, despite their grief, they would know the surpassing peace that only God can grant us in times of personal pain. I ended by speaking blessing over him, and by giving him a hug. He thanked me, and—after taking a moment to compose himself—went inside to vote.
I drove away from the polling place in tears, saddened the loss that Rhett was feeling. I continued to pray for him as I drove, and then it hit me: Does he have a church family? Is he part of a community that will close ranks around him and bear his burdens during this time? Rob, for goodness' sake, you're a pastor! Go offer further ministry to him, and invite him into your own faith-community!
I turned the car around, but by the time I got back to the polling place, he was gone.
As I shared this encounter with my wife, I did some weeping of my own. While it was a joy and a privilege to be able to offer the simple comfort of a caring voice, a heartfelt prayer, and a hug, I could have done so much more. I was just a little too slow on the uptake.
Next time, I pray that I have the presence of mind and spirit to do a more appropriate level of follow-through in a situation like that. In the meantime, friends, I invite you to pray for Rhett and his family.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, ministry
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A question of questionable focus
Our senior pastor preached a very stimulating message today about bearing one another's burdens (see Galatians 6:2).
In a nutshell, he talked about how Christians often pride themselves on how they don't "drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with those who do." There's an indignation we sometimes feel at the more flagrant sorts of sin that are, shall we say, more colloquial in nature.
Our pastor then posed the following questions:
As I read the Gospels, Jesus reserved the most stinging rebuke not for the likes of prostitutes or even swindlers like Zaccheus, but the self-righteous prigs of the religious establishment who were high on their own asceticism.
Pharasaism is no substitute for Christlikeness.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Our senior pastor preached a very stimulating message today about bearing one another's burdens (see Galatians 6:2).
In a nutshell, he talked about how Christians often pride themselves on how they don't "drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with those who do." There's an indignation we sometimes feel at the more flagrant sorts of sin that are, shall we say, more colloquial in nature.
Our pastor then posed the following questions:
- How often do those of us who are so very proud of our abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, movies, etc. "fulfill the law of Christ" by bearing the burdens of others?
- If the answer is infrequently, then why is that sin of omission somehow less execrable or more tolerable than more banal forms of carnality?
As I read the Gospels, Jesus reserved the most stinging rebuke not for the likes of prostitutes or even swindlers like Zaccheus, but the self-righteous prigs of the religious establishment who were high on their own asceticism.
Pharasaism is no substitute for Christlikeness.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, discipleship, faithfulness, fellowship, sermon, theology
Monday, December 24, 2007
Christmas, 1991 vintage
I will never forget the Christmas of 1991. For me, it remains by far the most precious holiday celebration I've ever had.
Prior to that Christmas, during my second year in college, I had genuinely experienced God's person -- in love, in holiness, in power -- for the first time. Even though I grew up attending church, it wasn't until that year that I earnestly sought to follow Jesus and live in relationship with Him.
It was a time when my heart was so warmed and delighted by the simple knowledge that Jesus was real, that He was ALIVE, that He loved me, and that He was with me in the here and now. I carried the uncomplicated pleasure of those truths with me that night in 1991 as my family walked into Centre St. United Methodist Church in sleepy little Cumberland, MD to attend a candlelight Christmas Eve service.
I could barely contain myself.
I had always loved the way the sanctuary looked and felt at Christmas time; even though it wasn't adorned any differently that year, I suddenly found it sublime. The altar was awash in a sea of poinsettias, a Chrismon tree glittered to the left of the pulpit, candles were lit in the stained glass windows, greenery set with white lights and red bows lined the edges of the choir loft, and oh, the music!
As we sang familiar Christmas hymns, I struggled to master my emotions. For the first time, as I sang "God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen," I was the errant one for whom Christ our Lord and Savior came to save from Satan's power. When I sang "O Holy Night," it was my heart that swelled with a thrill of hope at the breaking of a new and glorious morning -- how could I not fall on my knees?
In the end, I did somehow manage not to collapse in a blubbering heap in the pew. A few tears were the only evidence of the fact that I was bursting inside with a new revelation: the living truth of what we celebrate at Christmas had found expression in little ol' me. Jesus had come not only to the world, but to me. The Word became flesh not only in a manger 2000 years ago, but also when the Living Lord took up residence in me by His Spirit.
Fifteen Christmases have passed since then, and too many times the hustle and bustle of the season have gotten the best of me. In more recent years, I've found that Christmas sneaks up on me and is gone before I have the chance to contemplate it anew or to be formed by it. And every time that happens, I remember the Christmas of 1991 and grieve a lost opportunity to grow closer to God.
Well, this year I've resolved not to let the sixteenth Christmas since 1991 pass the same way. If there's anything Christmas teaches us, it's that God's love for us is stronger than any human measure. And He expresses that love to us not only in the first Christmas, not only in the Christmas of 2007, but in real time -- each and every single day. The question is, are we too busy and weighed down with the cares of this world to notice or respond?
I pray that a renewed sense of His love and affection for you will permeate your holiday celebration like it never has before.
Have a 1991 Christmas!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I will never forget the Christmas of 1991. For me, it remains by far the most precious holiday celebration I've ever had.
Prior to that Christmas, during my second year in college, I had genuinely experienced God's person -- in love, in holiness, in power -- for the first time. Even though I grew up attending church, it wasn't until that year that I earnestly sought to follow Jesus and live in relationship with Him.
It was a time when my heart was so warmed and delighted by the simple knowledge that Jesus was real, that He was ALIVE, that He loved me, and that He was with me in the here and now. I carried the uncomplicated pleasure of those truths with me that night in 1991 as my family walked into Centre St. United Methodist Church in sleepy little Cumberland, MD to attend a candlelight Christmas Eve service.
I could barely contain myself.
I had always loved the way the sanctuary looked and felt at Christmas time; even though it wasn't adorned any differently that year, I suddenly found it sublime. The altar was awash in a sea of poinsettias, a Chrismon tree glittered to the left of the pulpit, candles were lit in the stained glass windows, greenery set with white lights and red bows lined the edges of the choir loft, and oh, the music!
As we sang familiar Christmas hymns, I struggled to master my emotions. For the first time, as I sang "God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen," I was the errant one for whom Christ our Lord and Savior came to save from Satan's power. When I sang "O Holy Night," it was my heart that swelled with a thrill of hope at the breaking of a new and glorious morning -- how could I not fall on my knees?
In the end, I did somehow manage not to collapse in a blubbering heap in the pew. A few tears were the only evidence of the fact that I was bursting inside with a new revelation: the living truth of what we celebrate at Christmas had found expression in little ol' me. Jesus had come not only to the world, but to me. The Word became flesh not only in a manger 2000 years ago, but also when the Living Lord took up residence in me by His Spirit.
Fifteen Christmases have passed since then, and too many times the hustle and bustle of the season have gotten the best of me. In more recent years, I've found that Christmas sneaks up on me and is gone before I have the chance to contemplate it anew or to be formed by it. And every time that happens, I remember the Christmas of 1991 and grieve a lost opportunity to grow closer to God.
Well, this year I've resolved not to let the sixteenth Christmas since 1991 pass the same way. If there's anything Christmas teaches us, it's that God's love for us is stronger than any human measure. And He expresses that love to us not only in the first Christmas, not only in the Christmas of 2007, but in real time -- each and every single day. The question is, are we too busy and weighed down with the cares of this world to notice or respond?
I pray that a renewed sense of His love and affection for you will permeate your holiday celebration like it never has before.
Have a 1991 Christmas!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, Christmas
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
I'm a Christ follower, not a Christian
My friend and fellow blogger, Nathan (who runs the Christians Behaving Badly blog), drew my attention to an interesting YouTube phenomenon today.
In case you haven't noticed, parodies of Apple's current "Get a Mac" ad campaign have been in vogue on YouTube for awhile now, so I figured it was only a matter of time before creative, media-savvy churches got in on the act.
That day has arrived. Now, courtesy of Community Christian Church -- a multi-site congregation in Illinois -- we have some pretty nifty faith-based "Get a Mac" parodies. In essense, they contrast external, superficial expressions of what is mistakenly taken for Christian faith (represented by the up-tight, insecure, condescending nerdy guy) with an incarnational lifestyle, i.e., Christ following (represented by the laid-back, regular looking guy who actually has some social skills). Take a look:
There are, however, a few things that trouble me a bit about these videos:
Am I being too sensitive, or do you think I brought up valid points?
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
My friend and fellow blogger, Nathan (who runs the Christians Behaving Badly blog), drew my attention to an interesting YouTube phenomenon today.
In case you haven't noticed, parodies of Apple's current "Get a Mac" ad campaign have been in vogue on YouTube for awhile now, so I figured it was only a matter of time before creative, media-savvy churches got in on the act.
That day has arrived. Now, courtesy of Community Christian Church -- a multi-site congregation in Illinois -- we have some pretty nifty faith-based "Get a Mac" parodies. In essense, they contrast external, superficial expressions of what is mistakenly taken for Christian faith (represented by the up-tight, insecure, condescending nerdy guy) with an incarnational lifestyle, i.e., Christ following (represented by the laid-back, regular looking guy who actually has some social skills). Take a look:
Video 1Clever, amusing, and in most respects, very helpful and accurate. Jesus defined the eternal life He promised to bring in this way:
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)Thus, Christian faith is characterized chiefly by a dynamic of relationship between Creator and creation, God and man; Christ Himself makes such relationship possible through His death, resurrection, and ongoing ministry at the right hand of the Father. These videos camp out on that truth, communicating it in simple, entertaining fashion -- and I'm quite happy about that. So let me say up front that I commend this church for its creativity, for the apparently high production value of these videos (the church should exemplify excellence), for their faithfulness to a core message of the Scriptures, and for the risk-taking inherent in doing something a little different.
There are, however, a few things that trouble me a bit about these videos:
- I object to how they disparage the term "Christian." I understand that the idea of who a Christian is and what they ought to look like is egregiously muddied in our culture, often because many who take the name to themselves have no business doing so. But I think a creative church could and should have found a way to communicate the content of these parodies without dragging the name and idea of "Christian" through the mud. After all, it's a biblical name that has been associated closely with discipleship -- or what these parodies would consider "Christ following" -- from the times of the early Church forward (see Acts 11:26). To my way of thinking, we ought to work to make "Christian" synonymous with "Christ follower," not antithetical to it. In this respect, I find these videos damaging and confusing.
- This is perhaps unintentional, but I think the first video has the effect of disparaging Christian scholarship. It seems to imply that bookishness is innately pharasaical, whereas somebody who is really close to the heart of God (i.e., a Christ follower) doesn't need (nor should they desire) such gobbledy-gook. Of course, the point is well taken that being Christian is by no means a function of mere education or scholarship. But the church has benefited in every age from the work and witness of plenty of Christians who were also highly educated -- including none other than St. Paul, who had the educational equivalent of a Ph.D. and could be considered an archetypal example of a Christ follower.
- I've mentioned in previous posts that I am an unashamed participant in the Charismatic movement. As such, I've had my share of debates with mainline evangelicals about the proper understanding of the charismata as they relate to modern faith and praxis -- some of these discussions were friendly, and some, sadly, resulted in broken relationships with other believers. The defensive part of me reacts a bit to the last video, and perceives it as something of a swipe at the Charismatic/Pentecostal practice of exercising the gifts of the Spirit (namely tongues and prophecy) in a worship context. If that was part of the video's intent, then it's essentially asserting that people like me aren't Christ followers. That's unfair, unhelpful, patently unscriptural, and untrue. If, on the other hand, the point is merely that worship ought to be an exercise in genuine heart response to God as opposed to an outward, artificial affectation of spirituality that is actually a fleshly attempt to make something happen, then I can say a hearty amen.
Am I being too sensitive, or do you think I brought up valid points?
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Apple, Christianity, discipleship, Macintosh, parody
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Again with the global warming...
Well, friends, I just can't let it rest.
Today, I stumbled across a remarkable, eminently sensible British documentary about climate change. It affirms many of the points I made in my last two installments of From the MonT-SteR's Mouth™, and essentially pokes devastating holes in the theory of global warming as a human-induced phenomenon.
Among the documentary's highlights:
So, for your viewing pleasure, here is "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Hope you find it thought-provoking and eye-opening:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Well, friends, I just can't let it rest.
Today, I stumbled across a remarkable, eminently sensible British documentary about climate change. It affirms many of the points I made in my last two installments of From the MonT-SteR's Mouth™, and essentially pokes devastating holes in the theory of global warming as a human-induced phenomenon.
Among the documentary's highlights:
- It dispenses with the ridiculous notion that scientists who are skeptical about abiogenic CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming are invariably in the employ of "big oil" and therefore suspect. Ellen Goodman used such arguments in her recent op-ed piece, giving the false impression that scientists who ascribe to popular global warming theory are as pure as the wind-driven snow and free of all bias or self-interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists compete for funding, friends, and are very adept at capitalizing on the zeitgeist of the moment in order to finance their research. As Nigel Calder states, one might not get funding for a simple study on squirrels; but mention that the study has a special concern for the effect of global warming on their nut gathering habits, and the grant is much more likely to come through. Why don't we ever hear about the corruption of science at the hands of hysterical global warming apologists in the employ of big government?
- It makes the point, as I have, that climate change is nothing new. It's a natural phenomenon whose engine is comprised of multiple factors, all ancient and far more powerful than all of humanity combined, and in some cases, lightyears away.
- The chief premise of Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary (ahem!) is thoroughly torpedoed.
- It frames the battle over global warming as a social justice issue. This aspect should be of grave concern to prominent Christian leaders who have embraced the activist community associated with popular global warming theory (Rick Warren, are you listening?). Impoverished, developing nations are being told by the likes of Greenpeace that they mustn't use fossil fuels and other natural resources to propel their economies forward. They are told they must use alternative fuels, such as solar energy and wind power -- all out of a misguided concern to avert further proliferation of CO2 emissions. But these forms of energy are so expensive and difficult to harness that the wealthy West has trouble using them. Thus, they are untenable for use in poor nations, where staggeringly short life expectancy rates can be directly linked to the unavailability of electrical and gas power that we take for granted every day. In short, "green" thought vis-a-vis global warming actually has the effect of compounding and solidifying the misery of millions in third-world countries. I don't know about you, but I don't find it "Christian" in the least to support such a paradigm.
So, for your viewing pleasure, here is "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Hope you find it thought-provoking and eye-opening:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, global warming
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Communion meditation
I've recently finished reading The Journey of Desire by John Eldredge, which I heartily recommend. It has unlocked a great deal in my heart. But there was one section I found particularly striking. Using ancient Israel as an example, Eldredge discusses at length the human propensity to forget the things of God. Israel had the benefit of divinely prescribed reminders being codified into their law; the various feasts they celebrated to commemorate their own salvation history (such as Passover) are examples of this. These reminders were designed to inculcate both gratitude and faithfulness to God within His covenant community. Nevertheless, Israel's history is pockmarked with repeated descents into apostasy and ensuing cultural implosion.
Eldredge rightly points out that if God prescribed and commanded the observance of reminders in ancient Israel, it is the height of hubris to imagine that modern Christians don't need them. Moreover, if we attempt to skirt the need for reminders of God's grace and faithfulness to us, we are headed for the personal equivalent of the devastation Israel experienced at times in her own history.
For Christians, the observance of the Lord's Table (or Communion) is one such reminder. Jesus said that it is something we do "in remembrance" of Him. And St. Paul says in 1 Cor 11:26 that as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until He returns.
We commonly associate Communion with the consummate expression of God's love for us in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But Paul makes it clear that it's a reminder of something else as well:
So part of the reverent self-examination that is prescribed when we celebrate the Lord's Table is in light of the fact that we are connected. We are one. We are part of one another. What I do in those moments when I labor under the delusion that I am truly alone actually affects other believers. What other Christians do, public and private, affects me.
To put it practically, the faith community is with me -- part of me -- in a very real way when I'm disciplining my son, or having a disagreement with my wife, or working at the office, or when I just got cut off on the freeway by a rude driver, or when I'm surfing the Internet. If you're a believer, I can't get away from you. And you can't get away from me. We are one in Christ.
So evaluating our behavior when we are about to take Communion needs to take into account not merely how we've slipped up vis-a-vis God, but how we've committed sins of selfishness and independence against our own body -- our brothers and sisters in Christ. And repentance, turning 180 degrees in the opposite direction, starts with acknowledging that we here in America tend toward lone ranger Christianity -- a posture of living that flies squarely in the face of a fundamental truth of our existence as children of God.
Like it or not, we're together. Always. By divine design.
And that means it's better that way. Let's act like it. :)
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I've recently finished reading The Journey of Desire by John Eldredge, which I heartily recommend. It has unlocked a great deal in my heart. But there was one section I found particularly striking. Using ancient Israel as an example, Eldredge discusses at length the human propensity to forget the things of God. Israel had the benefit of divinely prescribed reminders being codified into their law; the various feasts they celebrated to commemorate their own salvation history (such as Passover) are examples of this. These reminders were designed to inculcate both gratitude and faithfulness to God within His covenant community. Nevertheless, Israel's history is pockmarked with repeated descents into apostasy and ensuing cultural implosion.
Eldredge rightly points out that if God prescribed and commanded the observance of reminders in ancient Israel, it is the height of hubris to imagine that modern Christians don't need them. Moreover, if we attempt to skirt the need for reminders of God's grace and faithfulness to us, we are headed for the personal equivalent of the devastation Israel experienced at times in her own history.
For Christians, the observance of the Lord's Table (or Communion) is one such reminder. Jesus said that it is something we do "in remembrance" of Him. And St. Paul says in 1 Cor 11:26 that as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until He returns.
We commonly associate Communion with the consummate expression of God's love for us in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But Paul makes it clear that it's a reminder of something else as well:
Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. (1 Cor 11:28-29)When we observe Communion, it is also meant to be a reminder that:
The cup is a sharing in the blood of Christ, and the bread we break is a sharing in the body of Christ. Since there is one bread, we who are may are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor 10:16-17)
- Christians with an orthodox confession are one together in Christ.
- We are members of one another.
- We belong to one another.
So part of the reverent self-examination that is prescribed when we celebrate the Lord's Table is in light of the fact that we are connected. We are one. We are part of one another. What I do in those moments when I labor under the delusion that I am truly alone actually affects other believers. What other Christians do, public and private, affects me.
To put it practically, the faith community is with me -- part of me -- in a very real way when I'm disciplining my son, or having a disagreement with my wife, or working at the office, or when I just got cut off on the freeway by a rude driver, or when I'm surfing the Internet. If you're a believer, I can't get away from you. And you can't get away from me. We are one in Christ.
So evaluating our behavior when we are about to take Communion needs to take into account not merely how we've slipped up vis-a-vis God, but how we've committed sins of selfishness and independence against our own body -- our brothers and sisters in Christ. And repentance, turning 180 degrees in the opposite direction, starts with acknowledging that we here in America tend toward lone ranger Christianity -- a posture of living that flies squarely in the face of a fundamental truth of our existence as children of God.
Like it or not, we're together. Always. By divine design.
And that means it's better that way. Let's act like it. :)
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, communion, discipleship, fellowship, unity
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Mind's Fourth Watch
At night
when the mind at rest
becomes a theatre of the soul
I saw a Great Lion
The marble stare of His eyes
as the sun through a magnifying glass
pinpointed against a small, dry leaf
compelled to smoke and burn.
Fearsome Hunter
King's mane, thick paw, and bristly fur
Reared up not to pounce or devour
Nor to strike down or shed blood
But to embrace
Me.
Upon whom He doted
More than young who wait at mother's hip
More than brothers who stand in war
More than lovers whose agony is to reach from afar
I am His frail prey, but at my word the hunt stopped.
Hurt, betrayal,
bewilderment, sadness.
"Why can't we have a relationship?"
No, Lion, that would not be proper.
Then the air was pulled tight
And I feared the answer of this tender One
And the mind's fourth watch ended, leaving me to wonder,
What am I really afraid of?
At night
when the mind at rest
becomes a theatre of the soul
I saw a Great Lion
The marble stare of His eyes
as the sun through a magnifying glass
pinpointed against a small, dry leaf
compelled to smoke and burn.
Fearsome Hunter
King's mane, thick paw, and bristly fur
Reared up not to pounce or devour
Nor to strike down or shed blood
But to embrace
Me.
Upon whom He doted
More than young who wait at mother's hip
More than brothers who stand in war
More than lovers whose agony is to reach from afar
I am His frail prey, but at my word the hunt stopped.
Hurt, betrayal,
bewilderment, sadness.
"Why can't we have a relationship?"
No, Lion, that would not be proper.
Then the air was pulled tight
And I feared the answer of this tender One
And the mind's fourth watch ended, leaving me to wonder,
What am I really afraid of?
Labels: Christianity, dreams, poetry
Sunday, January 07, 2007
What's the big deal about idolatry?
I'm finally getting around to posting a sermon I preached back in August. My good friend, Nathan Sanders, is doing a fabulous job as pastor of the Lighthouse Community Church in Federalsburg, MD. Nathan and I were colleagues at Regent University's School of Divinity, and he has been kind enough to invite me to his church each summer to share a message with the congregation. Each visit I've made to Lighthouse has been a time full of fun and blessing.
This past August was no different, and I felt that this was probably the finest sermon I've preached so far. Take a listen -- I hope it instructs, encourages, and challenges you.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I'm finally getting around to posting a sermon I preached back in August. My good friend, Nathan Sanders, is doing a fabulous job as pastor of the Lighthouse Community Church in Federalsburg, MD. Nathan and I were colleagues at Regent University's School of Divinity, and he has been kind enough to invite me to his church each summer to share a message with the congregation. Each visit I've made to Lighthouse has been a time full of fun and blessing.
This past August was no different, and I felt that this was probably the finest sermon I've preached so far. Take a listen -- I hope it instructs, encourages, and challenges you.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, idolatry, preaching, sermon
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Gribble watch
Friends, The MonT-SteR loves the Scriptures. For Christians, they are the chief and final authority for all matters of faith and praxis. Since we are to take them as the inspired Word of God, they must be handled with the utmost care. Properly apprehending and applying their meaning is the first step to a successful, joyful life of obedience to the heart and ways of God.
When the Scriptures are misapprehended, it is a serious matter. Ideas have consequences; thus, failure to accurately understand the truth the Bible communicates will lead to false and damaging ideas about fundamental life issues. We cannot properly understand God, His activity, or ourselves apart from an accurate grasp of the teachings of Scripture. John Piper says it well: bad theology dishonors God and hurts people.
This is why The MonT-SteR gets upset when people who have a public ministry platform teach egregiously false doctrine. And there is a local gentleman who does just that every Sunday morning on WNIS, our local talk radio station. For an hour each week, Jimmie Gribble pontificates unopposed, sourly peddling bad theology and deriding those who disagree with the Church of Christ's ill-formed doctrines on baptism and worship practices.
No more, friends. I've been itching to respond to Mr. Gribble for awhile now, and the time has come. Hence, I am inaugurating a new recurring feature here on tMR that I am calling Gribble Watch. I'm going to monitor his program (I have to record it, as I am usually attending Sunday services myself when his program airs), and respond to the uglier exhibits of bad theology that crop up in the course of his program.
For this week, I am going to make a brief retort to his repeated assertion that the use of mechanical instruments in a church setting is strictly forbidden. There is a significant backdrop of tradition from the Church fathers (i.e., the generation of church leadership following the time of Paul and the direct associates of Jesus) that plays into this debate, but I am not going to deal with that in detail here. While it is true that mechanical instruments were shunned or even forbidden by some of the Church fathers because of their association with pagan worship practices, a scriptural polemic for or against the practice will trump any polemic that appears in the writings of the Church fathers. So I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of Gribble's biblical argument against the practice.
Gribble goes so far as to state that the use of mechanical instruments in worship is characteristic of those who are "outside the Lord's church," i.e., those who are not true followers of Jesus. He takes issue with those who point to the Psalms (particularly Ps. 150) as evidence that the use of instruments should accepted and encouraged in the community of faith. Gribble's argument, as stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago, is essentially this:
Mr. Gribble, I urge you to stop troubling other Christians with this hurtful, unbiblical, nonsensical teaching. The Bible can never be interpreted to countenance the notion that those who use mechanical instruments in a worship setting are automatically outside the Body of Christ. That is not the test or measure of saving faith, and you know it. Rather, it is a pet doctrine of the denomination you have associated yourself with. You have preferred the teachings of men over the Word of God, and are therefore in error.
And that, beloved readers, is the first installment of Gribble Watch. Look for more to come on both the written and the audio side of The MonT-SteR REPORT
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Friends, The MonT-SteR loves the Scriptures. For Christians, they are the chief and final authority for all matters of faith and praxis. Since we are to take them as the inspired Word of God, they must be handled with the utmost care. Properly apprehending and applying their meaning is the first step to a successful, joyful life of obedience to the heart and ways of God.
When the Scriptures are misapprehended, it is a serious matter. Ideas have consequences; thus, failure to accurately understand the truth the Bible communicates will lead to false and damaging ideas about fundamental life issues. We cannot properly understand God, His activity, or ourselves apart from an accurate grasp of the teachings of Scripture. John Piper says it well: bad theology dishonors God and hurts people.
This is why The MonT-SteR gets upset when people who have a public ministry platform teach egregiously false doctrine. And there is a local gentleman who does just that every Sunday morning on WNIS, our local talk radio station. For an hour each week, Jimmie Gribble pontificates unopposed, sourly peddling bad theology and deriding those who disagree with the Church of Christ's ill-formed doctrines on baptism and worship practices.
No more, friends. I've been itching to respond to Mr. Gribble for awhile now, and the time has come. Hence, I am inaugurating a new recurring feature here on tMR that I am calling Gribble Watch. I'm going to monitor his program (I have to record it, as I am usually attending Sunday services myself when his program airs), and respond to the uglier exhibits of bad theology that crop up in the course of his program.
For this week, I am going to make a brief retort to his repeated assertion that the use of mechanical instruments in a church setting is strictly forbidden. There is a significant backdrop of tradition from the Church fathers (i.e., the generation of church leadership following the time of Paul and the direct associates of Jesus) that plays into this debate, but I am not going to deal with that in detail here. While it is true that mechanical instruments were shunned or even forbidden by some of the Church fathers because of their association with pagan worship practices, a scriptural polemic for or against the practice will trump any polemic that appears in the writings of the Church fathers. So I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of Gribble's biblical argument against the practice.
Gribble goes so far as to state that the use of mechanical instruments in worship is characteristic of those who are "outside the Lord's church," i.e., those who are not true followers of Jesus. He takes issue with those who point to the Psalms (particularly Ps. 150) as evidence that the use of instruments should accepted and encouraged in the community of faith. Gribble's argument, as stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago, is essentially this:
- 1 Cor 10:31 states that everything should be done to the glory of God.
- Commandments given to the church are through the authority of the Lord Jesus alone (1 Thess 4:2).
- Appealing to the Psalms to justify the use of mechanical instruments in church is substituting the authority of David for the authority of Jesus, which is unacceptable.
- There is no authoritative command from Jesus to use mechanical instruments in a worship setting; on that basis, the use of mechanical instruments can never be to the glory of God.
- Therefore, mechanical instruments are forbidden in a worship setting.
- I readily grant that everything we do, whether privately or in a corporate worship setting, ought to glorify God. I also agree that the commands of Scripture, particularly in the New Testament (NT), are given by the authority of Jesus. But Gribble's argument essentially undercuts the divine inspiration of the totality of the Scriptures. Paul states that ALL scripture is "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (1 Tim 3:16-17). I doubt very seriously that Gribble would find fault with appealing to the Psalms to encourage Christians to give thanks to God in a worship setting, or to praise Him for His goodness, or to present offerings to Him -- the Psalms are replete with such language. According to 1 Tim 3:16-17, it's proper to use the Psalms to that end. So why set the Psalms, which testify about Jesus, against the teachings of Jesus, who 1) is set forth in John 1 as the incarnate Word, and 2) stated that His purpose was to fulfill the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures rather than set them at nought (Matt 5:17)?
- There is no good reason to, as you will NEVER FIND one verse in the NT that forbids the use of mechanical instruments in a worship setting. Gribble's point is that since Jesus never commanded it, it shouldn't be practiced. This is essentially an argument from silence, and it makes Gribble's reasoning patently fallacious. Gribble's program consistently advertises correspondence courses in Bible study. By Gribble's logic, this shouldn't be practiced either, as Jesus never directly commanded a church to offer correspondence courses. In fact, we could use Gribble's logic to forbid almost anything churches typically use to facilitate worship and preaching -- including pulpits, microphones and sound equipment, chairs and pews, carpeted floors in the sanctuary, bulletins, orders of service, having congregants sit or stand at various points in the service, choirs, hymnals, newsletters, computers, church buildings, even (gasp!) RADIO BROADCASTS.
Mr. Gribble, I urge you to stop troubling other Christians with this hurtful, unbiblical, nonsensical teaching. The Bible can never be interpreted to countenance the notion that those who use mechanical instruments in a worship setting are automatically outside the Body of Christ. That is not the test or measure of saving faith, and you know it. Rather, it is a pet doctrine of the denomination you have associated yourself with. You have preferred the teachings of men over the Word of God, and are therefore in error.
And that, beloved readers, is the first installment of Gribble Watch. Look for more to come on both the written and the audio side of The MonT-SteR REPORT
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity, false doctrine, Jimmie Gribble
Friday, December 01, 2006
Perseverance and fruitfulness
"But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." (Luke 8:15)
No time right now to engage in interpretive or theological prolixity. Just wanted to note something specific.
This verse is taken from the parable of the seed and the sower. In the parable itself, Jesus refers to "good soil," which "yields a crop a hundred times more" than the seed that was sown. When He explains the parable to the disciples, He says that "the seed sown on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart."
The idea of someone with a noble and good heart is particularized in the latter half of Luke 8:15:
The seed is the word of God, and it contains within itself what is needed for life. Given the right environment, it takes root and grows all by itself -- it's programmed to do so. Natural Church Development would call this one of God's growth "automatisms." But the prerequisite for this all-by-itself growth is a noble and good heart, i.e., an individual predisposed to receive the word, retain the word, and persevere in practicing the word. There is a component that God alone can do through His life-giving word, but there is also a component that we are responsible for. I do not mean to suggest that God does not come alongside to aid or even enable us in these regards -- it is He who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. I think God grants us the grace, mercy, and power we need to persevere. But persevering also appears to be within the human sphere, a consistent posture of ours that must be present if we want to bear fruit for God.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
"But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." (Luke 8:15)
No time right now to engage in interpretive or theological prolixity. Just wanted to note something specific.
This verse is taken from the parable of the seed and the sower. In the parable itself, Jesus refers to "good soil," which "yields a crop a hundred times more" than the seed that was sown. When He explains the parable to the disciples, He says that "the seed sown on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart."
The idea of someone with a noble and good heart is particularized in the latter half of Luke 8:15:
- They hear the word
- They retain it
- They produce a crop by means of persevering
Perseverance, added to reception and retention of the Word, is the means by which we yield harvest for God.Today, I note especially that perseverance is a necessary ingredient for fruitfulness. I see here an expression of divine-human partnership in the life of a believer -- or, as one of my seminary professors used to put it, "It's God all the way through man all the way."
The seed is the word of God, and it contains within itself what is needed for life. Given the right environment, it takes root and grows all by itself -- it's programmed to do so. Natural Church Development would call this one of God's growth "automatisms." But the prerequisite for this all-by-itself growth is a noble and good heart, i.e., an individual predisposed to receive the word, retain the word, and persevere in practicing the word. There is a component that God alone can do through His life-giving word, but there is also a component that we are responsible for. I do not mean to suggest that God does not come alongside to aid or even enable us in these regards -- it is He who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. I think God grants us the grace, mercy, and power we need to persevere. But persevering also appears to be within the human sphere, a consistent posture of ours that must be present if we want to bear fruit for God.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Media bias redux
Well, my recent posts on media bias continue to generate some heat (comments, actually -- but I liked the sound of "heat"). Valued reader and childhood friend to The MonT-SteR, David, chimes in with the following:
I make this disclaimer because David is obviously puzzled by my use of the word "persecution" in relation to Christian life in America. I need to make myself more thoroughly understood, because I readily cede his point. Those of us who profess Christ here in the U.S.A. really know NOTHING of true persecution. As David suggests, a large segment of the populace claims to be a part of Christendom, and (love `em or hate `em) their faith-based values do have an influence on the political scene of our country. Moreover, we are free to worship Jesus in this country anytime we choose without running the risk of being incarcerated or beheaded.
Nevertheless, it is inarguable that there are also plenty of Americans that really are unsympathetic or even hostile to Christianity and its adherents. I've interacted with some of them in my time, and the worst I've suffered is some shouting and name-calling (especially on those college campuses David mentioned). Rejection, certainly, but persecution? Perhaps not. There are, however, those who have suffered far worse for naming Jesus as Lord in this country; I don't think it's very defensible to assert that it never happens. And I think it's pretty safe to say that it happens with increasing frequency in modern times and in certain sectors of our culture. Of course, it hardly reaches the level of the Holocaust or Stalin's purgings, which are clear examples of persecution. So I can understand David's befuddlement.
In any case, my purpose in bringing up the Bible verses that deal with persecution and rejection was primarily to grapple with what Chris Ridgeway appeared to be saying:
David continues:
Love ya, Dave. Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your thoughts. Come back often -- I value your readership and your input. And please, be sure to do your laundry in the washing maching maching (it's an inside joke, folks).
Next up: The MonT-SteR REPORT's 100th BLOG POST!!!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
P.S. David and I were best friends as kids, and we had lots of fun together. In a word, we were very silly. We made each other laugh so hard with such frequency that our teachers wouldn't let us sit together during class, and our parents feared for our lives at the dinner table (the excessive laughter also caused lots of choking on food).
When David's family moved to Baltimore just before we entered the 6th grade, I was crushed. Happily, we continued our friendship well into high school and usually spent a week or so together each summer. One particular summer when I was visiting David in Baltimore, he bought a whoopee cushion. I, on the other hand, was suddenly obsessed with learning how to be a ventriloquist, and spent hours practicing with a Lester dummy that belonged to David's sister. For two 13-year-olds, bad ventriloquism and a whoopee cushion were just the combination needed to create hours of prepubescent fun.
Luckily for the world, said prepubescent fun was captured on audio tape for posterity. And so I am able to present to you these precious audio clips, which are probably unlike anything you have ever heard:
Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Clip 4
Sorry, David. I couldn't resist any longer.
Well, my recent posts on media bias continue to generate some heat (comments, actually -- but I liked the sound of "heat"). Valued reader and childhood friend to The MonT-SteR, David, chimes in with the following:
Perspectives can vary so widely. I perceive that about half the nation is more than a little sympathetic to evangelical Christian ideology; it is prominent in Congress and on several network and cable television programs. It is all over college campuses and it is in missions around the world. Our President was elected and reelected in part because of his evangelical bent, and its appeal to the masses. He even has gotten government agencies to give borrowed Federal dollars to many evangelical groups in support of their religious and community initiatives. To describe the life of evangelical Christians in this country as even close to "persecution" is very foreign to me, if not a little hyperbolic.David's comments here highlight part of my love-hate relationship with writing, particularly about my understanding of what an authentically Christian worldview is. Everything has caveats and/or depends on a broader context to be fully understood or explained with complete clarity. Of course, as a blogger with a full-time job and a toddler, I don't always have the time or ability to engage in the full rigors of theological inquiry each and every night. Believe it or not, this bothers me a great deal, because I feel that I run the risk of 1) not doing justice to the faith I so dearly hold, and/or 2) being misunderstood.
I make this disclaimer because David is obviously puzzled by my use of the word "persecution" in relation to Christian life in America. I need to make myself more thoroughly understood, because I readily cede his point. Those of us who profess Christ here in the U.S.A. really know NOTHING of true persecution. As David suggests, a large segment of the populace claims to be a part of Christendom, and (love `em or hate `em) their faith-based values do have an influence on the political scene of our country. Moreover, we are free to worship Jesus in this country anytime we choose without running the risk of being incarcerated or beheaded.
Nevertheless, it is inarguable that there are also plenty of Americans that really are unsympathetic or even hostile to Christianity and its adherents. I've interacted with some of them in my time, and the worst I've suffered is some shouting and name-calling (especially on those college campuses David mentioned). Rejection, certainly, but persecution? Perhaps not. There are, however, those who have suffered far worse for naming Jesus as Lord in this country; I don't think it's very defensible to assert that it never happens. And I think it's pretty safe to say that it happens with increasing frequency in modern times and in certain sectors of our culture. Of course, it hardly reaches the level of the Holocaust or Stalin's purgings, which are clear examples of persecution. So I can understand David's befuddlement.
In any case, my purpose in bringing up the Bible verses that deal with persecution and rejection was primarily to grapple with what Chris Ridgeway appeared to be saying:
There will always be those who are unfriendly to Christianity in varying degrees. It's predictable. Quit whining and find a more godly way to respond to it.I was attempting to acknowledge that his underlying premise (if I understood it correctly) was grounded in Scripture. He was using that premise to question the wisdom or fruitfulness of fussing over media bias, especially of the sort I was pointing out. Although I agreed with his underlying logic, I don't know that his conclusion necessarily follows. I could be wrong, though. :)
David continues:
I think Senator Clinton's comments were inappropriate and pandering, and ill-chosen.Agreed.
It is a mistake to declare someone else within orHere I feel like I'm pinned between the proverbial sword and the wall. On one hand, Dr. Robertson has done a great deal of good in this world. For example, he founded and continues to oversee Operation Blessing, which is one of the most active and innovative international Christian relief agencies in existence. He also launched Regent University, where I received a fine seminary education that I treasure deeply. I and many others have been blessed as a direct result of the work of Dr. Robertson's hands. Having said that, I have to agree with you, David, about his comments vis-a-vis Ariel Sharon's illness. Beyond offensive, they were hurtful. It's a strange thing that someone as ardently pro-Israel as Dr. Robertson would utter something so injurious to Sharon's family and the Israeli people.
outside of God's favor. Such as when Pat Robertson asserted that Ariel Sharon had earned his fatal health problems by angering God, as if the Reverend has magic insight into what an inscrutable and eternal force intends.
I believe the media simply passed over the Senator's comments inMm, here we part company. I don't think Hillary's comments were at all vague or confusing. It's clear to me that she equated a conservative position on illegal immigration with criminalizing Christ Himself. That's very pointed and direct language. It's also outrageous.
large part because they are vague and confusing, which is the mark of a
successful politician.
Pat Robertson's offensive comments were specific and extremely rude, and directed against an individual with a terminal condition; Hillary Clinton's comments were directed against a policy and the general people who might support it. I think both commentsWell, sure. I wasn't expecting the media to treat them identically in every respect. Of the two, I think Dr. Robertson's comments were more inexcusable. My point is that both comments were undeniably outrageous (not that they were equally outrageous). I still find it curious that Hillary's own Bible-thumping pillory hardly caused a blip on the mainstream media's radar screen. It's not that the media covered Hillary's comments differently; they hardly covered it at all! As I see it, there are only four possibilities that explain this phenomenon:
were wrong, and I think the media were justified in covering them differently.
- The media didn't know about what Hillary said, which is ridiculous.
- The media didn't care about what Hillary said, which I also find hard to believe. This is, after all, Sen. Clinton we're talking about.
- The media didn't think it was newsworthy. Possible, but unlikely on balance for the reasons cited above.
- The media didn't have a problem with what Hillary said, i.e., they tacitly agreed with it in some capacity.
Love ya, Dave. Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your thoughts. Come back often -- I value your readership and your input. And please, be sure to do your laundry in the washing maching maching (it's an inside joke, folks).
Next up: The MonT-SteR REPORT's 100th BLOG POST!!!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
P.S. David and I were best friends as kids, and we had lots of fun together. In a word, we were very silly. We made each other laugh so hard with such frequency that our teachers wouldn't let us sit together during class, and our parents feared for our lives at the dinner table (the excessive laughter also caused lots of choking on food).
When David's family moved to Baltimore just before we entered the 6th grade, I was crushed. Happily, we continued our friendship well into high school and usually spent a week or so together each summer. One particular summer when I was visiting David in Baltimore, he bought a whoopee cushion. I, on the other hand, was suddenly obsessed with learning how to be a ventriloquist, and spent hours practicing with a Lester dummy that belonged to David's sister. For two 13-year-olds, bad ventriloquism and a whoopee cushion were just the combination needed to create hours of prepubescent fun.
Luckily for the world, said prepubescent fun was captured on audio tape for posterity. And so I am able to present to you these precious audio clips, which are probably unlike anything you have ever heard:
Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Clip 4
Sorry, David. I couldn't resist any longer.
Labels: Christianity, media bias, persecution
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Media bias questioned
A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).
Chris says the following:
For this reason, Chris, I'm not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a "theory." Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that's only because it's a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.
Chris continues:
Regarding the problem of "making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity," I can't help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That's a silly and offensive notion, and I don't ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That's not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.
I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don't think that's accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious -- Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR's readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I'm open to hearing it.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you'll come back often.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).
Chris says the following:
[As] a Christian pastor-in-training (insert evangelical buzzwords for credibility here), I've got a question. I accept your facts: Jerry Fallwell speaks, and media laughs. Hillary Clinton invokes Jesus, and maybe there isn't a backlash.Obviously, it would be silly for me to assert that every single member of the American media is sympathetic to liberal ideology and causes; clearly, that's not the case. It's equally untenable for me to say that all members of the media are in political lockstep with Sen. Clinton. However, research on the media covering the past several decades indicates that 1) the vast majority of the media is sympathetic to political liberalism, 2) by extension, they are unsympathetic (or hostile) to competing ideologies or political perspectives, viz. traditional, conservative, or even Christian thought, and 3) the majority leftist orientation of the media frequently colors the reporting they do.
I'm just not sure I am with your assumptions: which unexplicitly but generally seem to be 1) the media is liberal like Hillary Clinton would be considered liberal 2) the media gives favorable coverage to liberals because they belong to the same club.
For this reason, Chris, I'm not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a "theory." Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that's only because it's a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.
Chris continues:
"[Your view of the media is] the prevaling oppressed evangelical theory. But pardon me [for] taking a quick try at neutral bias: aren't there any other factors that could affect media coverage?These are good questions. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:
What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell's (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary's?
How about differences in presentation and tone?
How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
- What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell's (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary's?
If I understand your point here, I think it is well taken with respect to Rev. Falwell and Pat Robertson -- they tend toward the open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome, and their public statements are sometimes lacking in civility or grace. But in a way, that very fact also serves to bolster the original point I was making. Hillary flamed those in favor of immigration reform as "contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures" and favoring laws that would ultimately criminalize Christ Himself. The implication is that if one favors getting tough on the illegal immigration problem we have in this country, then he or she is motivated by the same unwholesome ideals and and prejudices that ultimately incarcerated Jesus Christ. How else is one to take such comments? In terms of content or meaning, I don't see how this differs significantly from many of the controversial things that Falwell or Robertson say (not counting calls for assassination of foreign leaders, of course). That's why I felt the need to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in the pass the media gave to Hillary when she made these statements. If any Christian minister of national prominence called a press conference and accused anyone who supports laws restricting abortion protesters of being contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures and tantamount to criminalizing Christ Himself, how do you think the media would react? Favorably? How much would the separation of church and state get mentioned in the ensuing coverage? Did we hear anything like that vis-a-vis Hillary's comments? - How about differences in presentation and tone?
For the most part, I think I answered this above. - How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this question, but I'll do my best to respond. I assume that you intend "source" to refer to whoever is making public comments -- in this case, Hillary Clinton and certain Christian ministers of national prominence. Your reference to pluralism seems to imply that, in a pluralistic society, higher levels of credibility will by default be conferred upon certain individuals based upon prevailing social proclivities. So, as I understand it, your question appears to raise the following issues: 1) how favorably or unfavorably Christian ministers are typically viewed through the pluralistic lens of society at large, 2) by extension, how specific Christian ministers (i.e., the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons of the world) are typically viewed by our pluralistic society, and 3) whether or not Christians should expect anything different. If I've understood your question correctly, answering it is a bit of a sticky wicket. One could write pages in response! In a nutshell, my thoughts are as follows:- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." (John 15:18-19)
So, as you seem to intimate by your question, it is no surprise that a pluralistic world would be predisposed to regard orthodox Christianity and its proponents with disdain. According to the Scriptures, that's a fact of life for a believer. However...
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13) - The Scriptures also teach that the world is culpable before God for this same predisposition:
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)
Although we are told to expect that the world will persecute the Church just as it persecuted Jesus, clearly it is something that ought not happen. So, while a pluralistic society may naturally tend toward actively discrediting Christians, the Scriptures do not sanction such a phenomenon. Quite the opposite, in fact.
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)
He who receives [My followers] receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (Matthew 10:40) - It seems, therefore, that we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Messengers of the Gospel ought to be received and respected by society at large, but we are taught that, for the most part, we will not be. How do we respond?
- Forgiveness and forbearance are prescribed, of course. I think the contention implicit in your question is that many Christians (particularly those with large public ministries) do not respond appropriately -- that the tone they tend to strike merely compounds the prevenient intolerance the world has for Christianity, thereby opening them even more to things like ill treatment in the media. I have to admit that in many instances, your point certainly applies.
- Nevertheless, the fact still remains that Hillary used religious rhetoric that was strident in its own right. The very point your question raises ought to apply to her comments as well. If the media were consistent, she too would have been held up to scorn and public ridicule for appealing to Christianity in such a manner to justify her political stance. That didn't happen, leading me to conclude that the media has a template for what Christians ought to believe, or that they are okay with Christianity only as long as its practical outworking harmonizes with their own worldview. This constitutes clear and willful bias, and I think it's both reasonable and fair to call attention to it -- especially when said media purports to be unbiased and impartial in its reporting.
- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
I guess my point is this: as a devoted Christ follower - I'm willing to assume that there is some biased reporting out there. But sometimes I can't help but feeling that we can't get off the "we're" oppressed block, and possibly forget that we're making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity, the words of a US Senator vs. a TV preacher, the purity of our own motives when being frustrated on criticism, and the way humility typically wins over whining.As for the "we're Evangelicals and we're oppressed" sentiment, modern circumstances often make it easy to lose sight of the fact that we serve a victorious Christ who has overcome the world. But I can honestly say that I wasn't motivated by such feelings when I criticized the media's handling of Sen. Clinton. My purpose was to highlight obvious duplicity and bias which belies the external veneer of impartiality that the media attempts to maintain. Why? Because I think biased reporting is a harmful and ultimately deceitful practice, and the media should put a stop to it. Should I let it get to me? Probably not as much as I do. But pointing it out is truth telling in my book, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Regarding the problem of "making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity," I can't help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That's a silly and offensive notion, and I don't ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That's not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.
I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don't think that's accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious -- Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR's readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I'm open to hearing it.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you'll come back often.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, media bias, politics
Saturday, January 28, 2006
MonT-SteR Talk
Every so often I listen to Bill O'Reilly's radio show, and while I often agree with him, we consistenly part company when he discusses morality. His ideas about morality are as self-contradictory and ineffectual as can be. He may come down on the right side of the issue here and there, but the way he gets there is an absolute mess. A couple of discussions he had with callers this week were good examples of this; I thought I'd highlight them by conducting an imaginary interview with O'Reilly. I'll have to do these more often -- they're challenging and fun to create!
The MonT-SteR: Howdy friends! This is MonT-SteR Talk, where I -- Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ -- have the amazing opportunity to interview the glitterati and cognoscenti of our times. We've got a great show for you today. Up first: he's the firebrand of Fox News and host of the fabled No Spin Zone, Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly, thanks for agreeing to appear on MonT-SteR Talk today. I'm delighted to have you on the program.
Bill O'Reilly: Thanks. Glad to be here lookin' out for the folks, as always.
TM: Mr. O'Reilly, I know you are on the receiving end of a lot of bashing and vitriol, and it doesn't come from just one side of the political spectrum.
BOR: That's right, it doesn't. Too many of the folks out there are driven by ideology, both on the right and the left. They're the ones who can't stand the No Spin Zone. We cut through the spin and the propaganda to get to the truth of the matter, and we do that without partiality.
TM: Well, let me come to the point. There's a specific reason why I asked you to come on MonT-SteR Talk. Whenever you discuss morality from a faith-based perspective, I find that I am in profound disagreement with you.
BOR: Okay.
TM: Let me give you an example. A couple days ago on your program, you were dealing with the issue of state sanction of gay marriage. A gentleman called your radio program and commented that sodomy was a crime because the Founding Fathers and their generation -- who, according to the caller, founded this country based upon the Bible -- knew that same sex attraction was proscribed in the Scriptures.
BOR: Yes, I remember that call.
TM: Okay, and here (as I understood it) was your response. You disputed the notion that the Founding Fathers used the Bible as the basis for the country's founding documents, and said that they were guided instead by a more generic Judeo-Christian ethos. Am I okay so far?
BOR: Keep going.
TM: You then went on to say in essence that using Scripture as the basis for arguing and deciding the issues of our time -- like gay marriage -- can't be done. You said that one must make a "secular" appeal within the public arena of ideas.
BOR: Right. We're not a monolithic culture. You can't go out there and expect to make and enforce laws based on the Bible.
TM: And yesterday, you went so far as to say that people who quote the Scriptures (I think you specifically mentioned Leviticus and the Old Testament) and expect or desire them to the basis of law in our country are "nutty." Is that accurate?
BOR: It is accurate, and I stand by it.
TM: Well, it's at that point that your ideas about morality become completely incoherent.
BOR: How so?
TM: You consistently appeal to a Judeo-Christian ethos that animated the thinking of the Founding Fathers as they framed our democratic republic. And you rely on the existence of this Judeo-Christian ethos to rebuke what you call the "secular progressives" who are attempting to steer the social fabric of our country away from that paradigm. Now, my question to you, sir, is this: Where does that Judeo-Christian ethic come from, if not from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible?
BOR: You miss my point. The Founding Fathers didn't take law straight from the Bible in chapter and verse fashion. Last time I checked, we don't have a theocracy in this country.
TM: Do you admit that the Judeo-Christian ethos you refer to is derived from the Bible?
BOR: Yes.
TM: Then I fail to see how you can reasonably maintain that codifying (or wanting to codify) the moral ideas and principles advanced by the Bible in either our founding documents or modern law is "nutty."
BOR: Look -- you're not going to win any arguments about which social direction our country should go today by quoting Scripture. It doesn't work like that. Too many people don't even accept the Bible as binding in any way. They don't believe it. You're not going to convince them by saying, "Hey, you can't do this because Leviticus says not to."
TM: Then how does one frame a moral argument at all?
BOR: You have to do it in a secular manner.
TM: You're contradicting yourself, then.
BOR: No, I'm not.
TM: You are. What point is there in appealing to Judeo-Christian ideals as you do if you can't even argue by them?
BOR: Arguing by Judeo-Christian ideals is different than arguing from the Bible.
TM: But you just admitted that a Judeo-Christian ethos is derived from the Bible.
BOR: Look. I don't want to sit here and go back and forth. It's pointless. Tell me your bottom line, I'll respond to it, and let's move on.
TM: My bottom line is this: trying to argue morality by secular means simply cedes the high ground to the secular progressives. You're coming at the whole question of morality on their terms. Why should we do that? Take the issue of gay marriage, for example. How are you going to argue against that on secular grounds? To say that the family unit is traditionally composed a certain way is only to invite the question: What's to stop us from changing the definition of the family unit? You don't have an argument to stand on until you bring in the notion of a Creator who has a telos -- a purpose and design of His own -- for human sexuality or the human family. Now, our founding documents recognize the existence of this Creator, and they depend on the notion that His decree supersedes that of nations or their leaders. If He bestows liberty, as the Declaration of Independence states, then no people or government can licitly claim the right or ability to take that away. In a word, it's immoral because it is proscribed not by men, but by God.
I think this shows that a Judeo-Christian ethos presupposes that moral good is theonomous. It follows logically that it is also theonomously revealed in the Scriptures the Judeo-Christian ethos depends on. When you throw out arguing morals along those lines, you really are cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
BOR: Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
TM: Okay. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Thanks for being on the program, Mr. O'Reilly.
BOR: Thank you.
Every so often I listen to Bill O'Reilly's radio show, and while I often agree with him, we consistenly part company when he discusses morality. His ideas about morality are as self-contradictory and ineffectual as can be. He may come down on the right side of the issue here and there, but the way he gets there is an absolute mess. A couple of discussions he had with callers this week were good examples of this; I thought I'd highlight them by conducting an imaginary interview with O'Reilly. I'll have to do these more often -- they're challenging and fun to create!
The MonT-SteR: Howdy friends! This is MonT-SteR Talk, where I -- Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ -- have the amazing opportunity to interview the glitterati and cognoscenti of our times. We've got a great show for you today. Up first: he's the firebrand of Fox News and host of the fabled No Spin Zone, Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly, thanks for agreeing to appear on MonT-SteR Talk today. I'm delighted to have you on the program.
Bill O'Reilly: Thanks. Glad to be here lookin' out for the folks, as always.
TM: Mr. O'Reilly, I know you are on the receiving end of a lot of bashing and vitriol, and it doesn't come from just one side of the political spectrum.
BOR: That's right, it doesn't. Too many of the folks out there are driven by ideology, both on the right and the left. They're the ones who can't stand the No Spin Zone. We cut through the spin and the propaganda to get to the truth of the matter, and we do that without partiality.
TM: Well, let me come to the point. There's a specific reason why I asked you to come on MonT-SteR Talk. Whenever you discuss morality from a faith-based perspective, I find that I am in profound disagreement with you.
BOR: Okay.
TM: Let me give you an example. A couple days ago on your program, you were dealing with the issue of state sanction of gay marriage. A gentleman called your radio program and commented that sodomy was a crime because the Founding Fathers and their generation -- who, according to the caller, founded this country based upon the Bible -- knew that same sex attraction was proscribed in the Scriptures.
BOR: Yes, I remember that call.
TM: Okay, and here (as I understood it) was your response. You disputed the notion that the Founding Fathers used the Bible as the basis for the country's founding documents, and said that they were guided instead by a more generic Judeo-Christian ethos. Am I okay so far?
BOR: Keep going.
TM: You then went on to say in essence that using Scripture as the basis for arguing and deciding the issues of our time -- like gay marriage -- can't be done. You said that one must make a "secular" appeal within the public arena of ideas.
BOR: Right. We're not a monolithic culture. You can't go out there and expect to make and enforce laws based on the Bible.
TM: And yesterday, you went so far as to say that people who quote the Scriptures (I think you specifically mentioned Leviticus and the Old Testament) and expect or desire them to the basis of law in our country are "nutty." Is that accurate?
BOR: It is accurate, and I stand by it.
TM: Well, it's at that point that your ideas about morality become completely incoherent.
BOR: How so?
TM: You consistently appeal to a Judeo-Christian ethos that animated the thinking of the Founding Fathers as they framed our democratic republic. And you rely on the existence of this Judeo-Christian ethos to rebuke what you call the "secular progressives" who are attempting to steer the social fabric of our country away from that paradigm. Now, my question to you, sir, is this: Where does that Judeo-Christian ethic come from, if not from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible?
BOR: You miss my point. The Founding Fathers didn't take law straight from the Bible in chapter and verse fashion. Last time I checked, we don't have a theocracy in this country.
TM: Do you admit that the Judeo-Christian ethos you refer to is derived from the Bible?
BOR: Yes.
TM: Then I fail to see how you can reasonably maintain that codifying (or wanting to codify) the moral ideas and principles advanced by the Bible in either our founding documents or modern law is "nutty."
BOR: Look -- you're not going to win any arguments about which social direction our country should go today by quoting Scripture. It doesn't work like that. Too many people don't even accept the Bible as binding in any way. They don't believe it. You're not going to convince them by saying, "Hey, you can't do this because Leviticus says not to."
TM: Then how does one frame a moral argument at all?
BOR: You have to do it in a secular manner.
TM: You're contradicting yourself, then.
BOR: No, I'm not.
TM: You are. What point is there in appealing to Judeo-Christian ideals as you do if you can't even argue by them?
BOR: Arguing by Judeo-Christian ideals is different than arguing from the Bible.
TM: But you just admitted that a Judeo-Christian ethos is derived from the Bible.
BOR: Look. I don't want to sit here and go back and forth. It's pointless. Tell me your bottom line, I'll respond to it, and let's move on.
TM: My bottom line is this: trying to argue morality by secular means simply cedes the high ground to the secular progressives. You're coming at the whole question of morality on their terms. Why should we do that? Take the issue of gay marriage, for example. How are you going to argue against that on secular grounds? To say that the family unit is traditionally composed a certain way is only to invite the question: What's to stop us from changing the definition of the family unit? You don't have an argument to stand on until you bring in the notion of a Creator who has a telos -- a purpose and design of His own -- for human sexuality or the human family. Now, our founding documents recognize the existence of this Creator, and they depend on the notion that His decree supersedes that of nations or their leaders. If He bestows liberty, as the Declaration of Independence states, then no people or government can licitly claim the right or ability to take that away. In a word, it's immoral because it is proscribed not by men, but by God.
I think this shows that a Judeo-Christian ethos presupposes that moral good is theonomous. It follows logically that it is also theonomously revealed in the Scriptures the Judeo-Christian ethos depends on. When you throw out arguing morals along those lines, you really are cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
BOR: Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
TM: Okay. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Thanks for being on the program, Mr. O'Reilly.
BOR: Thank you.
Labels: Bill OReilly, Christianity, politics
Monday, October 17, 2005
On surrendering to Christ
"The more we let God take us over, the more truly ourselves we become, because He has made us. He invented all the different people that you and I were intended to be. It is when I turn to Christ, when I give up my self to His personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own." - C.S. Lewis
If Lewis is near to the mark (and I think he is), a healthy sense of self is rooted in one's surrender to God. Such surrender does not consist merely of one's deeds (e.g., I want to do X, but I will do Y because that is what God is commanding of me). God is not so much after our time, our deeds, or our finances -- although we ought to steward these things in accordance with His will -- as He is after our selves.
The idea and priority of Christ's lordship over our lives is primarily over my person, my identity, my self. If my soul, the very essence of my being, is submitted to God, then that will eventuate in His lordship over my deeds. So His lordship over the way I spend my time, the way I spend my resources, the way I think, live, and treat other people, doesn't develop in a vacuum. Obedience in these matters is derived from a genuine, day-by-day surrender of the self to the Maker.
This means that I -- who I am, as I am -- must be surrendered to the Father on the most granular, fundamental level possible. My innermost being must be His. As the psalmist put it, He desires truth in the inward parts.
Thus, the base currency of lordship is relationship. As I relate to God an exchange occurs: I become more myself to the degree that I become like Him. I think of how we often "imprint" on certain individuals -- a parent, a teacher, a friend -- who influence us in ways so profound that we are actually shaped by them. What we each call "me" forever bears their unique stamp. The same thing happens when we spend time with God; but as our Creator, His stamp is the fundamental key to unlocking who we are and what we are supposed to be. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being.
I find that I tend to think of Christian discipleship primarily as a commitment that is demonstrated in our actions. This is biblical, or course, but one-dimensional. What God calls for is for us to allow our very life-essence to be His. If I belong to Him in my person, then my deeds will follow suit. Paul states that we are the workmanship of God, created for good works in Christ. Discipleship, then, is allowing the craft and skill of Jesus to mold us from the inside out -- from the micro to the macro level -- so that the inner surrender of the self to God becomes light shining outwardly through us. Then, men will see our good deeds and give glory to Him.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
"The more we let God take us over, the more truly ourselves we become, because He has made us. He invented all the different people that you and I were intended to be. It is when I turn to Christ, when I give up my self to His personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own." - C.S. Lewis
If Lewis is near to the mark (and I think he is), a healthy sense of self is rooted in one's surrender to God. Such surrender does not consist merely of one's deeds (e.g., I want to do X, but I will do Y because that is what God is commanding of me). God is not so much after our time, our deeds, or our finances -- although we ought to steward these things in accordance with His will -- as He is after our selves.
The idea and priority of Christ's lordship over our lives is primarily over my person, my identity, my self. If my soul, the very essence of my being, is submitted to God, then that will eventuate in His lordship over my deeds. So His lordship over the way I spend my time, the way I spend my resources, the way I think, live, and treat other people, doesn't develop in a vacuum. Obedience in these matters is derived from a genuine, day-by-day surrender of the self to the Maker.
This means that I -- who I am, as I am -- must be surrendered to the Father on the most granular, fundamental level possible. My innermost being must be His. As the psalmist put it, He desires truth in the inward parts.
Thus, the base currency of lordship is relationship. As I relate to God an exchange occurs: I become more myself to the degree that I become like Him. I think of how we often "imprint" on certain individuals -- a parent, a teacher, a friend -- who influence us in ways so profound that we are actually shaped by them. What we each call "me" forever bears their unique stamp. The same thing happens when we spend time with God; but as our Creator, His stamp is the fundamental key to unlocking who we are and what we are supposed to be. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being.
I find that I tend to think of Christian discipleship primarily as a commitment that is demonstrated in our actions. This is biblical, or course, but one-dimensional. What God calls for is for us to allow our very life-essence to be His. If I belong to Him in my person, then my deeds will follow suit. Paul states that we are the workmanship of God, created for good works in Christ. Discipleship, then, is allowing the craft and skill of Jesus to mold us from the inside out -- from the micro to the macro level -- so that the inner surrender of the self to God becomes light shining outwardly through us. Then, men will see our good deeds and give glory to Him.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: C.S. Lewis, Christianity
Monday, October 11, 2004
A MonT-SteR correction
On July 23, I posted a rather curmudgeonly article about an unfortunate "Christian copying" phenomenon, whereby Christians respond defensively (and hysterically) to cultural trends by scrambling to create a parallel Christian anti-culture. On the surface, the anti-culture is indistinguishable from what's popular in the world, despite the fact that it's been sterilized and forced into a Christian container. The primary complaint of my article was that this trend badly cheapens and short-changes Christendom's creativity -- which ought to bear the supernatural stamp of the Spirit's touch.
What sparked this observation was an article at CBN's Web site about the new Dragons In Our Midst Christian fantasy novels for young adults by author Bryan Davis. It reminded me of (1) the hysterical reaction to the Harry Potter I've seen in many Christian circles, and (2) a visit to a Christian bookstore where I saw an embarrasingly obvious Christianized Harry Potter knock-off. In the process of bemoaning Christendom's "creative rut of reactionism," I mentioned that Dragons In Our Midst was "ostensibly offered as an alternative to the (pernicious) Harry Potter tomes."
In making that statement in my July 23 article, I denigrated both the value and originality of Davis' book without even having given it a read. Bryan e-mailed me shortly after I wrote the article to take issue with how I had characterized his work. In a nutshell, he gently pointed out that I had unfairly lumped him together with the reactionary copying that occurs within Christendom. After reading his e-mail and reconsidering my post, I was forced to concur. So, The MonT-SteR is compelled once again to dine on some crow. Sorry about that, Bryan.
In the interest of setting the record straight, I am reproducing Bryan's e-mail (with his permission) here in its entirety so that tMR readers can get it straight from the horse's mouth:
Blessings to all,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
On July 23, I posted a rather curmudgeonly article about an unfortunate "Christian copying" phenomenon, whereby Christians respond defensively (and hysterically) to cultural trends by scrambling to create a parallel Christian anti-culture. On the surface, the anti-culture is indistinguishable from what's popular in the world, despite the fact that it's been sterilized and forced into a Christian container. The primary complaint of my article was that this trend badly cheapens and short-changes Christendom's creativity -- which ought to bear the supernatural stamp of the Spirit's touch.
What sparked this observation was an article at CBN's Web site about the new Dragons In Our Midst Christian fantasy novels for young adults by author Bryan Davis. It reminded me of (1) the hysterical reaction to the Harry Potter I've seen in many Christian circles, and (2) a visit to a Christian bookstore where I saw an embarrasingly obvious Christianized Harry Potter knock-off. In the process of bemoaning Christendom's "creative rut of reactionism," I mentioned that Dragons In Our Midst was "ostensibly offered as an alternative to the (pernicious) Harry Potter tomes."
In making that statement in my July 23 article, I denigrated both the value and originality of Davis' book without even having given it a read. Bryan e-mailed me shortly after I wrote the article to take issue with how I had characterized his work. In a nutshell, he gently pointed out that I had unfairly lumped him together with the reactionary copying that occurs within Christendom. After reading his e-mail and reconsidering my post, I was forced to concur. So, The MonT-SteR is compelled once again to dine on some crow. Sorry about that, Bryan.
In the interest of setting the record straight, I am reproducing Bryan's e-mail (with his permission) here in its entirety so that tMR readers can get it straight from the horse's mouth:
Rob,And here is my response to Bryan's e-mail:
I just read your report about the Harry Potter alternatives. Well done. I agree with your main point wholeheartedly. Please allow me, however, to take issue with how you framed the intent of my book series a "Harry Potter killer."
I wrote the first book in the "Dragons in Our Midst" series before the first Harry Potter book saw the light of day. This series is not a Christian Harry Potter, so it was not designed to be a response to those books. Since my children enjoy fantasy, I wanted to write a story that would appeal to them without violating my own sense of values or literary excellence. I wasn't trying to mimic the latest craze or condemn it.
Because the book's concept was so different, it took eight years to get a publisher to buy into it, and during that time Harry Potter was born and is now in the limelight. It's not surprising that people believe my books to be an attempt to catch up or react to a secular or pagan success. The people who have read the book, however, see it differently. You've seen the CBN review; please allow me quote from another:
"It is not a knockoff the latest bestseller. This book is the real thing. Moral characters, inspirational reading and a one-of-a-kind story line tell me that this is the best YA novel to hit the shelves in a long time."
Please see the entire review at http://www.crosshome.com/books31.shtml
Rob, again, I think the aim of your report is right on target. But I think you misunderstood my quote and assumed I was talking about Harry Potter. In fact, I was thinking about Lord of the Rings, a story by which all fantasy seems to be measured. The fact of the matter is that I didn't want to write a copy of anything. I wasn't trying to catch up or react. I wanted to write something different, a great story for my children that would reflect eternal truths in a memorable way without making the mistakes I perceived in other works of fantasy.
I hope you get a chance to read Raising Dragons, the first book in the series. I'll be glad to send you a copy. Thank you for wishing the book success.
I welcome further conversation on this subject. I perceive that you are forthright and honest, the kind of person I enjoy conversing with.
Bryan Davis
Hello, Bryan!In recent days, journalistic integrity has been front and center in the news. I'm not a journalist, but I am a commentator -- a Christian one at that. As such, I'm interested in truth. When it becomes obvious to me that my own words do not comport with truth, I have a biblical obligation to admit my error and make it right. Bryan, I hope this is a step in the right direction.
Thank you for taking the time to visit The MonT-SteR REPORT and to respond to my last blog post -- I'm both surprised and honored!
I think I owe you something of an apology. After reading your e-mail, it's clear to me that my post was both unclear and lacking circumspection. My intent was not to lump you and your books in with the unfortunate trend of "Christianized copying" that I was lamenting. I certainly didn't mean to mischaracterize your purpose in writing the books or to denigrate their worth as creative works. My beef was with Christendom at large, which seems all too eager (read desperate) to glom onto anything that has the air of a "Harry Potter killer" -- regardless of authorial intent. Unfortunately, this has a negative effect on two fronts:These were the issues I was trying to touch upon in my post. I realize now that in my own eagerness to point fingers, I did the very thing I was complaining about. I glossed over your intent in writing Dragons In Our Midst, and I appreciated your work only because it evinced a Christian framework -- not as literature, nor as the creative endeavor of a follower of Jesus Christ who sought to honor Him.
- It tends to appraise the value of your work (or that any other Christian writer or artist) solely in terms of how effectively it counters mainstream (fallen) culture. This fails to take into account the innate creative worth of the literature you have produced.
- It is symptomatic of a narrow and misguided view of Christian artistry. Why do we create? Is it to make sure we have the Christianized equivalent of whatever the world has, or is it to demonstrate the glory of the Creator? If we make the latter our chief aim, won't Christian works of art and literature be culturally subversive by nature?
Again, thanks for contacting me. And thanks for the generous offer to send me one of your books. In light of my blog post, however, I think it's only fair for me to purchase a copy and give it a thoughtful review on The MonT-SteR REPORT. Look for it in the months to come.
Blessings to all,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: arts, Christianity
Friday, July 23, 2004
In a creative rut of reactionism
One of today's articles at CBN.com features a new series of "Christian fantasy" books, ostensibly offered as an alternative to the (pernicious) Harry Potter tomes. This latest Christian response to the modern fantasy craze is called the Dragons in Our Midst series. When asked about why he wrote the books, author Bryan Davis states, "I wasn't a fan of fantasy, because it seemed to me that the characters would develop magical powers to get them out of the situation they were in. I wanted my characters to use the gifts God has given them along with strength of character, faith and perseverance to work through their problems. So my son said to write a fantasy like that."
On one level, I can appreciate what this gentleman is trying to do. His concern about the deleterious effects of paganistic fantasy stories and protagonists (and their apparent widespread appeal to the young reading public) has prompted him to write a myth that evinces a Christian framework of values, ethics, theology, etc. I sincerely hope that his books do well.
Nevertheless, I see a disturbing trend here. This isn't the first "Harry Potter killer" that has been proffered by Christendom. When the Potter books first came out, I heard preacher after preacher working himself into a lather about how millions of eager children were unwittingly opening the doors of Hell itself just by turning the cover of one of these volumes. So Christian alternatives, borne of angst over the stealthy paganization of our children, began to appear. In essence, Christendom said, "Well, these books may capture your imagination and make you eager to read, but they're evil, I tell you. EVIL! So here -- take this substandard Christianized shadow of the Potter books. It may not be as good or original, but at least it doesn't bear the mark of the beast." I saw one of these Potter substitues on display at a Christian book store, and I was appalled to notice how the cover art and lettering were so obviously derivative of the Potter books.
What message do we send our culture when we behave this way? Why are we in such a rut of reactionism? Why do we rest on our laurels until a cultural phenomenon so alarms us that we frantically work to respond with a corresponding Christian anti-culture? As I look at much of the modern Christian media, all I can see is this reactionism -- from Christian movies to Christian news programs to Christian music. So much of it is void of innovation. It's just a cheap, Christianized copy of what's taking the mainstream by storm. In my mind's eye, I see a bunch of thin, anemic, squeaky-voiced people standing on the sidewalk as a stampede goes by in the street. They're sheepishly raising their hands and saying, "Umm, please notice us. We've got what you're running towards too, only with Jesus in it. Much better. Don't you want to check it out? Hmm?"
The human imagination was made by God. In this world, the creative faculties God gave us have been sullied by sin and darkness. But Christians, according to our own confession, are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ -- the same Spirit that brooded over the face of the deep at Creation. We ought to be the innovators, the "imagineers," because we have the privilege of relating personally to the Most Creative Being of All.
The redemption and liberation of the human imagination is the unique provenance of Christianity. The world ought to be struggling to catch up with us, not the other way around.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
One of today's articles at CBN.com features a new series of "Christian fantasy" books, ostensibly offered as an alternative to the (pernicious) Harry Potter tomes. This latest Christian response to the modern fantasy craze is called the Dragons in Our Midst series. When asked about why he wrote the books, author Bryan Davis states, "I wasn't a fan of fantasy, because it seemed to me that the characters would develop magical powers to get them out of the situation they were in. I wanted my characters to use the gifts God has given them along with strength of character, faith and perseverance to work through their problems. So my son said to write a fantasy like that."
On one level, I can appreciate what this gentleman is trying to do. His concern about the deleterious effects of paganistic fantasy stories and protagonists (and their apparent widespread appeal to the young reading public) has prompted him to write a myth that evinces a Christian framework of values, ethics, theology, etc. I sincerely hope that his books do well.
Nevertheless, I see a disturbing trend here. This isn't the first "Harry Potter killer" that has been proffered by Christendom. When the Potter books first came out, I heard preacher after preacher working himself into a lather about how millions of eager children were unwittingly opening the doors of Hell itself just by turning the cover of one of these volumes. So Christian alternatives, borne of angst over the stealthy paganization of our children, began to appear. In essence, Christendom said, "Well, these books may capture your imagination and make you eager to read, but they're evil, I tell you. EVIL! So here -- take this substandard Christianized shadow of the Potter books. It may not be as good or original, but at least it doesn't bear the mark of the beast." I saw one of these Potter substitues on display at a Christian book store, and I was appalled to notice how the cover art and lettering were so obviously derivative of the Potter books.
What message do we send our culture when we behave this way? Why are we in such a rut of reactionism? Why do we rest on our laurels until a cultural phenomenon so alarms us that we frantically work to respond with a corresponding Christian anti-culture? As I look at much of the modern Christian media, all I can see is this reactionism -- from Christian movies to Christian news programs to Christian music. So much of it is void of innovation. It's just a cheap, Christianized copy of what's taking the mainstream by storm. In my mind's eye, I see a bunch of thin, anemic, squeaky-voiced people standing on the sidewalk as a stampede goes by in the street. They're sheepishly raising their hands and saying, "Umm, please notice us. We've got what you're running towards too, only with Jesus in it. Much better. Don't you want to check it out? Hmm?"
The human imagination was made by God. In this world, the creative faculties God gave us have been sullied by sin and darkness. But Christians, according to our own confession, are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ -- the same Spirit that brooded over the face of the deep at Creation. We ought to be the innovators, the "imagineers," because we have the privilege of relating personally to the Most Creative Being of All.
The redemption and liberation of the human imagination is the unique provenance of Christianity. The world ought to be struggling to catch up with us, not the other way around.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: arts, Christianity
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
A pro-gay apologists errors
My wife and I have both embarked on a journey of healing with God in recent years. We are grateful to Him for the gentle mercy and kindness He has chosen to shower our lives with during this time. Nevertheless, we have found that the path to wholeness can occasionaly be arduous and harrowing. God's healing touch requires that we acknowledge and face the darkness in our souls, whatever its nature may be. This is no easy task, because wounded people are very adept at running from their own darkness, at covering it with every manner of "medication" in a feeble (and sinful) attempt to deaden the gnawing pain that festers deep within. Owning up to the the fact that we've coddled and hidden from our darkness has been a struggle at times, but neither of us would trade this season we are in for anything. We have come to know God as our loving Father in ways that we had never dreamed. A corresponding freedom comes with this knowledge. When we obediently face the freezing, stinking shroud that smothers the inner life and view it through God's eyes, we open ourselves to the innate subversiveness of His light and freedom. They invade and conquer inner darkness like the small amount of leaven that works all the way through a lump of dough.
As leaders in the church, our own experiences with inner-healing have sensitized us to the rampant brokenness that exists among Christians. We are often wont to probe the writings and methodologies of those who are learned and seasoned in healing ministry in order to augment our own ministry "tool belts." Aware of this, a friend of ours gave us a copy of Leanne Payne's The Broken Image, which details the power of healing prayer to undo woundedness and usher God's redeeming power into damaged souls--particularly in relation to the emotional and spiritual pathologies that contribute to homosexuality. In fact, Ms. Payne's counseling experience has led her to the conclusion that, as disorders of the mind and heart go, homosexuality is surprisingly simple to deal with.
Now, before I proceed, I wish to make a disclaimer. I can tell from Ms. Payne's book that she is among the kindliest of souls, and her passion for ministering wholeness and freedom to others certainly resonates with me. Her success in ministering to practitioners of homosexuality is impressive, heartwarming, and faith-building. I do not, however, agree with her healing methodology in toto. Ms. Payne does not hesitate to employ visualization with her patients, which I view as dangerously subjective in healing ministry situations. Ms. Payne knows full well that anyone working through woundedness encounters profound difficulty in objectively apprehending the truth about their own condition and how God views it. For this reason, I believe it is much safer and healthier to facilitate an environment where God is free to initiate the impartation of objective information--whether it conveys a sense of His love and acceptance or the reason why a victim suffered abuse--by His Spirit. Our relationship with God is necessarily an admixture of His objective activity in our lives and our subjective experience of it. There is far less room for error if we completely trust Him to be the proactive one in a healing ministry context.
Now, with that out of the way, on to the point of this post.
Out of curiosity, I recently went to Amazon.com to see what other readers had to say about Ms. Payne's book, and found the followingpropaganda review:
Having read Ms. Payne's book through at least twice, I can say with certainty that this reviewer grievously mischaracterizes her positions. For example, the reviewer accuses Ms. Payne of relying on the "'old shoe' theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father" to explain the occurrence of homosexuality. This is hopelessly reductionistic. An objective reader would tell you that her explication of causal factors eventuating in same-sex attraction, while including maladaptive relationships with parents, is far more nuanced and complex. My hunch is that the reviewer proceeded from his own prejudice against Christian notions of "reparative therapy" without giving Ms. Payne's book a fair reading.
The reviewer also made one general assertion about Christians that I want to address in some detail:
This means that homosexuality is merely one of many symptoms stemming from unredeemed, human sinfulness. That is not the end of the story, however, because God does not leave us to wallow in our wretched estate. The message of Christianity is that our unredeemed nature is not God's ideal for us. We were originally made in His image and likeness, and His intent is to recover through Jesus Christ what our own sin and the sin of others have so marred and twisted. To the homosexual, Ms. Payne says, "Your broken, sinful self has eventuated in homosexual acts. Your true, liberated, and fulfilled self is to be found in Christ Jesus. Living in Him necessitates that you eschew--by His grace and power--that which is contrary to His nature. In uniting yourself with Him, He in turn works His righteousness and truth in you, so that you can work it out through what you do, think, and say." Or, to put it another way, "You are currently doing what you are, but God wants to make you new so you can live differently."
The reviewer I have cited above would no doubt dispute much of what I have said here. Nevertheless, his original comment is based on an erroneous understanding of Christianity. I suspect that he would still take issue with the notion that homosexuality is rooted ultimately in the sinfulness of humanity. On that count he is arguing not with me, but with thousands of years of inspired holy writ.
Blessings,
Rob Monti
aka The MonT-SteR
My wife and I have both embarked on a journey of healing with God in recent years. We are grateful to Him for the gentle mercy and kindness He has chosen to shower our lives with during this time. Nevertheless, we have found that the path to wholeness can occasionaly be arduous and harrowing. God's healing touch requires that we acknowledge and face the darkness in our souls, whatever its nature may be. This is no easy task, because wounded people are very adept at running from their own darkness, at covering it with every manner of "medication" in a feeble (and sinful) attempt to deaden the gnawing pain that festers deep within. Owning up to the the fact that we've coddled and hidden from our darkness has been a struggle at times, but neither of us would trade this season we are in for anything. We have come to know God as our loving Father in ways that we had never dreamed. A corresponding freedom comes with this knowledge. When we obediently face the freezing, stinking shroud that smothers the inner life and view it through God's eyes, we open ourselves to the innate subversiveness of His light and freedom. They invade and conquer inner darkness like the small amount of leaven that works all the way through a lump of dough.
As leaders in the church, our own experiences with inner-healing have sensitized us to the rampant brokenness that exists among Christians. We are often wont to probe the writings and methodologies of those who are learned and seasoned in healing ministry in order to augment our own ministry "tool belts." Aware of this, a friend of ours gave us a copy of Leanne Payne's The Broken Image, which details the power of healing prayer to undo woundedness and usher God's redeeming power into damaged souls--particularly in relation to the emotional and spiritual pathologies that contribute to homosexuality. In fact, Ms. Payne's counseling experience has led her to the conclusion that, as disorders of the mind and heart go, homosexuality is surprisingly simple to deal with.
Now, before I proceed, I wish to make a disclaimer. I can tell from Ms. Payne's book that she is among the kindliest of souls, and her passion for ministering wholeness and freedom to others certainly resonates with me. Her success in ministering to practitioners of homosexuality is impressive, heartwarming, and faith-building. I do not, however, agree with her healing methodology in toto. Ms. Payne does not hesitate to employ visualization with her patients, which I view as dangerously subjective in healing ministry situations. Ms. Payne knows full well that anyone working through woundedness encounters profound difficulty in objectively apprehending the truth about their own condition and how God views it. For this reason, I believe it is much safer and healthier to facilitate an environment where God is free to initiate the impartation of objective information--whether it conveys a sense of His love and acceptance or the reason why a victim suffered abuse--by His Spirit. Our relationship with God is necessarily an admixture of His objective activity in our lives and our subjective experience of it. There is far less room for error if we completely trust Him to be the proactive one in a healing ministry context.
Now, with that out of the way, on to the point of this post.
Out of curiosity, I recently went to Amazon.com to see what other readers had to say about Ms. Payne's book, and found the following
As a licensed psychotherapist it is disturbing to see that "christian" writers must attempt to vilify homosexuality in the name of "love." Bigotry and lack of scientific evidence wrapped in the Bible is still bigotry. What all believers in "reparative therapy" (disavowed by the APA and the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals) cannot grasp is that behavior does not equal identity. Certainly heterosexuality is not defined only by it's erotic states. This "old shoe" theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father simply doesn't hold water in scientific studies. Also of note, is the "relapse" of the notable names in reparative therapy, (John Paulk among others.) Mainstream mental health professionals (heathens to the likes of Ms. Payne) believe that anyone can temporarily change sexual behavior, bisexuals for example. But behavior change does not equal identity change. Promoting that it does, is the big lie of christian counseling. (...)Payne and her ilk, (dispite growing evidence to the contrary) refuse to even consider the possibility that God created homosexuals. This does not fit into the evangelical rigid black and white thinking. Sadly, the clients I see have been tortured by this "Christian love", and are seeking a real path to heightened self-esteem through acceptance of themselves exactly as they are.Well, my goodness!
Having read Ms. Payne's book through at least twice, I can say with certainty that this reviewer grievously mischaracterizes her positions. For example, the reviewer accuses Ms. Payne of relying on the "'old shoe' theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father" to explain the occurrence of homosexuality. This is hopelessly reductionistic. An objective reader would tell you that her explication of causal factors eventuating in same-sex attraction, while including maladaptive relationships with parents, is far more nuanced and complex. My hunch is that the reviewer proceeded from his own prejudice against Christian notions of "reparative therapy" without giving Ms. Payne's book a fair reading.
The reviewer also made one general assertion about Christians that I want to address in some detail:
What all believers in "reparative therapy" ... cannot grasp is that behavior does not equal identity. Certainly heterosexuality is not defined only by it's [sic] erotic states.First of all, the reviewer is dead wrong about Christianity's failure to draw a bifurcation between behavior and identity. The very notion of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8)--a core tenet of Christian belief and practice--necessitates that behavior and identity (i.e., the personal aspect of an individual regarded as a persisting entity) remain distinct from one another. If it were true that we are what we do, then our deeds would define us. One who performs good deeds would be able to make a claim upon God for favor and salvation: "I am a doer of good, therefore I am good." The Bible, however, teaches us that (1) we are, by virtue of the universal fall of humanity, evil by nature; (2) as a result, even the good deeds we do are like filthy rags; (3) the pandemic of inner human wickedness, while perhaps masked at best by our good deeds, always belies them before God. Our good deeds can never sponge away the unresolved rebellion against God that every one of us is guilty of. Moreover, our evil deeds are merely consistent with the evil nature that precedes them. We are not what we do. The reverse is true: we do what we are, whether our nature is good or evil. This is the truth behind Philippians 2:12-13:
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.For those who are new creations in Christ, the identity is indissolubly bound up with that of Jesus Himself. The challenge is to be in deed what God has made us in nature: righteous.
This means that homosexuality is merely one of many symptoms stemming from unredeemed, human sinfulness. That is not the end of the story, however, because God does not leave us to wallow in our wretched estate. The message of Christianity is that our unredeemed nature is not God's ideal for us. We were originally made in His image and likeness, and His intent is to recover through Jesus Christ what our own sin and the sin of others have so marred and twisted. To the homosexual, Ms. Payne says, "Your broken, sinful self has eventuated in homosexual acts. Your true, liberated, and fulfilled self is to be found in Christ Jesus. Living in Him necessitates that you eschew--by His grace and power--that which is contrary to His nature. In uniting yourself with Him, He in turn works His righteousness and truth in you, so that you can work it out through what you do, think, and say." Or, to put it another way, "You are currently doing what you are, but God wants to make you new so you can live differently."
The reviewer I have cited above would no doubt dispute much of what I have said here. Nevertheless, his original comment is based on an erroneous understanding of Christianity. I suspect that he would still take issue with the notion that homosexuality is rooted ultimately in the sinfulness of humanity. On that count he is arguing not with me, but with thousands of years of inspired holy writ.
Blessings,
Rob Monti
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, homosexuality, inner healing
Monday, April 19, 2004
Leaders are followers
My church launched a School of Leadership this year, and I was asked to teach the second module, entitled The Leader's Example. The curriculum we use for these classes is produced by Leadership Training, International, and it is excellent material.
I made some introductory comments about Christian discipleship at the class, which I have recorded and posted here for those who might be interested:
Feedback from all comers is more than welcome!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
My church launched a School of Leadership this year, and I was asked to teach the second module, entitled The Leader's Example. The curriculum we use for these classes is produced by Leadership Training, International, and it is excellent material.
I made some introductory comments about Christian discipleship at the class, which I have recorded and posted here for those who might be interested:
The MonT-SteR on Discipleship (6.3 MB, 15 min.)Of course, these comments do not exhaust all my thoughts or concerns vis-a-vis a biblical paradigm/theology of discipleship, but they serve to illustrate why it is one of the issues I tend to pound the table about.
Feedback from all comers is more than welcome!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity, discipleship
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Gay marriage redux
My hometown newspaper, the Cumberland Times-News, has been a hotbed of debate on the issue of gay marriage lately. After reading some of the letters to the editor, I was inspired to write the following. It's not overtly Christian, but it does raise important questions that (I hope) will inspire people to question their presuppositions (particularly as they relate to God and objective morality). I plan to submit this to the Times-News for their consideration. Readers of The MonT-SteR REPORT will be among the first to know if it's printed.
Answer the Questions Gay Marriage Raises with Care
Rogue mayors and presidential politics have renewed the debate about gay marriage with fresh fervor. Impassioned appeals, both pro and con, are made every day; but the shrill rancor of our national debate has drowned out reason. Those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds are frequently marginalized. Proponents of gay marriage, who have undoubtedly received more than their own share of name-calling, gleefully hurl rude epithets like "zealot," "bigot," or "hate-monger" at people of faith who decry homosexuality. On the other hand, many believers hotly (and wrongly) denounce homosexuals as those who practice an incomparably execrable sin -- one that renders them irremediably godless and subversive to home and hearth. A meeting of minds and hearts is impossible in such a poisoned atmosphere.
We need to calm down and consider: this issue is much larger than personal rights and finger pointing. It speaks to fundamental logical and existential questions about the human condition. Namely, what is objectively normal, healthy human behavior? Is there such a thing? If so, how do we determine what "normal" is? If not, what does that mean for us as a society? Do we attempt to invent, define, and impose an artificial standard of normalcy by consensus, or do we abandon the very notion of "normal" and leave us all to our own individual devices and proclivities? Most importantly, are the answers to these questions intrinsic to humanity, or are they transcendent, requiring us to look beyond ourselves for wisdom and guidance?
In their outworking, all ideas inevitably produce tangible, practical consequences. Thus, the manner in which we answer the question "What is normal?" has far reaching implications. From a logical perspective, that we are even considering whether or not gay marriage should be culturally and constitutionally licit means that the very idea of objective normalcy hangs in the balance. If monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not exclusively normal, then where does our idea of normal begin and end? Some psychologists have recently suggested that children might actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a pedophile. Like it or not, these psychologists are using the rubric of "normalcy" to legitimize pedophelia. Once we discard what have been considered normal parameters for human relational and sexual interaction by embracing gay marriage, can we reasonably tell pedophiles, polygamists, and practitioners of bestiality that what they do is abnormal and undeserving of cultural or legal sanction? Moreover, if we reject the traditional understanding of normalcy vis-a-vis marriage, what does that mean for other categories of normalcy? How can we tell what is exclusively normal, moral, and good if we are constantly subjecting these things to inclusive redefinition? What meaning can notions of right and wrong have in such an environment?
America must debate the issue of gay marriage, but in doing so we have already opened Pandora's box. Take care, ladies and gentlemen, how you answer these questions. For my own part, I fear for our nation if we abandon objective -- yes, even transcendent -- normalcy. To do so is to embrace a destructive, imperialistic moral anarchy with debauching tentacles that will reach far beyond the question of gay marriage.
My hometown newspaper, the Cumberland Times-News, has been a hotbed of debate on the issue of gay marriage lately. After reading some of the letters to the editor, I was inspired to write the following. It's not overtly Christian, but it does raise important questions that (I hope) will inspire people to question their presuppositions (particularly as they relate to God and objective morality). I plan to submit this to the Times-News for their consideration. Readers of The MonT-SteR REPORT will be among the first to know if it's printed.
Answer the Questions Gay Marriage Raises with Care
Rogue mayors and presidential politics have renewed the debate about gay marriage with fresh fervor. Impassioned appeals, both pro and con, are made every day; but the shrill rancor of our national debate has drowned out reason. Those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds are frequently marginalized. Proponents of gay marriage, who have undoubtedly received more than their own share of name-calling, gleefully hurl rude epithets like "zealot," "bigot," or "hate-monger" at people of faith who decry homosexuality. On the other hand, many believers hotly (and wrongly) denounce homosexuals as those who practice an incomparably execrable sin -- one that renders them irremediably godless and subversive to home and hearth. A meeting of minds and hearts is impossible in such a poisoned atmosphere.
We need to calm down and consider: this issue is much larger than personal rights and finger pointing. It speaks to fundamental logical and existential questions about the human condition. Namely, what is objectively normal, healthy human behavior? Is there such a thing? If so, how do we determine what "normal" is? If not, what does that mean for us as a society? Do we attempt to invent, define, and impose an artificial standard of normalcy by consensus, or do we abandon the very notion of "normal" and leave us all to our own individual devices and proclivities? Most importantly, are the answers to these questions intrinsic to humanity, or are they transcendent, requiring us to look beyond ourselves for wisdom and guidance?
In their outworking, all ideas inevitably produce tangible, practical consequences. Thus, the manner in which we answer the question "What is normal?" has far reaching implications. From a logical perspective, that we are even considering whether or not gay marriage should be culturally and constitutionally licit means that the very idea of objective normalcy hangs in the balance. If monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not exclusively normal, then where does our idea of normal begin and end? Some psychologists have recently suggested that children might actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a pedophile. Like it or not, these psychologists are using the rubric of "normalcy" to legitimize pedophelia. Once we discard what have been considered normal parameters for human relational and sexual interaction by embracing gay marriage, can we reasonably tell pedophiles, polygamists, and practitioners of bestiality that what they do is abnormal and undeserving of cultural or legal sanction? Moreover, if we reject the traditional understanding of normalcy vis-a-vis marriage, what does that mean for other categories of normalcy? How can we tell what is exclusively normal, moral, and good if we are constantly subjecting these things to inclusive redefinition? What meaning can notions of right and wrong have in such an environment?
America must debate the issue of gay marriage, but in doing so we have already opened Pandora's box. Take care, ladies and gentlemen, how you answer these questions. For my own part, I fear for our nation if we abandon objective -- yes, even transcendent -- normalcy. To do so is to embrace a destructive, imperialistic moral anarchy with debauching tentacles that will reach far beyond the question of gay marriage.
Labels: Christianity, homosexuality, moral relativism, politics
Monday, February 23, 2004
A slice of the MonT-SteR's journal
An entry in my personal journal from February 1, 2004:
Here's a personal musing on C.S. Lewis from my own Christian perspective:
Food for thought ...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
An entry in my personal journal from February 1, 2004:
In my earlier days as a believer, I majored on the miraculous power of God. My constant hope and expectation was to see the might of the Most High crash dramatically through barriers of human limitation and demonic machination. With time and growth, I came to witness the unrelenting subversiveness of the quiet, patient exercise of His power. Even the trickle of the tiniest stream has the ability to carve canyons over time.
I think, however, that my pendulum may have swung too far in one direction. A fellow student in one of my missions classes said, "I'm tired of a powerless Gospel." That's the way I feel today. Whether it comes by trickle or tempest, God's power is available to His children. I've lost sight of that. I don't live as though it's true.
No more.
Here's a personal musing on C.S. Lewis from my own Christian perspective:
Friday, January 10, 2003
I'm reading Mere Christianity right now, and had a few thoughts on the timelessness of God. C.S. Lewis says that reality for God is beyond any sort of timeline, i.e., past, present, and future. For Him, all is Now. Anything less would cause God to lose some of His reality. Once present becomes past for us, it is no longer something we can experience or know directly. Reality, for us, is limited to the instant. For God, all is current reality. What we call tomorrow and cannot see, He calls Now�to Him, it is just as visible, just as experiential, as the instant is to us. The same goes for the past. Hence, as Scripture says, 1000 years with the Lord is as but 1 day, and vice versa.
I mention all this in relationship to prophecy. Since God is timeless, the knowledge He bestows to His people is timeless as well. Thus, predictive prophecy is made possible. Since tomorrow is Now for God, He can give us tomorrow's information Now. The gift of prophecy can often be the means by which the timelessness belonging uniquely to God breaks into the time-bound reality we all know. The prophet's lips can be a window on the timeless, and his words harbingers of the eternal. God uses those who prophesy to minister His own unique perspective (one which we cannot gain on our own) to the Body of Christ. It is the inbreaking of the eternal on the finite�an opportunity for time-bound humanity to see tomorrow Now with some of the clarity that God alone enjoys.
Food for thought ...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: C.S. Lewis, Christianity, The MonT-SteR
Friday, January 23, 2004
Point of clarification
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:33:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert Monti"
Subject: RE: Lead us not into temptation....
To: Monti Cell Group
Howdy all.
I took a moment to put my rusty Greek skills to use in
order to verify my suspicion about Matthew 6:13.
It turns out that the verb that is translated "to
lead" can also be rendered "to bring into." I don't
want to bore everybody with Greek grammar, but here
are a couple points of interest:
So the issue is not that God will push us into
temptations if we don't pray for Him not to. Instead,
we are to ask God to help us stay out of situations
where we are weak and vulnerable to temptation, or
where the enemy might have an "in" to attack us or cause
us to stumble. It's a beautiful prayer for protection.
I'm heartened to know that my Heavenly Father
understands and acknowledges our weakness, and pledges
to us through Christ's own prayer that He will gladly
make provision for our rescue. All we need to do is
ask.
I hope you all found this information helpful. We love
and appreciate you, and will continue to pray for you.
Blessings,
Rob
P.S. I really enjoyed our discussion on Tuesday night!
=====
Robert R. Monti, M.Div.
w: www.mont-sterreport.com
e: robmonti@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:33:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert Monti"
Subject: RE: Lead us not into temptation....
To: Monti Cell Group
Howdy all.
I took a moment to put my rusty Greek skills to use in
order to verify my suspicion about Matthew 6:13.
It turns out that the verb that is translated "to
lead" can also be rendered "to bring into." I don't
want to bore everybody with Greek grammar, but here
are a couple points of interest:
- The verb in question is in the subjunctive mood,
which generally conveys probability or contingency. It
has a number of uses, however, depending on the syntax
of a sentence. It can also indicate a simple
prohibition when addressing someone. For example, in
John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Do not marvel that
I said to you...." So a literal English translation of
Matthew 6:13a might go, "Do not bring us into
temptation...." - Jesus and the New Testament writers commonly used a
literary device called "litotes," which is essentially
the expression of a positive idea or concept by
negating its opposite. For example, Paul says in 2
Cor. 2:11 that he and the Corinthians are "not
ignorant" of Satan's devices. The negation of the
negative term "ignorant" is used to convey a positive
fact: they are aware of Satan's devices. - In the same way, Jesus employs litotes in the Lord's
Prayer when He teaches us to pray against temptation
in our lives. The prayer negates the very negative
idea of being "brought" or "led" into temptation. What
Jesus intends is for us to petition God to do the
opposite, to "bring us away or out of" temptations. A
very positive idea!
So the issue is not that God will push us into
temptations if we don't pray for Him not to. Instead,
we are to ask God to help us stay out of situations
where we are weak and vulnerable to temptation, or
where the enemy might have an "in" to attack us or cause
us to stumble. It's a beautiful prayer for protection.
I'm heartened to know that my Heavenly Father
understands and acknowledges our weakness, and pledges
to us through Christ's own prayer that He will gladly
make provision for our rescue. All we need to do is
ask.
I hope you all found this information helpful. We love
and appreciate you, and will continue to pray for you.
Blessings,
Rob
P.S. I really enjoyed our discussion on Tuesday night!
=====
Robert R. Monti, M.Div.
w: www.mont-sterreport.com
e: robmonti@yahoo.com
Labels: bible study, Christianity, exegesis
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Rebuttal to Father Morley
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
- Many people of faith once asserted that the American institution of slavery was sanctioned by the teachings of Scripture. This theological grid prompted such people to denounce the Emancipation Proclamation as unbiblical twaddle.
- With time, these segments of American Christianity came to recognize that the Bible could never be construed to countenance the injustice and cruelty of slavery.
- Today, a number of Christians assert that homosexuality should not be embraced and celebrated as normal, healthy human behavior. Their reasoning (similar to their 19th-century counterparts who supported slavery) is based on Scripture. Just as some Christians once rejected the emancipation of slaves on supposedly scriptural reasons, many Christians today reject the ordination of a gay bishop on the same grounds.
- The passage of time may have the same effect on the thinking of modern Christians with respect to homosexuality as it did on 19th-century Christians who were pro-slavery. To wit, biblical sanction of homosexuality may eventually (and rightly?) become the predominant viewpoint within Christendom.
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
- Fr. Morley is correct in his assertion that many Christians erroneously believed slavery to be biblically licit. But his emphasis on this fact belies the largely Christian underpinnings of abolitionism in the northern regions of the country.
Thomas Weld, who became a Christian under the preaching of 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, was among the first abolitionists to paint the struggle against slavery as a struggle against sin.1 The Christian community in the North followed suit, and soon pro-slavery pulpiteers in the South had to contend with stinging biblical retorts from their abolitionist counterparts.2 The Golden Rule was the linchpin of Christian abolitionist thought.3 "Treat others," Jesus taught, "in the same way that you wish to be treated." On this basis, abolitionists posed a poignant and damning question: How many southern slaveholders would willingly trade places with their slaves for even one day?4
Armed with this potent argument, abolitionists proceeded to build a cumulative scriptural case against slavery:How, too, would slaveholders answer Exodus 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"? Or Proverbs 22:22, 23, "Rob not the poor...for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them"? And Jeremiah 22:13, "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work"? And in the New Testament, James 5:4, "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabbaoth."5
Fr. Morley has omitted a significant part of church history from his analogy. Yes, some Christians did justify slavery with the Bible; but plenty of other Christians who also reasoned from the Bible arrived at the opposite (and correct) conclusion. This brings us to the second problem with Fr. Morley's logic. - His analogy does not even attempt to grapple with the inherent veracity or falsehood of either perspective on homosexuality. Note the unfounded assumptions that are implicit in his analogy:
- Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
- Those who supported the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (a correct position) are analogous to those who now sanction homosexuality as acceptable on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is correct.
This is the more egregious of Fr. Morley's errors. I have no doubt that he would agree when I say that the right side won the argument on slavery -- he undeniably implies this in his letter. In doing so, however, he admits something important: one of the camps on slavery was objectively and irrevocably wrong. The falsehood of their position was (and is) independent of the passage of time. It was wholly incorrect from its inception, regardless of the temporal nature of the opinions or feelings of those who espoused it.
The same possibility exists for either position on homosexuality--one objectively adheres to ultimate reality, the other does not. In portions of his letter, Fr. Morley seems to be open to the possibility that those who decry homosexuality might have the correct position. His analogy, however, presumes that this view is incorrect. - Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Labels: Christianity, Cumberland, homosexuality, moral relativism, politics
