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
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 live
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 live