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, 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
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
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
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
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
