Posts tagged Christianity

An Open Letter to the Qur’an Burning Pastor

0
514 days
by in Current Events, Politics, Theology

Dear Pastor Jones,

I can appreciate your concern for the falsity of Islam. As John Piper notes, bad theology dishonors God and hurts people, and I can’t think of a theological construct more hurtful, more violent, more angry, more damnable than Islam.

Except for bad Christian theology.

As ambassadors of Christ, we are charged with the awesome responsibility of representing Jesus Himself to the world. None of us is perfect, and so at times even the most well intentioned believer can and will fall short. But since we are His regents, we must be careful not to take God’s name in vain by misrepresenting His will, person, and character. Behavior guided by a warped theological grid will inevitably do just that; the result is damaged hearts, relationships, lives, and even cultures. I know this firsthand by virtue of my own failures.

You have cited the radicality of Jesus as biblical warrant for what you are doing. Granted, Jesus did some radical things. He appointed a tax collector and a Zealot (political arch-enemies) to stand side by side as two members of the close-knit Twelve. He set aside the rights of his office as Rabbi and Lord and washed the feet of His followers like a servant. But most radically, He allowed Himself to be led like a sheep to the slaughter. He refused to revile in return those who beat and cursed him, and though twelve legions of angels were at His command, He allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified cruelly on a cross. He died: for you, for me, and… for Muslims.

He is Yahweh-Sabaoth, the Lord of Hosts, but I know in my heart that the teeming throngs of people deceived by Mohammed’s teachings move Him to grief. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should enter into eternal life.

Honestly, I admire your courage; you’re sticking to your guns even though the entire world is frowning upon you and your flock. And I can even understand your desire to “send a message.” We’ve all been wounded by the acts of Islamic terrorists. We’ve all burned with anger as we’ve observed the wanton Islamic violence and intimidation aimed at our people and our homeland. But what you are doing is not love. It is not grace. It is not outreach. It is not redemptive. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Your message is actually one of reprisal — in diametric opposition to the Golden Rule.

Jesus’ bravery is demonstrated most clearly not in the overturning of tables in the temple, but in the act of sacrificing Himself for humanity — a race that has shaken its collective fist in God’s face in abject rebellion.

Our government has pressured you not to go forward out of concern for the safety of our soldiers. I beg of you — not merely out of concern for what violence Muslims may commit in response, but fearful rather for the Muslims that could be turned away from their Savior on your account — please desist. There is no shame or cowardice in turning from a destructive or unwise path.

Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love NEVER fails. What force, what political speech, what message could be more powerful than that of Christ’s love for everyone? I pray that, in the days ahead, your decisions and actions will be guided by His love and by the clear leading of His Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Rob

Daniel as a model for Christian political involvement

0
585 days
by in Politics, Theology

I’m sure you all are aware that political discourse in our country has become increasingly acrimonious and vapid. Both sides of the political spectrum hurl invective at one another. Demagoguery abounds. Politicians deal in platitudes, and the citizenry is both polarized and distrustful of the authorities like never before.

As a Christian man, I may disagree vehemently with a given political party or an individual candidate. But, biblically, that does not give me license to behave hatefully toward them, or to default to believing the worst about them. Rather, I’m called to honor them, to pray for them, to regard them as stewards who are ultimately chosen by God to faithfully discharge the office they hold. And I believe I’m called to do what I can to help them steward that position faithfully. Sometimes that involves the prophetic responsibility of calling them to account, as the OT prophets often did with the kings, but I won’t get into that here.

I think Daniel’s example is particularly instructive. Think about his situation:

  1. He was forcibly taken into exile. He had suffered injustice at the hands of Babylon.
  2. Babylon was a pagan culture that did not recognize the Living God or follow His ways.
  3. Nebuchadnezzar was a pompous man with a bad temper and a lust for power, and yet Daniel, a man of God, had been involuntarily pressed into his service.

Daniel was betwixt and between, to be sure. And he had every reason to disparage the Babylonians and their king, to wish for their downfall. But I see in Daniel a man who never compromised his faith in God while distinguishing himself in faithful, loyal service to an unholy culture. Even though the king didn’t govern rightly, you never see one ounce of disdain or disrespect coming from Daniel. Rather, you hear phrases like, “O King, may you live forever.” Daniel lived a no compromise life, but he had the honor and respect of those who didn’t know God. And God used his righteous tenacity to reveal Himself to Nebuchadnezzar, who transitioned from glorifying himself to recognizing that God is sovereign over the nations.

I wonder if that might not be a desirable paradigm for our present political culture. You may be happy about who’s in power right now. It may drive you crazy at the moment. But how would Daniel handle it?

Daniel 11:32 states that those who know their God shall be strong and do great exploits in His name. Perhaps that captures the secret of the remarkable life Daniel lived. For my own part, I’m both convicted and inspired by his example. And I pray that our culture is flooded with Daniels in this crucial, desperate hour.

I intend to be one of them.

Bible tweets?

0
1010 days
by in Current Events, Issues, Politics, Theology

David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don’t know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California’s stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there’s no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.

This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel’s cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn’t expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.

For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn’t an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.

A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:

  • If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
    It’s certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not…
  • Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
    Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster’s going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God’s prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don’t know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”

Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it’s getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.

I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Politics of the Emerging Church

1
1109 days
by in Politics, Theology

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,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

On salt and light

0
1180 days
by in Theology

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,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

Labor Day news digest

0
1252 days
by in Current Events, Issues, Politics, Theology

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

RIP, Tony Snow

0
1303 days
by in Life, The Universe, and EVERYTHING, Politics

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.

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

Primary encounter

0
1453 days
by in Life, The Universe, and EVERYTHING, Theology

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

A question of questionable focus

0
1455 days
by in Theology

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?

Tough 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

Christmas, 1991 vintage

0
1503 days
by in Life, The Universe, and EVERYTHING, Theology

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

Next »
Go to Top