I’m a Christ follower, not a Christian

1
by on March 28, 2007 at 5:43 pm

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 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4

Clever, amusing, and in most respects, very helpful and accurate. Jesus defined the eternal life He promised to bring in this way:

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.

I also found the following video on YouTube, which I thought was a healthy, positive response to the videos Community Christian Church produced. It ministered to me, so I wanted to share it with you.

Am I being too sensitive, or do you think I brought up valid points?

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Issues, Theology

, , , ,

Read More

Again with the global warming…

0
by on March 13, 2007 at 5:14 am

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.

I often wonder if the debate can even be won by the right people at this stage. The global warming propagandists have enjoyed unfettered access to the public ear for nearly 20 years. But I’m encouraged that informed, credible skeptics are increasingly finding a voice. The fine documentary I’ve described above is evidence of that.

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

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

,

Read More

Communion meditation

0
by on March 4, 2007 at 6:49 pm

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)

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)

When we observe Communion, it is also meant to be a reminder that:

  • Christians with an orthodox confession are one together in Christ.
  • We are members of one another.
  • We belong to one another.

This is a fundamental reality of Christian existence, so much so that Paul says to the Corinthian church, “I may be absent from you in body, but I am present in spirit.” He also says we are all connected with invisible bands.

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

in Theology

, , , ,

Read More

The Mind’s Fourth Watch

0
by on February 25, 2007 at 4:59 am

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?

in Theology

, ,

Read More

What’s the big deal about idolatry?

0
by on January 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm

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

in Theology

, , ,

Read More

Gribble watch

0
by on December 3, 2006 at 2:24 pm

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. 1 Cor 10:31 states that everything should be done to the glory of God.
  2. Commandments given to the church are through the authority of the Lord Jesus alone (1 Thess 4:2).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Therefore, mechanical instruments are forbidden in a worship setting.

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning from the Scriptures:

  1. 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)?
  2. 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.

The truth, friends, is that it’s impossible (and downright SILLY) to base our understanding of biblical worship practices on what ISN’T in the Scriptures. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates musical instruments can’t be used to the glory of God. As long as that is the case, churches are free to employ them as a worship aid. And, if a church prefers not to, that’s fine as well. The key is to worship in both spirit and truth.

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

in Theology

, , ,

Read More

Perseverance and fruitfulness

0
by on December 2, 2006 at 2:57 am

“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

I wrote the following in the margin of my Bible:

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

in Theology

,

Read More

Media bias redux

0
by on May 13, 2006 at 4:10 am

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 or
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.

Here 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.

I believe the media simply passed over the Senator’s comments in
large part because they are vague and confusing, which is the mark of a
successful politician.

Mm, 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.

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 comments
were wrong, and I think the media were justified in covering them differently.

Well, 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:

  1. The media didn’t know about what Hillary said, which is ridiculous.
  2. 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.
  3. The media didn’t think it was newsworthy. Possible, but unlikely on balance for the reasons cited above.
  4. The media didn’t have a problem with what Hillary said, i.e., they tacitly agreed with it in some capacity.

I’m putting my money on #4.

Love ya, Dave. Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your thoughts. Come back often — I value your readership and your input. And please, be sure to do your laundry in the washing maching maching (it’s an inside joke, folks).

Next up: The MonT-SteR REPORT’s 100th BLOG POST!!!

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

P.S. David and I were best friends as kids, and we had lots of fun together. In a word, we were very silly. We made each other laugh so hard with such frequency that our teachers wouldn’t let us sit together during class, and our parents feared for our lives at the dinner table (the excessive laughter also caused lots of choking on food).

When David’s family moved to Baltimore just before we entered the 6th grade, I was crushed. Happily, we continued our friendship well into high school and usually spent a week or so together each summer. One particular summer when I was visiting David in Baltimore, he bought a whoopee cushion. I, on the other hand, was suddenly obsessed with learning how to be a ventriloquist, and spent hours practicing with a Lester dummy that belonged to David’s sister. For two 13-year-olds, bad ventriloquism and a whoopee cushion were just the combination needed to create hours of prepubescent fun.

Luckily for the world, said prepubescent fun was captured on audio tape for posterity. And so I am able to present to you these precious audio clips, which are probably unlike anything you have ever heard:

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Clip 4

Sorry, David. I couldn’t resist any longer.

in Issues, Politics

, ,

Read More

Media bias questioned

0
by on April 26, 2006 at 1:54 am

A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).

Chris says the following:

[As] a Christian pastor-in-training (insert evangelical buzzwords for credibility here), I’ve got a question. I accept your facts: Jerry Fallwell speaks, and media laughs. Hillary Clinton invokes Jesus, and maybe there isn’t a backlash.

I’m just not sure I am with your assumptions: which unexplicitly but generally seem to be 1) the media is liberal like Hillary Clinton would be considered liberal 2) the media gives favorable coverage to liberals because they belong to the same club.

Obviously, it would be silly for me to assert that every single member of the American media is sympathetic to liberal ideology and causes; clearly, that’s not the case. It’s equally untenable for me to say that all members of the media are in political lockstep with Sen. Clinton. However, research on the media covering the past several decades indicates that 1) the vast majority of the media is sympathetic to political liberalism, 2) by extension, they are unsympathetic (or hostile) to competing ideologies or political perspectives, viz. traditional, conservative, or even Christian thought, and 3) the majority leftist orientation of the media frequently colors the reporting they do.

For this reason, Chris, I’m not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a “theory.” Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that’s only because it’s a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.

Chris continues:

“[Your view of the media is] the prevaling oppressed evangelical theory. But pardon me [for] taking a quick try at neutral bias: aren’t there any other factors that could affect media coverage?

What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell’s (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary’s?

How about differences in presentation and tone?

How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?

These are good questions. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:

  • What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell’s (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary’s?

    If I understand your point here, I think it is well taken with respect to Rev. Falwell and Pat Robertson — they tend toward the open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome, and their public statements are sometimes lacking in civility or grace. But in a way, that very fact also serves to bolster the original point I was making. Hillary flamed those in favor of immigration reform as “contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures” and favoring laws that would ultimately criminalize Christ Himself. The implication is that if one favors getting tough on the illegal immigration problem we have in this country, then he or she is motivated by the same unwholesome ideals and and prejudices that ultimately incarcerated Jesus Christ. How else is one to take such comments? In terms of content or meaning, I don’t see how this differs significantly from many of the controversial things that Falwell or Robertson say (not counting calls for assassination of foreign leaders, of course). That’s why I felt the need to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in the pass the media gave to Hillary when she made these statements. If any Christian minister of national prominence called a press conference and accused anyone who supports laws restricting abortion protesters of being contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures and tantamount to criminalizing Christ Himself, how do you think the media would react? Favorably? How much would the separation of church and state get mentioned in the ensuing coverage? Did we hear anything like that vis-a-vis Hillary’s comments?

  • How about differences in presentation and tone?

    For the most part, I think I answered this above.

  • How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this question, but I’ll do my best to respond. I assume that you intend “source” to refer to whoever is making public comments — in this case, Hillary Clinton and certain Christian ministers of national prominence. Your reference to pluralism seems to imply that, in a pluralistic society, higher levels of credibility will by default be conferred upon certain individuals based upon prevailing social proclivities. So, as I understand it, your question appears to raise the following issues: 1) how favorably or unfavorably Christian ministers are typically viewed through the pluralistic lens of society at large, 2) by extension, how specific Christian ministers (i.e., the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons of the world) are typically viewed by our pluralistic society, and 3) whether or not Christians should expect anything different. If I’ve understood your question correctly, answering it is a bit of a sticky wicket. One could write pages in response! In a nutshell, my thoughts are as follows:

    1. Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
      “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)

      Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13)

      So, as you seem to intimate by your question, it is no surprise that a pluralistic world would be predisposed to regard orthodox Christianity and its proponents with disdain. According to the Scriptures, that’s a fact of life for a believer. However…

    2. The Scriptures also teach that the world is culpable before God for this same predisposition:
      He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)

      This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)

      He who receives [My followers] receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (Matthew 10:40)

      Although we are told to expect that the world will persecute the Church just as it persecuted Jesus, clearly it is something that ought not happen. So, while a pluralistic society may naturally tend toward actively discrediting Christians, the Scriptures do not sanction such a phenomenon. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    3. It seems, therefore, that we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Messengers of the Gospel ought to be received and respected by society at large, but we are taught that, for the most part, we will not be. How do we respond?

    4. Forgiveness and forbearance are prescribed, of course. I think the contention implicit in your question is that many Christians (particularly those with large public ministries) do not respond appropriately — that the tone they tend to strike merely compounds the prevenient intolerance the world has for Christianity, thereby opening them even more to things like ill treatment in the media. I have to admit that in many instances, your point certainly applies.

    5. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that Hillary used religious rhetoric that was strident in its own right. The very point your question raises ought to apply to her comments as well. If the media were consistent, she too would have been held up to scorn and public ridicule for appealing to Christianity in such a manner to justify her political stance. That didn’t happen, leading me to conclude that the media has a template for what Christians ought to believe, or that they are okay with Christianity only as long as its practical outworking harmonizes with their own worldview. This constitutes clear and willful bias, and I think it’s both reasonable and fair to call attention to it — especially when said media purports to be unbiased and impartial in its reporting.

Chris sums up his thoughts:

I guess my point is this: as a devoted Christ follower – I’m willing to assume that there is some biased reporting out there. But sometimes I can’t help but feeling that we can’t get off the “we’re” oppressed block, and possibly forget that we’re making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity, the words of a US Senator vs. a TV preacher, the purity of our own motives when being frustrated on criticism, and the way humility typically wins over whining.

As for the “we’re Evangelicals and we’re oppressed” sentiment, modern circumstances often make it easy to lose sight of the fact that we serve a victorious Christ who has overcome the world. But I can honestly say that I wasn’t motivated by such feelings when I criticized the media’s handling of Sen. Clinton. My purpose was to highlight obvious duplicity and bias which belies the external veneer of impartiality that the media attempts to maintain. Why? Because I think biased reporting is a harmful and ultimately deceitful practice, and the media should put a stop to it. Should I let it get to me? Probably not as much as I do. But pointing it out is truth telling in my book, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Regarding the problem of “making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity,” I can’t help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That’s a silly and offensive notion, and I don’t ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That’s not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.

I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don’t think that’s accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious — Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR’s readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I’m open to hearing it.

Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you’ll come back often.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Issues, Politics

, ,

Read More

MonT-SteR Talk

0
by on January 28, 2006 at 5:42 am

Every so often I listen to Bill O’Reilly’s radio show, and while I often agree with him, we consistenly part company when he discusses morality. His ideas about morality are as self-contradictory and ineffectual as can be. He may come down on the right side of the issue here and there, but the way he gets there is an absolute mess. A couple of discussions he had with callers this week were good examples of this; I thought I’d highlight them by conducting an imaginary interview with O’Reilly. I’ll have to do these more often — they’re challenging and fun to create!

The MonT-SteR: Howdy friends! This is MonT-SteR Talk, where I — Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ — have the amazing opportunity to interview the glitterati and cognoscenti of our times. We’ve got a great show for you today. Up first: he’s the firebrand of Fox News and host of the fabled No Spin Zone, Bill O’Reilly. Mr. O’Reilly, thanks for agreeing to appear on MonT-SteR Talk today. I’m delighted to have you on the program.

Bill O’Reilly: Thanks. Glad to be here lookin’ out for the folks, as always.

TM: Mr. O’Reilly, I know you are on the receiving end of a lot of bashing and vitriol, and it doesn’t come from just one side of the political spectrum.

BOR: That’s right, it doesn’t. Too many of the folks out there are driven by ideology, both on the right and the left. They’re the ones who can’t stand the No Spin Zone. We cut through the spin and the propaganda to get to the truth of the matter, and we do that without partiality.

TM: Well, let me come to the point. There’s a specific reason why I asked you to come on MonT-SteR Talk. Whenever you discuss morality from a faith-based perspective, I find that I am in profound disagreement with you.

BOR: Okay.

TM: Let me give you an example. A couple days ago on your program, you were dealing with the issue of state sanction of gay marriage. A gentleman called your radio program and commented that sodomy was a crime because the Founding Fathers and their generation — who, according to the caller, founded this country based upon the Bible — knew that same sex attraction was proscribed in the Scriptures.

BOR: Yes, I remember that call.

TM: Okay, and here (as I understood it) was your response. You disputed the notion that the Founding Fathers used the Bible as the basis for the country’s founding documents, and said that they were guided instead by a more generic Judeo-Christian ethos. Am I okay so far?

BOR: Keep going.

TM: You then went on to say in essence that using Scripture as the basis for arguing and deciding the issues of our time — like gay marriage — can’t be done. You said that one must make a “secular” appeal within the public arena of ideas.

BOR: Right. We’re not a monolithic culture. You can’t go out there and expect to make and enforce laws based on the Bible.

TM: And yesterday, you went so far as to say that people who quote the Scriptures (I think you specifically mentioned Leviticus and the Old Testament) and expect or desire them to the basis of law in our country are “nutty.” Is that accurate?

BOR: It is accurate, and I stand by it.

TM: Well, it’s at that point that your ideas about morality become completely incoherent.

BOR: How so?

TM: You consistently appeal to a Judeo-Christian ethos that animated the thinking of the Founding Fathers as they framed our democratic republic. And you rely on the existence of this Judeo-Christian ethos to rebuke what you call the “secular progressives” who are attempting to steer the social fabric of our country away from that paradigm. Now, my question to you, sir, is this: Where does that Judeo-Christian ethic come from, if not from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible?

BOR: You miss my point. The Founding Fathers didn’t take law straight from the Bible in chapter and verse fashion. Last time I checked, we don’t have a theocracy in this country.

TM: Do you admit that the Judeo-Christian ethos you refer to is derived from the Bible?

BOR: Yes.

TM: Then I fail to see how you can reasonably maintain that codifying (or wanting to codify) the moral ideas and principles advanced by the Bible in either our founding documents or modern law is “nutty.”

BOR: Look — you’re not going to win any arguments about which social direction our country should go today by quoting Scripture. It doesn’t work like that. Too many people don’t even accept the Bible as binding in any way. They don’t believe it. You’re not going to convince them by saying, “Hey, you can’t do this because Leviticus says not to.”

TM: Then how does one frame a moral argument at all?

BOR: You have to do it in a secular manner.

TM: You’re contradicting yourself, then.

BOR: No, I’m not.

TM: You are. What point is there in appealing to Judeo-Christian ideals as you do if you can’t even argue by them?

BOR: Arguing by Judeo-Christian ideals is different than arguing from the Bible.

TM: But you just admitted that a Judeo-Christian ethos is derived from the Bible.

BOR: Look. I don’t want to sit here and go back and forth. It’s pointless. Tell me your bottom line, I’ll respond to it, and let’s move on.

TM: My bottom line is this: trying to argue morality by secular means simply cedes the high ground to the secular progressives. You’re coming at the whole question of morality on their terms. Why should we do that? Take the issue of gay marriage, for example. How are you going to argue against that on secular grounds? To say that the family unit is traditionally composed a certain way is only to invite the question: What’s to stop us from changing the definition of the family unit? You don’t have an argument to stand on until you bring in the notion of a Creator who has a telos — a purpose and design of His own — for human sexuality or the human family. Now, our founding documents recognize the existence of this Creator, and they depend on the notion that His decree supersedes that of nations or their leaders. If He bestows liberty, as the Declaration of Independence states, then no people or government can licitly claim the right or ability to take that away. In a word, it’s immoral because it is proscribed not by men, but by God.

I think this shows that a Judeo-Christian ethos presupposes that moral good is theonomous. It follows logically that it is also theonomously revealed in the Scriptures the Judeo-Christian ethos depends on. When you throw out arguing morals along those lines, you really are cutting off your nose to spite your own face.

BOR: Well, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

TM: Okay. Unfortunately, we’re out of time. Thanks for being on the program, Mr. O’Reilly.

BOR: Thank you.

in Current Events, Issues, Politics, Theology

, ,

Read More
1 2 3 4

Latest Tweets

Javascript needs to be installed to view the twitterfeed. Get Javacript