Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bible tweets?
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It's certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not... - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster's going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God's prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don't know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, bible study, Christianity, David Schuster, homosexuality, MSNBC
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tilapia Po'Boy recipe
So, my wife buys these breaded tilapia filets from Sam's Club. Usually, she bakes them in the oven until they're crispy on the outside, and I enjoy them with thorough doses of vinegar (I'm not really a seafood person).
Well, she had somewhere to go this evening, and graciously cooked up some of these tilapia filets for me to eat while she's out. This time around, however, the ol' take-it-with-vinegar routine just didn't seem appetizing. So, in the fine Monti tradition of improvisational gastronomy, I experimented with what we had on hand in the kitchen.
The result was (IMHO) delicious, and a welcome change of pace. If you're trying to get more fish in your diet and in a rut, try this for a quick and tasty meal.
Tilapia Po'Boy
Ingredients
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
So, my wife buys these breaded tilapia filets from Sam's Club. Usually, she bakes them in the oven until they're crispy on the outside, and I enjoy them with thorough doses of vinegar (I'm not really a seafood person).
Well, she had somewhere to go this evening, and graciously cooked up some of these tilapia filets for me to eat while she's out. This time around, however, the ol' take-it-with-vinegar routine just didn't seem appetizing. So, in the fine Monti tradition of improvisational gastronomy, I experimented with what we had on hand in the kitchen.
The result was (IMHO) delicious, and a welcome change of pace. If you're trying to get more fish in your diet and in a rut, try this for a quick and tasty meal.
Tilapia Po'Boy
Ingredients
- 1 breaded tilapia filet, baked until exterior is golden brown and crispy
- 3 slices of onion, coarsely chopped
- 1/2 long hot chili pepper, coarsely chopped
- 1 roma tomato, chopped
- 1-2 t. soy sauce
- 1 T lemon juice
- 1/2 t. Tabasco sauce
- 1 T olive oil
- 1 small pat of butter
- Shredded Monterrey Jack or sharp white cheddar cheese
- Salt
- Pepper
- Crushed red pepper
- 1 Small Italian sandwich or hoagie roll, or (better yet) some ciabatta bread or about 4"-6" of a Louisiana baguette (whatever you use, be sure to toast it)
- Heat the olive oil and butter in a non-stick skillet.
- Over medium heat, add the onion and long hot chili pepper. Stir to make sure the oil/butter covers everything.
- Sautee until the onion becomes translucent.
- Add soy sauce, Tabasco, and lemon juice. Add salt, pepper, and crushed red pepper to taste. Stir.
- When this mixture has sauteed for just a moment more, fold in the tomato. Stir thoroughly. Continue to sautee until the tomato wilts a bit, then remove from heat.
- Take your toasted roll/bread, and spread a little mayonnaise on the inside. Place the baked tilapia filet on the bread, and spoon the sauteed vegetable mixture on top. Sprinkle just enough shredded cheese to give it a bit of a tang, and enjoy.
- Put a little Cajun seasoning (like Tony Chachere's or Slap Ya' Mama!) in the mayo, or substitute it for the salt and pepper in the sauteed veggie mix.
- Flatbread or a tortilla could make this a tasty wrap.
- If you want a healthier cheese option, feta might be a good choice.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: recipes, The MonT-SteR
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Voiceover recording FAIL!
While recording voiceovers for a training video at work this week, I got real frustrated. I use something akin to a Porta-Booth to do recording. While it does a good job approximating the quality of a full-blown soundbooth, it makes reading copy and controlling the computer a tad difficult sometimes. I just couldn't get situated, and so goof-ups were frequent and hard to recover from.
Witness the EPIC MonT-SteR Consternation&trade!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
While recording voiceovers for a training video at work this week, I got real frustrated. I use something akin to a Porta-Booth to do recording. While it does a good job approximating the quality of a full-blown soundbooth, it makes reading copy and controlling the computer a tad difficult sometimes. I just couldn't get situated, and so goof-ups were frequent and hard to recover from.
Witness the EPIC MonT-SteR Consternation&trade!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: fail, humor, The MonT-SteR
Thursday, April 09, 2009
A free Macbook Pro?
Call me crazy, but Macinlust can drive one to do crazy things from time to time.
You've probably seen these sites where they offer goodies that appeal to anyone with a bit of a gadget bug. Complete an array of offers, and you'll get the techno-carrot they dangle in front of your face to entice you—anything from iPods to PSPs to, well, Macbook Pros.
The problem with many of these sites is that they want you to complete the most ridiculous offers to get the goodie. No, I'm NOT going to apply for a mortgage and buy a European vacation package just to get a LAPTOP, for Pete's sake. My gadget greed isn't THAT out of control, thank you very much.
I recently encountered a site that asks one to complete a modest offer (like a trial at Netflix or a sample pack of gourmet coffee) and refer 24 people who also complete offers to get the goodie. That seems doable to me. So, I took the plunge.
In my case, I had to order some ShamWoW! towels, which is fine; I've been wanting to try them anyway. But now comes the work of referring 24 people who are willing to complete offers like I did.
So, if you're interested in getting a Macbook Pro on the über-cheap, pay Notebooks4Free.com a visit. From what I've seen, this is actually a reputable company that's not out to scam you (go here for a positive and seemingly credible review).
I'll keep you posted on how my application for the Macbook progresses.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
P.S. The MonT-SteR Reduction has been going badly. I really fell off the horse after my business trip. A day off for Good Friday tomorrow will give me the chance to go to the gym for an extended period of time, thus breaking the pattern of not getting to the gym for an extended period of time. Pray for me! This whole weight-loss, fitness thing HAS to happen.
UPDATE (5/1/2009):
I received credit for completing my offer -- my ShamWow! towels arrived yesterday (happy happy, joy joy), and my offer was marked as complete by Notebooks4Free last evening. Now I just have to figure out how to get referrals.
I received credit for completing my offer -- my ShamWow! towels arrived yesterday (happy happy, joy joy), and my offer was marked as complete by Notebooks4Free last evening. Now I just have to figure out how to get referrals.
Call me crazy, but Macinlust can drive one to do crazy things from time to time.
You've probably seen these sites where they offer goodies that appeal to anyone with a bit of a gadget bug. Complete an array of offers, and you'll get the techno-carrot they dangle in front of your face to entice you—anything from iPods to PSPs to, well, Macbook Pros.
The problem with many of these sites is that they want you to complete the most ridiculous offers to get the goodie. No, I'm NOT going to apply for a mortgage and buy a European vacation package just to get a LAPTOP, for Pete's sake. My gadget greed isn't THAT out of control, thank you very much.
I recently encountered a site that asks one to complete a modest offer (like a trial at Netflix or a sample pack of gourmet coffee) and refer 24 people who also complete offers to get the goodie. That seems doable to me. So, I took the plunge.
In my case, I had to order some ShamWoW! towels, which is fine; I've been wanting to try them anyway. But now comes the work of referring 24 people who are willing to complete offers like I did.
So, if you're interested in getting a Macbook Pro on the über-cheap, pay Notebooks4Free.com a visit. From what I've seen, this is actually a reputable company that's not out to scam you (go here for a positive and seemingly credible review).
I'll keep you posted on how my application for the Macbook progresses.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
P.S. The MonT-SteR Reduction has been going badly. I really fell off the horse after my business trip. A day off for Good Friday tomorrow will give me the chance to go to the gym for an extended period of time, thus breaking the pattern of not getting to the gym for an extended period of time. Pray for me! This whole weight-loss, fitness thing HAS to happen.
Labels: free macbook pro
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Photoshop World and The Biggest Loser, Blog Edition
Greetings from Beantown. I'm here in Boston for the Photoshop (PS) World conference, learning all sorts of yummy new things about every designer's favorite killer workhorse application.
I consider myself an intermediate to almost-advanced PS user, and it was gratifying to find that a good number of things presented today were review for me. But I got to see lots of nooks and crannies in PS CS4 that I was unaware of. The neat thing about PS nooks and crannies is that they can have a very meaningful impact on your workflow. For example:
In other news, your One and Only Favorite Friendly Neighborhood MonT-SteR™ is, well, fat. Portly. Obese. Rotund. Corpulent. Some of you who actually see me on a regular basis will doubtless be completely UNsurprised at this revelation. But it's true. Call me Moby Dick (Ishmael was thin, I'll wager).
And so, The MonT-SteR must reduce. Lots. Like, the "over 100 lbs." kind of "lots." To be specific, I need to lose at least 140 lbs.
This seems kind of daunting, but I done this before. I lost nearly 100 lbs. years ago, and over time (especially after the birth of my first son) I gained the weight back, and then some (and how!). And corresponding medical complications are forcing my hand. I'll not be done in by hypertension and declining cholesterol.
So, as a therapeutic measure, and to help with motivation, I've decided to use my blog to chronicle my progress. Think of it as The Biggest Loser for the blogosphere.
Not sure what shape this will take, or how I'll publish my results. But I think it will be helpful to know that readers and other netizens can come along for the journey. I'm sure there will be days when I'll need encouraging words from folks out there!
In an effort to continue my recent trend of getting to the gym, I'll be heading to the fitness center here in the hotel before breakfast and class.
So, off to bed with me!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Greetings from Beantown. I'm here in Boston for the Photoshop (PS) World conference, learning all sorts of yummy new things about every designer's favorite killer workhorse application.
I consider myself an intermediate to almost-advanced PS user, and it was gratifying to find that a good number of things presented today were review for me. But I got to see lots of nooks and crannies in PS CS4 that I was unaware of. The neat thing about PS nooks and crannies is that they can have a very meaningful impact on your workflow. For example:
- If you have PS CS4, check out the Content Aware Scaling. In essence, if you have an image that you need to scale in a non-proportional way, you can protect the important content of the photo so it doesn't squish or stretch. Very powerful when you have a photo that is perfect for your project but it doesn't fit the dimensions of the end product.
- PS CS4's mask and adjustment panels are awesome time savers, and they give you the ability to apply masks, feathers, and adjustments to an image in non-destructive fashion. Very cool.
In other news, your One and Only Favorite Friendly Neighborhood MonT-SteR™ is, well, fat. Portly. Obese. Rotund. Corpulent. Some of you who actually see me on a regular basis will doubtless be completely UNsurprised at this revelation. But it's true. Call me Moby Dick (Ishmael was thin, I'll wager).
And so, The MonT-SteR must reduce. Lots. Like, the "over 100 lbs." kind of "lots." To be specific, I need to lose at least 140 lbs.
This seems kind of daunting, but I done this before. I lost nearly 100 lbs. years ago, and over time (especially after the birth of my first son) I gained the weight back, and then some (and how!). And corresponding medical complications are forcing my hand. I'll not be done in by hypertension and declining cholesterol.
So, as a therapeutic measure, and to help with motivation, I've decided to use my blog to chronicle my progress. Think of it as The Biggest Loser for the blogosphere.
Not sure what shape this will take, or how I'll publish my results. But I think it will be helpful to know that readers and other netizens can come along for the journey. I'm sure there will be days when I'll need encouraging words from folks out there!
In an effort to continue my recent trend of getting to the gym, I'll be heading to the fitness center here in the hotel before breakfast and class.
So, off to bed with me!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Photoshop, weight loss
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rapid-fire political potpourri
Infuriating
As many of you know, that poisonous train wreck of a stimulus bill passed, and it wouldn't have happened without Senator Arlen Specter's continued perfidy. I'm not a Pennsylvania resident, but my grandparents are. They are part of the "greatest generation," and my granddad served honorably during World War II. So you can imagine my shock when I found out that the stimulus bill contains measures that ration health care to senior citizens using Medicare based on a cold, unfeeling equation.
That's right, folks. The stimulus bill sets up a new bureaucracy that determines which of our seniors get health care and which ones don't.
You need bypass surgery? Hmm, let's see here. According to actuarial tables, given your medical history and hereditary risk factors, you only have another 2 years of average life expectancy. Let me plug your numbers into our formula here, and... Ooh, sorry! You might beat the actuarial table, but we can't risk it. Giving that bypass to someone a bit younger is a better use of health care dollars. Well, better get your house in order. Next!
Doesn't sound very nice, does it? I appealed to Senator Specter not to support the bill for this and many other reasons. Millions of other citizens like me did the same. He voted for it anyway. And folks, I'm not just ticked. I'm fire-breathing, nail-spitting mad.
So I sent the good senator a note, letting him know exactly how I feel:
Embarrassing
Sigh...
I can only conclude from this that a significant portion of Obama's supporters believe that they have elected a personal Santa Claus.
Julio, if you don't like the pay and benefits at MacDonald's, then FIND ANOTHER JOB. Don't blame others for the fact that the Mickey D's health care plan ain't all that. What in heaven's name do you expect? It's MACDONALD's! If you can't find another job, then it's YOUR responsibility to do what you can to enhance your resume, acquire better skills, and find a better situation. YOU take initiative. Don't lower yourself by begging the President to make MacDonald's give you the moon just because YOU think they should.
Sheesh.
Perplexing
The "I Love You, Barack" lady has been making the rounds on the `net:
Don't get me wrong here -- my heart goes out to Henrietta Hughes. Once again, however, someone has an opportunity to sit in President Santa Claus's lap and present a wish list. Is this really appropriate? I'm all for approachability in public officials, but I feel like there's some sort of impropriety in the way she and good ol' Julio address the President.
The onlooker behind her could barely contain herself. Her bottom lip was quivering. You could see that her respiratory rate had increased. Folks, I'm flummoxed by this.
Mrs. MonT-SteR reminded me that I have the benefit of being grounded in Christ, of having hope in God, of knowing that I'm cared for by His hand. Not everybody has that. And so they will glom onto whatever seems to offer it in their estimation.
It's wrongheaded, but a lot of people are focusing affection that ought to be reserved for God Himself on President Obama. He's a man, and like any man he's bound to disappoint at some juncture. But it's a good reminder that the hope we have in Christ needs to be shared as widely and liberally as possible.
Frightening
This article needs no comment. We really do hang by a thread. Man, in his pride, has lost control of everything. I continue to assert that this country will disintegrate in short order apart from another Great Awakening that impacts every state in the union.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Infuriating
As many of you know, that poisonous train wreck of a stimulus bill passed, and it wouldn't have happened without Senator Arlen Specter's continued perfidy. I'm not a Pennsylvania resident, but my grandparents are. They are part of the "greatest generation," and my granddad served honorably during World War II. So you can imagine my shock when I found out that the stimulus bill contains measures that ration health care to senior citizens using Medicare based on a cold, unfeeling equation.
That's right, folks. The stimulus bill sets up a new bureaucracy that determines which of our seniors get health care and which ones don't.
You need bypass surgery? Hmm, let's see here. According to actuarial tables, given your medical history and hereditary risk factors, you only have another 2 years of average life expectancy. Let me plug your numbers into our formula here, and... Ooh, sorry! You might beat the actuarial table, but we can't risk it. Giving that bypass to someone a bit younger is a better use of health care dollars. Well, better get your house in order. Next!
Doesn't sound very nice, does it? I appealed to Senator Specter not to support the bill for this and many other reasons. Millions of other citizens like me did the same. He voted for it anyway. And folks, I'm not just ticked. I'm fire-breathing, nail-spitting mad.
So I sent the good senator a note, letting him know exactly how I feel:
Dear Senator Specter:
You have betrayed your country by supporting a bill that puts generations to come into hock. Moreover, you have voted for legislation that will wreck our economy and ration health care to citizens like my grandparents -- Pennsylvania residents who are part of the "greatest generation" that saw our nation through the perils of World War II and the Cold War.
They deserve better. We all deserve better.
Therefore, be assured that I, as a United States citizen, will devote all the time and treasure I can muster to oppose you when you are next up for re-election, in hopes that someone more worthy of your office will be duly elected in your place.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA
I'm serious about this. Senator Specter has to go. I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure he loses the next Republican primary. Stay tuned...You have betrayed your country by supporting a bill that puts generations to come into hock. Moreover, you have voted for legislation that will wreck our economy and ration health care to citizens like my grandparents -- Pennsylvania residents who are part of the "greatest generation" that saw our nation through the perils of World War II and the Cold War.
They deserve better. We all deserve better.
Therefore, be assured that I, as a United States citizen, will devote all the time and treasure I can muster to oppose you when you are next up for re-election, in hopes that someone more worthy of your office will be duly elected in your place.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
Virginia Beach, VA
Embarrassing
Sigh...
I can only conclude from this that a significant portion of Obama's supporters believe that they have elected a personal Santa Claus.
Julio, if you don't like the pay and benefits at MacDonald's, then FIND ANOTHER JOB. Don't blame others for the fact that the Mickey D's health care plan ain't all that. What in heaven's name do you expect? It's MACDONALD's! If you can't find another job, then it's YOUR responsibility to do what you can to enhance your resume, acquire better skills, and find a better situation. YOU take initiative. Don't lower yourself by begging the President to make MacDonald's give you the moon just because YOU think they should.
Sheesh.
Perplexing
The "I Love You, Barack" lady has been making the rounds on the `net:
Don't get me wrong here -- my heart goes out to Henrietta Hughes. Once again, however, someone has an opportunity to sit in President Santa Claus's lap and present a wish list. Is this really appropriate? I'm all for approachability in public officials, but I feel like there's some sort of impropriety in the way she and good ol' Julio address the President.
The onlooker behind her could barely contain herself. Her bottom lip was quivering. You could see that her respiratory rate had increased. Folks, I'm flummoxed by this.
Mrs. MonT-SteR reminded me that I have the benefit of being grounded in Christ, of having hope in God, of knowing that I'm cared for by His hand. Not everybody has that. And so they will glom onto whatever seems to offer it in their estimation.
It's wrongheaded, but a lot of people are focusing affection that ought to be reserved for God Himself on President Obama. He's a man, and like any man he's bound to disappoint at some juncture. But it's a good reminder that the hope we have in Christ needs to be shared as widely and liberally as possible.
Frightening
This article needs no comment. We really do hang by a thread. Man, in his pride, has lost control of everything. I continue to assert that this country will disintegrate in short order apart from another Great Awakening that impacts every state in the union.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: politics
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
