Disqus - Latest Comments for Monte_Asbury

Re: 7 Essential Tips for Fitting in With the Christian Literary Underground Scene Near You!

Monte_Asbury — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:25:50 -0000

Of course not! If you want to connect with any set of people, you learn to enjoy their idiosyncracies. Seeing the ones we already have is the hardest part.

Re: Controversy in Wisconsin

Monte_Asbury — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:18:29 -0000

OK, sure, exactly how these policies were carried out is not detailed. But
let's not miss the forest for the trees: *According to the Bible, policies
of governance that provided special care for the poor, the ill, and the
powerless were given by God himself. *This is the pattern, set by God
himself, for the function of government.

Though the I chose monarchy over theocracy, God's voice throughout the
prophets still thundered against two things: their official idolatry, and
their national sin of neglect of the poor. Those governments, like the
modern ones you mention, certainly had "no such oversight" by religious
authorities over care for the poor, yet their national failure to exercise
such care was one of two great themes of God's prophets to them.

As to 1 Samuel 8, the text laments the sin and terrible social consequences
of empire-building. It's not the size of government under indictment, but
the greed that results when a nation puts its wealth above its morality.

Sounds familiar!

Re: Controversy in Wisconsin

Monte_Asbury — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:25:45 -0000

Exactly.
Some will say "Where in the Bible does it say that the government should feed the poor?" In fact, the only government created by God himself according to the Bible (the one given by God to Moses), re-distributed the means of income (land) every 50 years, required every land-owner to provide food for the poor, limited the length of debt, restricted what could be taken for collateral, and generally demanded protection of the poor in dozens of ways.
Let's ask libertarian Christians, "Where in the Bible does it say that God changed his views?"

Re: Controversy in Wisconsin

Monte_Asbury — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:12:27 -0000

What is says is that the poor should be fed, and that Jesus will judge "the nations" on the basis of their so doing (the point of the parable of the sheep and the goats). We can feed the poor in America. If, however, a political cause (less government) is more important to us than feeding the poor, we won't do it.

Re: A Million Christians for Social Justice

Monte_Asbury — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:20:32 -0000

Ignore Mr. Beck. Press ahead as if he were not there.

In times of controversy, it has seemed to me that God's whisper to me (I am a pastor) was, "Monte, feed the hungry." In the context of the moment it meant to pour on the spiritual encouragement to those who were hungry for it, and not to let the fretfulness of the few become the agenda.

Let Glenn Beck change nothing, nor gain any attention through you, and press ahead in the encouragement of those new millions God is calling to social justice.

Re: This Thanksgiving Remember the Immigrant, Pilgrim

Monte_Asbury — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:21:26 -0000

It was, of course, the breaking of laws for the purpose of showing mercy that first aroused anger toward Jesus. What right has the USA to expect obedience from his followers to laws that, similarly, would prevent mercy?

Is Jesus Lord, or is Caesar?

Re: Affirming the Footnotes: What the Manhattan Declaration Gets Right

Monte_Asbury — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:52 -0000

Take a look, hammerud, with pen in hand, at the gospels. Tally up in how much of the story Jesus is focusing on the immediate physical needs of people, or telling stories about those immediate physical needs, vs. how much of the time he is issuing a call to become born again. I think you'll find it ten or twenty to one. Read carefully the parable of the sheep and the goats, and listen to Jesus as he describes why "the nations" are so punished and rewarded.
Do our evangelical priorities truly reflect that about which Jesus demonstrates the most concern?

Re: Selective Inclusion

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:05:36 -0000

How true! And inclusiveness often means "you're welcome here unconditionally until it becomes clear that you're not following the Holy Spirit's obvious direction to become like us."

Re: Something Worth Dying For?

Monte_Asbury — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:46:51 -0000

Beautiful comment - and how real it is to me!

Re: Maine Proposes Unicameral Legislature -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Monte_Asbury — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:43:46 -0000

Here in Iowa, there are continual appropriations battles between rural interests and city interests. The bulk of the population is clustered around the cities, so House representation may tend to favor city interests (in, say, road-building) while Senate districts - as in the US bicameral system - may be more aware of the of the rather different needs of sparsely populated regions.

Re: More than Discussion

Monte_Asbury — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:58:30 -0000

Well, let's see: we call this post-modernism because we don't know what it is. It seems perfectly natural to me that in this endeavor - as in most of finding the will of God - we know what it isn't more than what it is. That's why I'm here - to share others' courage when they say, "I don't think modernism's concepts are the essence of our faith," and "If we don't see it and do it that what, what are some options?"

In few places is this more challenging than in the COTN. For systematic theology is a product of enlightenment reductionism, not of our timeless faith. And the COTN uniqueness is rooted in a few elements of systematic theology. Who is thinking this through? What are its implications for preaching, for evangelism, for discipleship? What are its implications for the very mission of the church? For, as Mclaren heard in Africa, "everything must change" if we are to work from a more accurate and more timeless Christology.

I find myself tempted to leap into new forms of praxis every month. It would feel so good! But I'm convinced doing so would merely busy me up enough that I wouldn't see through the fog into the harder, more foundational questions of what we must become.

I'm sure each of us are somewhat different from one another in where our passions lie, and that is how it should be. I suspect that we who are foundations-impassioned (who yearn to see why) need those whose passions are praxis-oriented, and I would hope, vice versa, as well. Together, we find our way.

But I don't want to jump for the sake of jumping. I need to know which way is the way to discovery of what post-modernism will be when we know what to call it, lest I just move one more time according to my own prejudices. That takes a whole lot of waiting, praying, listening, thinking, trying. I'm not advocating inaction, but radical (in its sense of "of the root") action.

Re: More than Discussion

Monte_Asbury — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:29:55 -0000

I'm not sure I've ever seen implementing as the goal. Given the diversity of our congregations, I'm looking for clues in what others think and do that might help me assemble a clearer view of where God might take us. I'm looking for creative minds who have insights that I might not have considered. I really don't want to implement others' approaches; I want to be formed by them.

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:13:42 -0000

Steven, what percentage of late-term abortions (the subject of the post) are perfectly healthy babies? Do you know? Or are the assumptions you make merely stereotypes created by pitchmen for political gain, as Waddington suggests?

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:02:09 -0000

James, excellent! The problem we have in dealing with abortion - that which keeps us from making progress - is angry absolutism. When we jump to the conclusion that abortion is "taking the easy way out" (as Focus on the Family began to say many years ago), or that every late-term abortion is brutal dismemberment of a perfectly viable baby, or that every abortion provider is a deceiver bent on raking in money by minimizing the consequences of abortion, we increase the passion of those who know these things are, more often than not, simply not so. We abandon truth for power. We become pawns of the kingdom of darkness. We despise, rather than love, those we suppose to be our enemies.

The Kingdom of God is far more demanding than that. It bids us put all our trust in the way of love.

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:12:02 -0000

Beautiful, Kelly.

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:07:05 -0000

James, well said. A friend of mine observed that the theme of nearly every crime show on television is that when the right people show up with the right firepower, everything is made well. We Americans, apparently, believe killing works.
I wonder if that is a challenge to us to choose which kingdom we will trust: that of this world, that really does believe violence can fix things, or the Kingdom of God, which loves its enemies, and finds violence merely further evil that exchanges one conflict for another.

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:55:43 -0000

Really? Are you likewise of the opinion that life-support should always be continued forever, no matter what?

Re: What does it mean to be Pro-life today?

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:09:59 -0000

Consider this comment from a former patient of Dr. Tiller:

Waddington: I think those who are anti-abortion have been very successful in painting the picture of who I am and who other women are who have late abortions. And it kind of ticks me off because it’s not accurate. I mean, supposedly I’m just a person who woke up one day and had a back pain or a leg cramp and decided to have an abortion. And that definitely wasn’t the case. This was a pregnancy that was planned. A pregnancy that was wanted and loved. And it was tantamount to having a loved one on life support and making that decision whether to end the life support or not.

That was a new view on late-term abortion for me. Have we even entertained the idea that these folks might not be monsters at all?

Re: Gay Marriage - The Last Stand?

Monte_Asbury — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:03:20 -0000

Roy, homosexual men and women are not satan. Yes, Jesus Christ made friends with people of various unpopular sexual histories. And "we do not struggle against flesh and blood," remember?

Do you love gay men and women, Roy? If not, as the old-timers used to say, "We have an altar..." If so, why would you liken them to satan? And why would they come to any conclusion, hearing your comment, other than that they could expect hatred in your church?

You were abused as a child, and I am sorry. But most abuse does not take place at the hands of homosexuals, and most homosexuals have never committed any kind of abuse. You can't rant against them as if they are guilty of a crime committed against you; they are not. You have no more right to rail against homosexuals over your abuse than the millions of children abused by heterosexuals have to rant against you because you are one.

You will be shocked, if you are so bold as to befriend homosexual people, at how very ordinary they are, and how little interest they have in forcing an agenda on anyone.

Yes, following Jesus Christ means all are my neighbor, to be loved as I love myself. This is "the narrow way," and the only way Jesus ever walked.

Re: Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy

Monte_Asbury — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:25:30 -0000

Isn't the very idea of systematic theology consummate modernism? It is like scientific reductionism, which inventories an organism's parts and reduces it to its essential materials, arranged in a logical manner.

How much of that result is orthodoxy, and how much is merely modernism's way of seeing?

A further difficulty: Isn't the self-identity of the COTN largely rooted in the defense of a certain view of systematic theology? If orthodoxy is largely modernism, what will remain as modernism fades?

Re: Google Calendar: Howto Import Outlook (CSV) or iCal Calendar Events

Monte_Asbury — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:16:51 -0000

I moved my Palm calendar to Gcal by exporting it to yahoo calendar, then exporting as a csv to Gcal.

Re: The Caretaker’s Trial

Monte_Asbury — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:56:50 -0000

Great story! As you may know, it parallels a rabbinic tradition about the near-sacrifice of Isaac:

When God visited Abraham on his way to Sodom, Abraham disagreed with God, and bargained with him until God promised destruction only under very limited conditions.

Yet, when God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham gathers wood and marches off. Is it not strange that A. would interact with God over Sodom but mindlessly obey regarding the death of his own child?

The chasm of difference between Yahweh and the gods of Abrahams early Sumerian life had to do with relationship - the old gods never called his name. And perhaps, the tradition reasons, God (who wants Abraham in on all he does and wants to be his friend) is seeking to activate a new level of relationship in Abraham's heart, and, at the same time, putting his hand on something about Abraham that needs to men: his sometimes cavalier treatment of those closest to him.

If so, God would want Abram to be as your caretaker, saying, "No way, God - you are not a God who has fathers kill their children, like the olds gods did. This is not consistent with what I know about you. Tell me why you are saying this!"

For the point - and we in Bible-believing churches so often miss it - is that there is one thing that God wants more than obedience: relationship.
I used to wish God would give me a list of what to do in the situations I'd be facing. Now I think that would be contrary to his nature, even if all the decisions were the right ones, because what he wants more than right decisions is to use everything that happens to help me get to know him more intimately.

What I like about the caretaker is that his sense of what God was like was a more important indicator of God's will than the out-of-context application of an easily mis-applied rule.

Re: Gay Marriage - The Last Stand?

Monte_Asbury — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:50:26 -0000

Good one, thanks!
I have yet to sense the threat to marriage that homosexuals supposedly pose. Perhaps if each of us made at least one deeply-known friend who was gay before we began proposing legal prohibitions, we'd be more in the mold of Jesus.