jasonbwatson

February 21, 2012

It’s Not Okay

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Christian Education — jbwatson @ 6:51 pm
Tags: , , ,

Last time I ended with this statement: “The question is simply what kind of education to provide, where and how to provide it.”  The discussion of “unschooling” led me to point out that there really is not anyone–at least not anyone who is mentally competent, I guess–who really believes that a child should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants.  After all, this could easily lead to very dangerous behavior.  I may want to allow my child to learn about electricity when he decides he is interested, but I also, as his parent, have the responsibility to protect him from what he does not know.  I would not allow him to stick a fork into an electrical outlet in order to learn about electricity.  Instead, because I know something that he does not know, and the information that I possess and he does not could seriously affect his health, I will protect him from his ignorance and educate him about the dangers of inserting a fork into an outlet.  So, in this instance, the answer to the question would be to provide the education in a very direct, firm and proactive manner, probably at home, and probably as soon as my son is old enough and inquisitive enough to consider sticking a fork–or any other object–into an electrical outlet.

Most parents who are supportive of the idea of unschooling would, of course, agree with the points I made about not allowing children to literally do whatever they want.  I stretched the point to its logical conclusion in order to emphasize that words and ideas have consequences, and it is dangerous to use words like “whatever” casually.  At the same time, many of those parents likely do feel that their child(ren) should be able to explore academic subjects according to their own interest, at their own pace, and for the duration of their own choosing.

Even this, though, is contrary to biblical instruction, I believe.  Perhaps the most well-known instruction in Scripture for parents is Proverbs 22:6, which reads, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (ESV).  I have heard, as you probably have, several different interpretations of what this verse means.  Probably the most common is the suggestion that the instruction to “train up” means, in the original language, “to create a taste for.”  It is the idea of placing a small amount of something on the palate of a baby’s mouth to cause the child to want it.  By instilling the taste for what is right and true the parent will train up the child.  Dr. Bill Rice III has suggested that the verse refers to the same principle as aiming and shooting an arrow–parents have the responsibility to aim the arrow at the right target, to pull the bow string back with the appropriate amount of force, etc., in order to ensure that the arrow hits the target.  Either way, what these interpretations have in common is the conviction that there is, in fact, a difference between right and wrong, wholesome and unwholesome, righteous and worldly, and it is the God-given responsibility of the parent to set the child on the right path. 

Another oft-cited passage that directs parents in their responsibility to educate their children is found in Deuteronomy 6:6-7, which reads, “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (ESV).  This passage doesn’t leave room for varying interpretations; it is clearly God commanding parents to teach His statutes and laws to their children.  This passage also makes it abundantly clear that this is not a one-and-done kind of responsibility; parents cannot just teach these to their children once.  Neither can they just ensure that their children get to church every week and trust that this will meet the requirement.  No, God instructs parents to teach their children diligently (meaning with intent and persistence), and to do it all the time–at home and while out, while walking, while resting, and while working.

Neither the verse in Proverbs or the passage in Deuteronomy leave room for parents to let children do their own thing.  In fact, Scripture also makes it clear, in many passages, that each and every human being has a sin nature, and it is not mankind’s natural desire to love, please or honor God.  Accordingly, letting children do their own thing is a clear and less-offensive way of suggesting that it’s okay for parents to let their children explore their own sinful tendencies.

I have (I think) sufficiently explained why it is not okay for parents to abandon their children’s education to the wish and whim of the children.  But that still leaves plenty of room for discussion about exactly what kind of education children should receive.  Specifically, it raises the question of worldview.  And that will be addressed next time.

February 14, 2012

God’s Valentine

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Spiritual Growth — jbwatson @ 8:00 pm
Tags: , ,

Today is Valentine’s Day. Depending on your age and/or your relationship status Valentine’s Day may have more or less meaning for you. After all, I know some people who look forward to it like no other day of the year, and go all out celebrating. I know others who think it is a ridiculous holiday made up by florists, greeting card companies and candy makers. And then I have other acquaintances who prefer to call Valentine’s Day something like “Single’s Awareness Day” or even “Let’s Make it Painfully Obvious You are STILL Single Day.”

Regardless of how you feel about it or whether or not you celebrate it, though, Valentine’s Day is, traditionally, a time when cards and/or gifts are given to express affection and love. And the truth is, God sent the world a Valentine more than 2,000 years ago when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Remember the simple little Valentine cards you would get by the box to exchange with all of your friends in elementary school? When I was in school I think G.I. Joe and the Transformers were popular among the guys. Now my children get cards with Disney’s Cars or princesses. But those simple little cards–often no bigger than half of a 3×5 card, could be counted on to contain a brief message, and space to write in who the card was “to” and “from.”

John 3:16 is God’s Valentine to the world. The verse tells us who it is “to” when it says “the world,” and who it is from when it says “God so loved.” It also tells us how God demonstrated, or showed, the world His love–”He gave His only Son” (ESV). God is the Giver, the world is the recipient, and His Son, Jesus, is the Gift.

Of course, a Valentine with my name on it only becomes mine when I accept it. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that God desires that all should be saved, and His Son has paid the price of our salvation through His death on the cross…but only those who accept God’s Valentine will know salvation.

So, regardless of whether or not you have a significant other to celebrate Valentine’s Day with today, regardless of whether you wore every red article of clothing you own or you intentionally boycotted the color for today, remember the ultimate Valentine. Remember God’s gift, remember Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, and remember that it all happened because “God so loved the world.”

February 10, 2012

Making Church Uncomfortable

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 8:18 pm
Tags: , ,

I’ll just come right out and say it: I don’t think churches should be trying to make people comfortable.

It crossed my mind to end today’s entry right there, but I suppose I should explain. Attempts to make church more user-friendly or seeker-sensitive has been going on for quite a while, and has been getting considerable attention for more than a decade now. And despite the bestselling books and megachurches that would contradict me, I have long been of the conviction that if I can sit in church Sunday after Sunday and never feel uncomfortable then there is a serious problem. Specifically, either the church is not preaching the whole Word of God or I am not listening to what is being preached.

Why do I say that? Well, for one, the Bible makes it pretty clear that the cross and the message of the gospel are an offense to the world. Have you ever felt comfortable being offended? I didn’t think so. If the church is preaching the gospel message, sinners will be convicted, offended, and uncomfortable. Second, even believers continue to sin and to have areas of their lives where improvement and spiritual growth is needed, so even individuals who are no longer offended by the cross should feel conviction in church from time to time. Quite frankly, we shouldn’t be able to read the Bible without getting uncomfortable once in a while, so why should I expect to be able to sit in church and be comfy?

Now, there are arguments–many of them–in favor of reaching out to people. Jesus did not just sit in the temple and wait for people to come to Him; rather, He went out into the streets and villages and sought out those who needed to hear His message. We need to meet people where they are, right? Right. I agree. But that is an incomplete idea. Jesus did go find people where they were, but He showed them their need and He did not leave them there. There may well be times when churches as corporate bodies and believers as individuals need to go to the world, or design events to draw in the world, but those should be limited strategies designed to expose the unbelievers to the Truth. I simply cannot find evidence in Scripture for the notion that we should become more and more like the world in an effort to reach the world.

Yet, that is exactly what many churches are doing. There was an article on USATODAY.com yesterday called “Churches go less formal to make people comfortable.” Right off the bat the article quotes Ron Williams, pastor of Church at the GYM in Sanford, FL: he says the goal of their church is to “remove the ‘stained-glass barriers’ for people who might not be comfortable in traditional church settings. ‘I think all the trappings of traditional religion can make it difficult for people to start coming. You can invite someone, and they will say, “I don’t have any clothes to wear to church.”‘” There is some truth in that, and I firmly believe that no church should turn someone away or look down on someone for coming to church in attire that may not measure up to what others in the church usually wear. There is no room for that kind of judgmental attitude in the church. On the other hand, to intentionally dress in an overly casual manner just because (1) it makes you comfortable, or (2) you want to avoid making someone else feel uncomfortable is not appropriate. My personal conviction is that I go to the Lord’s house to worship Him, and He is worthy of my best, so I will dress accordingly. To me, to dress better for work or a family reunion that I will to go to church just doesn’t make sense. However, I have learned to respect others’ convictions on this, too, and since I cannot show you chapter and verse that “thou shalt wear thy Sunday best” every time you go to church I don’t make a big deal about it. But please keep in mind that while you might be uncomfortable coming to church in dress pants and a tie, I might be equally uncomfortable coming in jeans and a t-shirt!

The USA Today article goes on to discuss the number of churches popping up in “non-traditional spaces” around the U.S., such as “movie theaters, skating rinks, strip malls and old warehouses, among others.” I don’t have a big issue with where churches meet. I think what the church believes and preaches and does is far more important than where the church meets. So this is a non-issue to me.

But the article goes on to discuss a church called The Bridge in Flint, Michigan that is in a strip mall. The church’s latest example of “want[ing] to be relevant to people’s lives” was to open a tattoo parlor. It likely won’t surprise you to know that I think that goes too far. Regardless of whether or not you or I personally have tattoos and/or have strong opinions on the increasing popularity of them, there is no denying that tattoos have traditionally been associated predominantly with people and behaviors who are not consistent with a Christian message. Maybe the church’s tattoo parlor has a policy of only providing Christian or unoffensive tattoos, I don’t know, but I don’t think that’s the point. Why does the Church feel the need to take what the world has to offer and “Christianize it” in an effort to reach the world?

I think there is plenty of evidence to support my assertion that more often than not, when the world tries to get more of the world by becoming more like the world it is the world that gets more of the church. More often than not the message of the gospel is compromised and watered down so as not to be offensive. (We want people to be comfortable, remember?)

I believe that you will find the strongest believers and the most effective churches are ones that are easily and clearly differentiated from the world. (Of course, we will have to define what it means to be an effective church in order to have that discussion, but that will have to wait for another day). And I think you will find that, generally speaking, the world is looking for something that is genuine and real, not something that has to disguise itself or adopt worldly methods in order to attract people.

So, think what you want, but my original statement stands–I don’t think churches should be trying to make people comfortable.

February 9, 2012

More on Marriage

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 5:22 pm

I did not set out to spend a lot of time talking about marriage here, but it seems that everywhere I look lately there is something in the news that relates to this ongoing discussion of what marriage is, how it is defined, and how it might possibly be redefined. Unfortunately, most of that news is not good news. Yesterday’s posting about a young celebrity choosing to abandon a successful career as a lingerie model out of respect for her husband, her marriage and her faith is a rare gem in what is quickly becoming a garbage heap of stories about the efforts to destroy marriage as we have traditionally known it–and as God has designed it.

Another twist on the movement to make marriage more individually defined is the recent discussion on whether or not marriage vows should be binding when one member of the couple experiences severe illness–physical or mental. Traditional marriage vows, of course, have long included the statement that the marriage commitment was “in sickness and in health” and that the commitment would last “until death do us part.” Apparently, though, there are some who feel that perhaps that should not always be the case.

This issue first came to my attention last summer. Pat Robertson, former presidential candidate, founder and chancellor of Regent University, and well known religious broadcaster, said on his flagship show The 700 Club that Alzheimer’s disease is a form of death, and therefore is grounds for ending a marriage. His comments came in response to a caller. When asked what advice a man should give a friend who started seeing another woman after his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, Robertson said, “I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.” He went on to say that marriage vows are “until death do us part” and Alzheimer’s is a “kind of death.” (Robertson later said he was misunderstood, but it sounds pretty clear to me).

Last month The Washington Post Magazine ran a story about a woman whose husband had a heart attack and then suffered a serious brain injury. She eventually decided to divorce him, but she still takes care of him with her second husband.

There is a new movie being released tomorrow, called The Vow. The premise of the movie is a young couple getting in a car accident, and the wife suffering such serious injuries that she not only does not recognize her husband but does not believe she is married. Apparently the movie is based on a true story.

Darlene Fozard Weaver, an ethicist at Villanova University, suggests this when asked about marriage vows: “There’s always an obligation, I think, to keep faith with your spouse but the shape that that can take, morally speaking, can vary.” That, if you ask me, is code for “whatever works for you.” Again, relativism rules the day. After all, the woman in the story referenced above who divorced her husband, said this: “In the context of my faith, I am standing by him and with him. I am fortunate to have found someone who will share this with me.” So, in her mind, she is keeping faith with her spouse.

I haven’t seen The Vow, obviously, but my understanding of the story on which it is based is that the husband continued to love his wife, to care for her, and to help her through the challenges that resulted from the accident–and eventually he was again accepted by her as her husband. That, in my opinion, is as it should be. That is what love is. That is honoring a vow and a commitment.

I have never been in a position of having my spouse suffer an injury or a mental illness, and I pray I never will be, so I cannot relate to what it would be like to have a spouse who no longer knew me. I have no doubt that it is incredibly hard, frustrating and painful. What I do know, though, is that this entire discussion is simply further evidence of how we are slipping down that proverbial slope. When we start trying to find ways of redefining death in order to justify our wish to abandon one partner so we can have another–one who is more ideal, more able to meet our needs and doesn’t simply require us to care for him or her while receiving nothing in return–we are heading in a dangerous direction. It sounds very much like the idea of negotiating a personally-beneficial marriage contract, as some of the “experts” suggested in the discussion on open marriage. I can think of no support in the Scripture for the notion that once a marriage relationship is no longer what we hoped it would be due to a terrible tragedy that has robbed a spouse from the ability to know or respond to his/her mate that it would be fine to end that marriage.

The good news is that according to recent studies, the vast majority of married brain-injured patients remain wed even after the injury, according to a report in USA Today. My hope and prayer is that that will continue to be the case.

February 7, 2012

We’re Slipping

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 9:43 pm
Tags: , ,

A few weeks ago I posted an entry called “A Very Slippery Slope” about the dangers of expanding the definition of marriage to mean more than a relationship between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, the intervening few weeks have provided additional evidence that we are already slipping.

Newt Gingrich is running for president. Not surprisingly, that means that all of his dirty laundry is being aired publicly…which includes an examination of his past marital infidelity. According to the second Mrs. Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House asked her to go along with the idea of an open marriage so that Mr. and Mrs. Gingrich could remain married and Newt could continue his affair with his staffer. When the second Mrs. Gingrich said no, she says, a divorce resulted, and that staffer is now the third Mrs. Gingrich.

In and of itself this would likely have been an unfortunate and, depending on your point of view, disqualifying part of the GOP presidential race. However, the New York Times decided to make it more than that, and it is the Times that we must thank for revealing just how far we are already slipping.

The Times has an opinion section (as most newspapers do) and in the opinion section there is a recurring feature called Room for Debate. On January 20 the powers that be at the paper decided to devote this space to exploring the topic of open marriage. Referencing Marianne Gingrich’s assertion that Newt wanted an open marriage, the paper asked this question: “…[I]f her account is true, was he onto something? If more people considered such openness an option, would marriage become a stronger institution — less susceptible to cheating and divorce, and more attractive than unmarried cohabitation?”

I will set aside (for the moment) what seems to me the incredible idiocy of the very phrasing and background of this question–the presumption that marriages would be stronger if they were open–and look first at the responses the paper provided.

Dan Savage, editor of a Seattle newsweekly and author of a book on marriage, ended his thoughts on the topic by saying that an open marriage is “a better solution for those who are incapable of monogamous behavior, and a less socially harmful one, than an endless cycle of marriage, betrayal, divorce and remarriage.” Please note what Savage is saying: that there are people who are incapable of monogamy. Sound familiar? As I mentioned in the earlier post, if we start buying into the idea that people are not able to control themselves and therefore must engage in certain behavior, where do we draw the line? in fact, how do we draw a line? Who would get to be the arbiter of what behaviors can and cannot be controlled?

Okay, moving on… Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers are visiting professors of economics at Princeton University. They suggest that marriage vows should be negotiated and tailored like an employment contract. “This individual contracting lets you define the relationship that works best for both you and your boss. We should take the same approach to our romantic relationships.” And, they go on, this does not have to apply only to sexual fidelity; why not negotiate housework, location of residence, number of children, retirement age, etc.? “Marriage can be strengthened by shifting to individualized marital contracts that emphasize those things essential to making each relationship work.” This is, of course, exactly what those who want to redefine marriage are already arguing. Make marriage unique and specific to the individuals involved. If it works for you for it to be between one man and one woman then fine, but let someone else define it as between two men or two women if they so please. But again, how can we stop there? If it’s all about what works for me, how can you ever say no?

Ralph Richard Banks, a law professor at Stanford and author of a book on African-American marriages correctly points out that most individuals who claim to want the freedom that an open marriage allows are not nearly as excited about allowing their spouse the same freedom. But he ends his response with this: “The paradox of marital satisfaction is that people would almost certainly be happier if they expected less. The surest road to discord, sexual and otherwise, is to expect your partner to complete you, to make you whole. If couples relaxed or relinquished some of their emotional expectations, marriages could better accommodate extramarital dalliances. But then, there would also be less need for them.” On the contrary, isn’t the need for completion the exact reason why God created Eve in the first place? But, Banks seems to say, if we didn’t expect our spouse to complete us we probably wouldn’t get so worked up when he or she did step out on us. All I can think to say to this line of reasoning is…”Whatever.”

W. Bradford Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project, could certainly be expected to defend marriage, though, right? Well, just barely. Wilcox asserts that open marriages do a disservice to women and are particularly dangerous for the well-being of children. He expounds on this by saying that more men than women engage in infidelity, so women are the ones most often hurt, and then cites a survey showing that children who live with “one parent and an unrelated romantic partner” are ten times more likely to be “sexually, physically or emotionally abused.” While no doubt true, I think Wilcox missed the point, because I am not sure anyone would advocate open marriages that include children being rotated among caregivers. (I probably should not go that far; let me clarify and say that no one I have come across is advocating such an arrangement).

Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins says that open marriages are not a trend we should move toward because of the danger of jealousy. However, it is perfectly fine, he suggests, to have any number of sexual relationships, so long as each one is monogamous for its duration. He calls this “serial monogamy.”

Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy, not surprisingly, support the idea of an open marriage. And I say not surprisingly because they are the authors of a “practical guide to polyamory.” They suggest that successful open marriages are all about effective communication: “People who are generally open-minded about sex and who are aware of polyamory as an option will have an easier time than those who believe that the desire for an open relationship must mean that their spouse no longer loves them.”

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, authors of a book on sexual history, are perhaps the most blatantly in support of open marriage. Their response includes these statements:
“…[T]he configuration of the relationship (same-sex, open, swinging, poly, asexual, etc.) shouldn’t concern us, on personal or policy grounds. Conventional relationships are no happier or more durable than the alternatives. … For all the oft-repeated claims to the contrary, civilization doesn’t depend upon the sanctity of any particular form of marriage, but upon honoring the dignity intrinsic to any mutually respectful, mutually beneficial relationship.” Again, the basic idea is, whatever works for the individuals involved should be fine.

Bottom line…we’re already slipping.

February 3, 2012

Why Do I Care?

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Spiritual Growth — jbwatson @ 8:38 pm

A few days ago I had a young lady–a student at the school where I serve–ask me a question that was, I suspect, far more insightful than she realized, or even intended it to be. She had been in my office several different times over a two day period because of a discipline issue that needed to be dealt with, and her question came toward the end of the last of those visits. She looked at me and asked, “Why do you care so much?”

I confess, I was temporarily speechless. I recognized immediately that it was a powerful question, and I was able to stammer out, “That’s an excellent question.”

My mind began to wrap around the question fairly quickly, and it took me very little time to come to–and express–my next realization. “There is no way I can answer that question without including the Lord in the explanation,” I told her. I did not intend to come across with a holier-than-thou attitude or sound as if I am somehow more receptive to the Lord’s influence in my life than anyone else, but I quickly realized there is no other explanation for why I care about that young lady, or anyone else for that matter.

After all, if it were not for the Lord, my relationship with Him and my desire to serve Him, why would I care? What anyone else does with their life would matter to me not at all so long as it did not interfere with what I wanted to do with my life. If a young person wanted to skip school every day, get high on drugs, get pregnant or father a child out of wedlock, or ______________ (just fill in the blank with whatever), I would not care.

As I think about it further, this is the exact mindset that the world has. The “I’m okay, you’re okay” approach and the entire idea of relativism is premised on the notion of you do your thing, I’ll do mine, and as long as they don’t conflict, who cares? Taken to an extreme, of course, even in the opinion of unbelievers, this is considered a disorder. A person who cannot form a healthy relationship with someone else is likely to be diagnosed with an attachment disorder. In fact, I had a mental health professional tell me once, in her attempt to put the severity of the disorder in a particular young man into layman’s language, “If the two of you were walking down the street and you got flattened by a tractor trailer, his reaction would simply be, ‘At least it wasn’t me.’”

Jesus was different. He came to the world and set an example that was completely different from the one set by anyone else ever before. He did care about those who were different than Him, who were rejected by society, who were considered unworthy of the time and attention of anyone else. In other words, lots of people in Jesus’ time did not care about anyone else.

So, why do I care? Well, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15, ESV). And what are His commandments? He answered that question, too:

“But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets’” (Matthew 22:34-40, ESV).

So that’s it–I care because I love Jesus, and He has commanded me to care. Fortunately, He has also, through His Spirit, given me a heart that really does care. But without Him, and without His influence, as much as I hate to admit, I would probably have had to answer that young lady by saying, “I don’t care. In fact, I couldn’t care less.”

February 2, 2012

The Chopping Block

Filed under: Biblical Worldview — jbwatson @ 9:34 pm

My wife and I enjoy watching the Food Network show “Chopped.” If you haven’t seen it, I will give you a quick synopsis: four competitors start the show–with most of the competitors being employed in food service as executive chefs, sous chefs, caterers and/or cookbook authors–and have to prepare an appetizer using the ingredients in a “mystery basket” (as well as anything from the show’s pantry and refrigerator) within the allotted amount of time. When time is up, the competitors present their dish to a three-judge panel. These judges are big names in the restaurant world, as restaurant owners, executive chefs and/or cookbook authors. After tasting and critiquing each dish, the judges deliberate and one contestant is “chopped,” or sent home. The remaining three then compete in an entree round with a new basket of ingredients, after which another competitor is chopped, then the final two compete in a dessert round. The chef left standing after the final visit to the chopping block is declared Chopped Champion. And to make it all even more interesting, the ingredients in the mystery basket are generally unusual ingredients, or very pedestrian items a fine chef would not ordinarily use (like ramen noodles, licorice candies, or cheese in a can).

Anyway, the show is fun. It is interesting to see what the chefs can come up with in such a short period of time with such wacky ingredients. And of course, as in any competition, there can only be one winner. That’s why I’m so glad that life–and particularly life after death–is not a competition.

Can you imagine being summoned before the ultimate chopping block–the throne of God? Regardless of how many wonderful things I may do, how much money I may give or what a great guy I might be, there is certainly going to be someone who does more, gives more, and is even greater than me. So if entry in heaven was like an episode of Chopped, I would certainly be sent home in the first round. Maybe you are the most wonderful, most generous and greatest human being, though. So I guess you’d end up okay, huh? Nope. ‘Fraid not. Because even the best human being isn’t “good enough.” Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In other words, if standing before God was like standing before the chopping block, we’d all be chopped. No one would win.

The good news, though, is that while every human being who has ever lived will someday stand before the throne of God–the chopping block, so to speak–there is no numerical limit to how many people can move on into heaven. Everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, was raised from the dead, and can forgive sins will be saved (Romans 10:9-10). But that is the only way to get forgiveness. It doesn’t matter what I put on my plate to present to God, because it won’t be enough. But when I stand before His throne and say that I have accepted His Son’s death, burial and resurrection and asked forgiveness for my sins, He will let me into heaven. He has promised He will. And I, for one, am thankful!

February 1, 2012

The Law of the Harvest

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Spiritual Growth — jbwatson @ 5:36 pm

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.” Galatians 6:7-9 (ESV)

When I started working at the children’s home there was a man named Jerry Tucker on staff. By that time Jerry was working full time in the kitchen, but he had been a pastor before coming to the children’s home and had been a houseparent before moving into the kitchen. He had a great relationship with the kids, and I think one of the things he enjoyed most about working in the kitchen was that he had the opportunity to interact with all of the kids. Jerry used to talk to the kids all the time about the Law of the Harvest. When one of them would be in trouble for something or have an unpleasant consequence occur because of something that they had done he would simply say, “Law of the Harvest!” It did not take the new kids long to know that while Jerry might empathize with them, he wasn’t going to excuse their choices or let them try to get off the hook, either. He wanted them to learn as quickly as possible that there was rarely anyone else to blame but themselves for the results of their choices.

The Law of the Harvest comes from Paul’s letter to the church in Galatia, specifically in the verses quoted above. It is a lesson that is important for young and old alike, and it is applicable at every age and stage of life. Every action or choice has a consequence. We tend to think of “consequences” as negative, but a consequence is basically a synonym for result, and if there were no result to a choice there would be no point in making the choice. One could even argue that if there is not a difference of consequences pending then there is in reality no choice to be made. So the two go together. From an early age parents teach children about the Law of the Harvest, though rarely in those words, of course. As soon as they are mobile children are taught where they can and cannot go, what they can and cannot touch, and so forth, and typically they are told and/or shown what the consequences of their choices will be. Sometimes, of course, parents make every effort to make a choice for their children, realizing it is much better in the long run to eliminate a choice than to allow the child to reap the harvest of sticking a fork into an electrical outlet.

As we grow up, the number of choices we have to make the weight of the consequences for those decisions only grows. Sure, there are relatively insignificant choices to make each day like whether to have toast or cereal for breakfast, whether to wear khakis or corduroys, whether to have the mashed potatoes or the macaroni and cheese. But there are choices with far more serious consequences, too. The hope of every parent is that their children have been trained and equipped to make those decisions carefully and wisely, and that they will seek help and advice from intelligent and mature individuals, not just whoever is around or whatever seems popular.

Young people don’t always make good decisions. Let’s face it, not-so-young people don’t always make good decisions, either. Whatever our age, though, we must not be surprised when our not-so-good choices yield not-so-pleasant results. Paul says God is not mocked; in other words, God will not allow us to make stupid decisions and not experience the results of those decisions. Sure, sometimes we don’t get caught the first time or even the one hundred and first time, and sometimes we feel like there have been no negative results to our choices. That’s not because God doesn’t see or care or know, it is simply that, like a harvest, some seeds take longer to produce their harvest than others. Paul says that whatever we sow, we will reap.

Thankfully, we serve a God Who is able to transform our harvest from something worthless to something good. He is able to equip us to plant new seeds that produce new crops than the ones that come from sowing in the flesh. But He will not forcibly replant our crops for us; we have to yield to Him, to want to do things His way. Unless and until we do, we need to remember the Law of the Harvest…what we sow, we will reap.

January 24, 2012

A Daily Wrestling Match

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Spiritual Growth — jbwatson @ 2:49 pm
Tags: , ,

I can say with certainty that I have watched more wrestling in the past two months than I had in my entire life. Neither of the schools I have served in before coming to SBA had wrestling programs, and the only time I had ever been to a wrestling match was when I was in high school and the pep band was playing (I was in the pep band). I can say with confidence, though, that I spent more time talking to my friends while we were not playing than I did watching the wrestling. I have nothing against wrestling–it’s just not my thing.

However, as I have watched wrestling in recent weeks I cannot help but think of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians when he discusses the spiritual wrestling match that believers are engaged in every day:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12, ESV).

I have learned a few things about human vs human wrestling: there are definite rules about what the wrestlers can and cannot do, and the wrestlers are usually completely exhausted by the time their match is over, regardless of whether they won or lost. The wrestlers are also required to be properly attired, including their headgear.

Spiritual wrestling isn’t quite like that. Satan doesn’t have many rules he has to follow. In fact, short of any limits God may place on what he can do–such as when He told Satan not to touch Job but to do whatever else he pleased, and then told him he could do whatever so long as Job was not killed–Satan pretty much has free reign. He doesn’t have a mat he has to stay on, he doesn’t have guidelines about the kind of holds that he can use, the methods or approaches of attack, and the only clock he has to concern himself with is the one that expires when our lives are over. Until then, he can keep coming at us as often, as long and as hard as he wants.

Another clear difference between human and spiritual wrestling: we cannot see our opponent in spiritual wrestling! The wrestlers I have watched keep their eyes fixed on their opponent as long as they are both on their feet, watching for when the opponent may make a move. While I suppose there could be one, I have never seen a blind wrestler, and I cannot imagine trying to wrestle an opponent I could not see. And yet Paul makes it clear that that is exactly what we must do, because we cannot see Satan. We cannot see the rulers, authorities and cosmic powers; we cannot see the spiritual forces of evil. We can see their influence around us, and we can feel it when we get taken down, though.

Thankfully, we do not wrestle alone! Immediately before and immediately after verse 12 Paul reminds the church at Ephesus–and believers today–that we must “put on the whole armor of God” in order to be able to “stand against the schemes of the devil” (v 11) and “to stand firm” (v 13). When I was in the classroom regularly I would tell my students early in each school year, “If I repeat something, that is a pretty good indication that it is something you need to know!” The same is true for Paul; that he repeated the instruction to clothe ourselves in the “whole armor of God” in order that we may not be taken down in the spiritual wrestling match is an excellent indicator of the importance of what he is saying!

Just like the wrestling matches I have watched on the mat, spiritual wrestling can be exhausting–especially if we are not adequately prepared, attired and focused on the issue at hand. I must be prepared for the daily wrestling match by equipping myself through prayer and Bible reading. I must dress myself in the armor of God, every day. The wrestlers at SBA don’t put on their wrestling suits once; they put them on every time they are going to step onto the mat. We must do the same thing spiritually. Satan doesn’t care if I am properly attired or not; he will come after me regardless.

I must also focus–I must be on the lookout for the attacks of Satan. Even when I do all of this, though, I may get exhausted by the fight. Thankfully, the same God who provides us with our armor for battle also provides us with nourishment and refreshment and strength when we need it–and ask Him for it.

Tomorrow when I wake up I’m going to think about the alarm clock not as just a buzzer to wake me up; rather, it is the whistle indicating the start of another wrestling match. And as soon as my feet hit the floor, I’m on the mat.

January 20, 2012

Developing a Mindset

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Spiritual Growth — jbwatson @ 8:48 pm
Tags:

Since I started blogging regularly a few months ago I have noticed that I often find myself “seeing” lessons in the every day activities of life. Knowing that if I want to blog regularly I will need to continue to need new things to blog about has caused me to approach life with a different perspective. Not that I never saw lessons in life before, or never saw how God was at work around me, but the act of blogging has caused me to develop a mindset whereby I am on the lookout for them. I have never had any lasting success when I have tried journaling, so I cannot say if it is the same thing or not, but I suspect it is similar.

In fact, I have found that blogging has had an impact on me similar to what Ann Voskamp describes in her book One Thousand Gifts. The book grows out of a list that resulted from an e-mail Voskamp received from a friend asking her if she could name one thousand things for which she was grateful. So Voskamp started keeping a list, and as she did so she found that her outlook changed. She began to recognize and appreciate things that she perhaps had not before, to realize how many things for which she was grateful she had previously taken for granted, and to realize how the attitude of thankfulness could completely transform her life. Voskamp’s list was wide ranging; for some of the items it seems one would certainly express gratitude, others it is easy to see how they might be unrecognized when the heart and mind are not tuned to seek out reasons to be thankful. “Morning shadows across the old floors” are pretty neat, if you think about it, but how many of us do–stop to think about it, I mean? Number 22 on her list is “Mail in the mailbox.” I can remember in college how important it was to me to get mail, and how thankful I was when I did receive a letter from a family member or friend, but I can’t really remember the last time I expressed thankfulness for mail. How many of us would think to record our thankfulness for “new toothbrushes” (number 526 on Voskamp’s list)? In the grand scheme of things I am sure we are much more likely to give thanks for the “forgiveness of a sister” than for “nylons without runs” (Voskamp’s 783 and 664 respectively). And one may indeed be more important than the other–but should we only be thankful for the important things?

In the same way, I am not certain that I would have recognized the lessons I found in gleaning corn or being awakened in the middle of the night by a cat stuck in the bathroom were my mind not already being transformed and refocused by the act of regularly taking time to express thoughts and life lessons through this blog.

Romans 12:2 tells us, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind….” I have known this verse for years. I have, I trust, a mind that is more transformed than conformed, and yet recent months have revealed to me just how far I still have to go. The dust jacket of Voskamp’s book includes the statement that, “[I]n giving thanks for the life she already had, she found the life she’s always wanted.” In developing the mindset of looking for lessons and biblical truths in the everyday experiences of life I have found just how many of them there really are. I have not done anything out of the ordinary or changed my habits any since I started blogging, yet the impact of the events of my life is now far greater. My life didn’t change…my mindset did.

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.