jasonbwatson

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 8, 2012

And now for some good news…

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 10:01 pm
Tags: ,

In light of my recent posts about the dangers of the push to redefine marriage, I thought it would be nice to share some good news, too. Model Kylie Bisutti, who in 2009 won out over 10,000 other contenders in a Victoria’s Secret Model Search, has announced that she will no longer model lingerie, because doing so is inconsistent with her beliefs as a Christian.

Bisutti told FOX411′s Pop Tarts column, “My body should only be for my husband and it’s just a sacred thing. I didn’t really want to be that kind of role model for younger girls because I had a lot of younger Christian girls that were looking up to me and then thinking that it was okay for them to walk around and show their bodies in lingerie to guys.”

Bisutti explained that modeling for Victoria’s Secret was her biggest goal in life, the pinnacle of success for her modeling career. However, she said, “[T]he more I was modeling lingerie – and lingerie isn’t clothing – I just started becoming more uncomfortable with it because of my faith. I’m Christian, and reading the Bible more, I was becoming more convicted about it.”

Bisutti did not appear in the December 1 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, and after it aired, she posted this explanation on her Twitter page: “For all of you that were looking for me in the Victoria’s Secret runway show this year, I wasn’t in it. I have decided not to model lingerie because I personally feel that I am not honoring God or my husband by doing it. My marriage is very important and with divorce rates rising I want to do everything I can to protect my marriage and be respectful to my husband. God graciously gave me this marriage and this life and my desire is to live a Godly faithful life, I don’t however judge others for what they do. Everyone is convicted on different levels.”

Bisutti has not given up modeling altogether, but she has chosen to work only with companies that allow her to remain clothed during photo shoots. “My goal is just to be a better role model for the youth. I just want them to see me as somebody that they can look up to and somebody that’s going to be dressing appropriately and I’m not going to get into things that I wouldn’t want them to be getting into,” she said.

So, even though there are plenty of folks out there who want to have marriage redefined in any number of ways, and even those who seem to think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with open marriages, it is encouraging to know that someone who has what, in the eyes of the world, is the very definition of success–money, celebrity, sex appeal, etc.–is willing to give that up because of her convictions. For a young celebrity to speak out about the sanctity of marriage and honoring her husband is really good news. I think we could use a few more role models like that.

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.

January 31, 2012

Most Admired

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 5:31 pm

I suppose the results are a month old now, but I just came across USA Today’s 2011 Most-Admired People list. USA Today and Gallop Poll has been around quite a while–according to the article in USA Today Gallup first asked the question in 1946.

Before I make any comment on the lists, I suppose I should share the results…

Most-Admired Men
1. Barack Obama
2. George W. Bush
3. Bill Clinton
4. Billy Graham
5. Warren Buffett
6. (tie) Newt Gingrich
6. (tie) Donald Trump
8. Pope Benedict XVI
9. Bill Gates
10. Thomas Monson

Most-Admired Women
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Oprah Winfrey
3. Michelle Obama
4. Sarah Palin
5. Condoleezza Rice
6. Laura Bush
7. (tie) Margaret Thatcher
7. (tie) Ellen DeGeneres
9. (tie) Queen Elizabeth
9. (tie) Michele Bachmann

Several things come to my mind immediately when I look at these lists. First, the majority of the individuals on the combined lists are politicians (or wives of politicians), but there are more on the list of most-admired women (8) than most-admired men (4; 5 if you count Donald Trump as a politician, but I don’t). Second, the other most-admired individuals are all wealthy and successful in business or are religious leaders in the case of the men, or are successful in the field of entertainment, for the women. One might convincingly argue that Oprah is successful in business and entertainment, of course. Three, two of America’s ten most-admired women are not American, but British.

I suppose it stands to reason that politicians would be among the most admired individuals, because they are in positions of authority and leadership and they are often in the news, so they have substantial name recognition. I don’t have the numbers to support this assertion, but I would venture a guess that the sitting president makes the list most every year, and the same probably goes for the first lady. In fact, the USA Today article reports that Hillary Clinton has topped the list 16 times, more than any other woman, while Eleanor Roosevelt led it 13 times. Former first lady Barbara Bush has made the list 18 times. Adlai Stevenson, Jesse Jackson, George W. Bush and Hubert Humphrey have each made the list 7 times.

That there are three religious leaders on the list is not surprising to me, either. Billy Graham has made the list every year the poll has been taken, and has made the top ten on the list 55 times. The Pope is also a well-known and widely respected and admired individual. I did find it surprising, in all honesty, that Thomas Monson made the top ten because, quite frankly, I did not recognize his name. He is a Prophet in the Mormon church. Given that Mormonism has received considerably more attention of late, due in no small part to the fact that two of the GOP presidential candidates are Mormon, this is somewhat more understandable,but I find it interesting that Monson is the one making the list and not Mitt Romney. I looked at results going back to 2008 and Monson did not make any of those lists, though the Dalai Lama did appear several times in the past. For Monson to make the list indicates either than more people are looking into Mormonism and thereby know who he is, or that a disproportionate number of the survey participants are Mormon.

I think it is interesting that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates made the list, and that Steve Jobs didn’t. But Gates has made the list in every year that I checked (2008-2011) and Jobs never did. 2011 was the first appearance for Buffett, too. I also find it interesting that no athletes made the list in 2011. Michael Jordan has made the list seven times, but in 2011 no athletes made the cut. Apparently Tim Tebow finished just out of the Top 10, but he did finish ahead of the Dalai Lama. Actually no athlete has made the list from 2008-2011.

What does all this really mean, though? Well it does not mean much, of course, but there are probably some things that can be deduced from the lists. But lets ask first, what does it mean to admire someone? Dictionary.com defines “admire” as “to regard with wonder, pleasure, or approval.” Looking up “admiration” does not add anything new to the definition, but it does provide these synonyms: “approval; esteem, regard; affection.” I guess esteem and regard are the two that come closest to what I imagine most people are thinking of as they answer the questions. After all, I cannot imagine anyone looks at any of the twenty individuals with wonder. I think the individuals are respected and appreciated for what they have done and what they stand for. Even when entertainers make the list I don’t think it is for their entertainment value. After all, Oprah is extremely influential and she is respected for her shows and media empire, not really because she entertains people. Ellen DeGeneres is entertaining, I suppose, but I cannot imagine that is why she made this list. More likely than not she is admired for her stand on homosexual issues. If she made the list purely for being funny or for hosting a talk show, she would have a lot of company on the list that she doesn’t have. Angelina Jolie has made the list a few times in recent years, too, but probably more for her humanitarian work and involvement in global issues that for her acting skills.

Ultimately what all of the individuals have in common, I think, is that they are willing to take a stand and be a voice for what they believe. Some of them do it more politely than others, some are probably taken more seriously than others, and some are more enduring than others, but all of the individuals on the list of most admired individuals are well known for what they believe and/or represent. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are likely on the list more for their philanthropic efforts than for just having a lot of money.

If I were asked to name the people I admire most, I am not sure who I would name–especially if the list is supposed to include recognizable names. I suspect some of the individuals already on the list might make it. Some wouldn’t. But it is a question worth asking, both because it challenges me to think about, and the answer I would give will likely reflect more about me than about the people I choose to name. And what it reflects about me will likely indicate what kind of example I am to those around me–my wife, my children, my relatives, my colleagues, the students I work with…. The people I admire, the hobbies I have, the ways in which I choose to spend my time–they tell me, and others, who I am, and they do so much more meaningfully than anything I might say in response to being asked who I am.

January 26, 2012

Protecting the Minds of Impressionable Youth

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 9:48 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

In recent weeks there has been a flurry of activity in New York City over the efforts on the part of the Board of Education to no longer allow churches or other religious organizations to meet in school facilities when school is not in session. Originally the Board of Education and the New York Housing Authorities announced that they would no longer allow churches to meet in schools or community centers. After protests, the Housing Authorities announced on January 6 that it would reverse its position, but the Board of Education has not changed its mind and, unless something changes, as of February 12 the ban will take effect. According to a report in WORLD, “If the ban prevails, more than 150 congregations will have to move to other meeting space starting next month–and that’s hard to find in New York City.”

So what exactly is the problem? After all, churches without their own meeting space have met in schools and other community buildings for decades. I can remember being part of a church start up as a child, and we met in a bank and then in a public school auditorium until the church was able to purchase land and put up its own building. Not only is the school space typically sitting vacant when many churches meet (Sundays), the churches rent the space, providing income for the school system, the city or the county. The problem, apparently, is the damage that allowing churches to meet in school facilities may do to the minds of young people. Tiffany Owens’ article in WORLD cites the Board of Education as saying that the ban will “protect the minds of ‘impressionable youth.’”

The Bronx Household of Faith took the New York Board of Education to court over the ban. I would have expected the courts to rule in favor of the churches. After all, it is established precedent that if a public facility it going to allow outside groups to rent its space (or use it for free, whatever its guidelines may be) it cannot discriminate as to what kinds of groups may use the space. Much to my surprise, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a church has no right to use a school for its place of worship. Then last December the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, thereby upholding the lower court’s ruling.

Let’s dig into this matter a bit more, shall we? Marci Hamilton is an attorney and a columnist for Justia.com. According to her bio on the site she is “one of the leading church/state scholars in the United States and the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.” In her article for the site today she analyzes the issue in order to support her position that the courts got it right. As she states them, the facts of the case include a New Your City Department of Education rule barring the use of school facilities for religious worship services, but allowing “religious clubs and groups to use public schools, just as the Boy Scouts and other extracurricular clubs did, as long as the clubs’ and groups’ activities were open to the general public.” The Bronx Household of Faith uses a middle school for its weekly worship service and a fellowship meal that follows the service. Hamilton says the church was not charged rent (though other sources, including FOX News, have reported that the church did pay rent), and commented that the church “dominates the building with its religious use of the premises on Sundays.” Here is the apparent rub, though: the church “excludes from its services and post-service meals anyone who is not baptized, is excommunicated, and/or advocates the Islamic religion,” according to Hamilton. According to Judge Pierre Leval of the 2nd Circuit, however, the church excludes such individuals from “full participation” in its services.

Now I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t bother me one bit. In fact I would expect that. Almost ANY group has requirements for full participation or membership. Even, by the way, public schools! A public school will not allow a student who has only taken 5th grade math to enroll for a Trigonometry class, for example. And, believe it or not, a public school will not allow a student to participate in graduation exercises or receive a diploma until he or she has met all of the requirements/standards for graduation. Kinda sounds like requiring baptism for full participation, doesn’t it? And a public school will not allow a student who has been suspended or expelled from school to be on school property, let alone participate in school activities. Sound anything like excluding individuals who have been excommunicated from the church? And a public school will also exclude students who advocate dangerous or threatening activities. A church should have a right to consider Islam dangerous or threatening if it so desires.

Hamilton goes on to note that, “the intensity of the religious worship use undoubtedly leads students to believe that the church and its views are being endorsed by the school, and thus leads to likely confusion regarding the connection between the religious group and the public school.” Hogwash, I say. By the time they are in middle school most students are plenty smart enough to understand that a group using the school outside of school hours is not necessarily connected with or endorsed by the school at all. Hamilton claims that the issue is akin to that in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez in which it was ruled that Hastings Law School could exclude the Christian Legal Society from receiving school funds–even though other student groups receive such funds–because the group had a policy that violated the school’s “all-comers policy” by refusing to allow homosexuals in the group.

Hamilton’s position is that allowing churches to have services in schools will “open the door for white supremacist, misogynist, and anti-homosexual religious organizations to take up weekly residence in the public schools.” Her language is extreme, and intentionally so I am sure, but again I say, “So what?” If other community groups have positions that I disagree with I do not automatically assume that those positions are held or endorsed by the person, organization or entity who owns the space in which the group is meeting. According to Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, “of the top 50 school districts in the nation, New York City is the only school district that has a policy banning worship services.” In other words, this statement by Leval is ridiculous: “In the end, we think the board could have reasonably concluded that what the public would see, were the Board not to exclude religious worship services, is public schools, which serve on Sundays as state-sponsored Christian churches.” Do we have a nation full of state-sponsored churches? Nope. And I don’t know one single person who thinks we do, either.

So here’s what I think: if we really want to protect the minds of impressionable youth, lets not worry about letting churches meet in school facilities on Sundays. Lets worry about the filth “we the people” are paying teachers to pour into the minds of our public school students every day.

January 25, 2012

The Most Important Quality

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 10:15 pm

Last time there was a presidential election I was asked to answer this question: “What is the most important quality for a president?” Since we are in the midst of presidential election season again I have been thinking about my answer. Turns out, I still think the answer is “candor.”

I believe that there are so many qualities that are important for someone to be a good president that it is difficult to choose just one as the most important. But, if forced to choose, I would say that the most important quality for a president is candor. Candor has three possible definitions, according to Webster. All three of them are applicable to the qualities necessary to be a good president. The first definition is “brilliance,” and is often used in reference to a candle. Just as the United States should be an example to the rest of the world just like a shining city upon a hill, the president should be an example to the people of the United States. His light should shine brightly for all of the people to see. That does not mean that everyone will necessarily agree with him or even like him, but it does mean that he should lead in such a way that he is a shining example to the people of someone who has accepted the responsibility with which he has been entrusted and is doing his best to carry out those responsibilities to the best of his ability.

The second definition of candor is “freedom from prejudice or malice.” The president certainly should satisfy this definition as he must completely put aside any prejudice or malice he may have and seek to make every decision by reviewing the facts, the information that is available, and the input of his advisers and then acting in the best interest of the country and in accordance with its laws. By no means does this mean that the president cannot disagree with a law, if he feels that the law is not in the best interest of the people, and it does not prohibit him from working to change such laws. But unless and until such laws have been changed the presidents must act in accordance with the law without prejudice or malice.

Thirdly, candor means “unreserved or honest.” The president should always be honest and forthright in word and in deed. The president should make his positions known and he should stand by them; they should not change with the polls or with the audience. A president who has candor respects the citizens, speaks to them honestly and stands by his convictions. He is open, honest and real.

If I could choose only one quality for the president, it would have to be candor. What do you think…what’s the most important quality in a president (or someone who would like to be president)?

January 18, 2012

A Very Slippery Slope

Filed under: Biblical Worldview,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 11:00 pm
Tags:

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS REFERENCES TO BEHAVIORS THAT READERS MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE AND OFFENSIVE. DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has received considerable grief and accusations of bigotry for asserting–and standing by his assertion–that expanding the definition of marriage could serve as the beginning of a pathway that could lead to further expansions of marriage to include any number of possible combinations. If marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is okay, why not between one man and two women? Or one woman and three men? Why not between a human and an animal? Or between an adult and a child? Many who support homosexual marriage have blasted Senator Santorum for his position, and have also accused him of both using such statements in an attempt to scare people and of being ignorant and disconnected from reality. However, I am not ashamed to say that I agree with Senator Santorum, and I think that there is ample evidence to support his position.

Until 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Look out how far America has moved in the ensuring 39 years: homosexuality is regularly depicted on television and in movies, homosexual marriage is now legal in several states and the District of Columbia, and homosexuality is widely portrayed to be a biological predisposition. In other words, homosexuals are “born that way” the argument goes. Furthermore, those who most adamantly support homosexual marriage have called it the Civil Rights Issue of Our Day! Please do not misunderstand me when I say, in response, “That’s ridiculous.” The color of someone’s skin is, without a doubt, something that person is born with, and it is not anything that a person can change (with the possible exception of through expensive and dangerous surgical procedures or drugs). Alan Keyes once said, referring to the old habit of calling African-Americans people of “the colored persuasion,” that “persuasion has nothing to do with it.” Even if one were to grant that homosexuality is an innate, even a genetic, characteristic (which I do not), someone can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior. A person cannot choose to change the color of his or her skin. Accordingly, to suggest that people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior should receive the same legal rights and protections as people who do not choose to do so, and that not allowing them these rights is tantamount to denying equal rights and equal protection to African-Americans or others on the basis of their skin color is absurd.

But the issue for which Senator Santorum has received the strongest attacks is not his opposition to gay marriage (after all, that position hardly makes him unique) but his insistence that granting homosexual marriage could lead to a further expansion of what marriage includes. I must ask, with the Senator, why would it not? Once homosexuality is widely accepted (if it isn’t already), why would we not think that polygamy will be next? Or pedophilia? Or bestiality? After all, it has been only 39 years since homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, let alone morally wrong. It has not been all that long ago that homosexuality began to be portrayed on TV and film, and no it is difficult to find a show on network or cable television that does not include a gay or lesbian character. Remember, it was only 15 years ago that Ellen DeGeneres “came out of the closet.” Remember the uproar that caused?

The groundwork is already being laid for the polygamy. There are at least two “hit shows” that are centered around the very idea: HBO’s Big Love is a drama about a polygamist and his three wives. TLC’s Sister Wives is a reality show about a polygamist, his four wives and their sixteen combined children. (They get around laws banning polygamy by only one of the four marriages being a legal marriage). Why would we not think that as soon as homosexuals are allowed to marry that polygamists would not demand the same right? (And quite frankly, if we buy into the arguments used by the homosexual side of the argument, how could we justifiably refuse to grant the same right to polygamists?)

Sadly, polygamy is perhaps the least scary of the possible expansions of marriage that we find along the slippery slope. Pedophilia is defined as “sexual desire in an adult for a child.” Think that approval of that wouldn’t happen? Don’t be so fast. There is a non-profit organization in Maryland called B4U-ACT that has been speaking out on behalf of pedophiles since 2003. The group uses the less-offensive term “minor-attracted people.” They claim there are as many as 8 million men in the U.S. who are attracted to minors. (The December 17, 2011 issue of World discusses the groups efforts to revise the DSM-IV and remove any stigma associated with pedophilia). Homosexuality is now considered just another sexual orientation. Rarely now is it even referred to as an alternative lifestyle; it is just one lifestyle on the menu of options. So why would pedophilia not become just one more option? There have been scholarly articles suggesting that adult-minor sexual activity is not only not necessarily wrong, but is even healthy, provided that both parties are consenting participants.

If homosexuality is okay, then polygamy becomes okay, and even pedophilia eventually becomes okay, why wouldn’t bestiality be okay too? If one person is genetically predisposed to sexual attraction to members of the same sex, another needs multiple partners, and still others are naturally attracted to minors, who could tell someone that they cannot be sexually attracted to animals? I am not going to explore this argument in any further detail because I am sure you get the idea: once we cross the line, where do we draw the new line? Better yet, how can we draw a new line?

John MacArthur has written this: “If we teach our children not to walk where it is slippery, we will minimize their opportunity to fall.” Good advice for parents (and others working with children). Good advice for our nation, too–if we don’t want to fall, lets not walk where it’s slippery!

January 12, 2012

The Value of Teachers

Filed under: Christian Education,Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 3:17 pm

In yesterday’s New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed with the same title as this blog entry. In the column he examined the results of a recently-released new research study by economists at Harvard and Columbia universities that identifies the value of good teachers. The study highlights test performance but also the actual long-term economic value of good teachers in terms of students’ future earnings. According to the study a student with a good teacher in fourth grade will go on to earn, on average, $25,000 more in his or her lifetime than a fourth grader with a teacher that is no so good. According to Kristof, that translates into approximately $700,000 in additional earnings per class. Furthermore, that fourth grader with a good teacher is 1.25% more likely to go to college and 1.25% less likely to get pregnant as a teenager.

Perhaps even more shocking than that is this assertion: “Conversely, a very poor teacher has the same effect as a pupil missing 40 percent of the school year.” Whoa! No school anywhere would allow a student to miss 40% of the school year and still move on to the next grade. Yet, based on these findings, students with ineffective teachers may attend school every day of the year and still end up just as far behind as if they had done exactly that. Kristof highlights the importance of the study’s findings by pointing out that if a good teacher announces his or retirement or plans not to return to the school the following year, the parents whose students would have had that teacher should hold fundraisers, pool their resources, or do whatever is necessary to offer that teacher a bonus of up to $100,000 to stay on for another year. That is how important it is for students to have a good teacher. On the flip side, Kristof says that poor teachers have such an adverse impact on students that parents of students who will have an ineffective teacher should offer that teacher $100,000 to retire or otherwise leave the school, assuming he or she will be replaced by a teacher of at least average quality. Now, neither of these things will happen, of course, and probably should not happen, but it is a powerful means of conveying the importance of quality teachers.

Kristof goes on to write that, “Our faltering education system may be the most important long-term threat to America’s economy and national well-being….” He laments that, given that level of importance, education is receiving so little attention in the current presidential race. In fact, he goes on to say that, “Candidates are bloviating about all kinds of imaginary or exaggerated threats, while ignoring the most crucial one.” (That word bloviating may be new to you. It was to me. It means “to speak pompously”). I agree with Kristof that it is imperative that students have, to use the phrase made popular in No Child Left Behind legislation, teachers who are highly qualified. There is no excuse for students in the United States to have inferior, incapable or just plain apathetic teachers. Of course, overcoming that is easier said than done, as Michelle Rhee and others have learned. Why teacher’s unions seem so intent on saving teacher jobs and seem to care so little about actual student success is beyond me.

But I think that it is important to take this a step further. Kristof, and the authors of the study he is writing about, are focused on public education. And given the number of students in this country who are in public schools I think it is important to look at those. As a Christian educator, however, and someone who is committed to the value and importance of education from a biblical worldview, this research highlights for me the fact that students receiving instruction lacking in biblical worldview, regardless of their age, will have long-lasting consequences of that education. If having an ineffective teacher will impact a student’s academic progress and ability for years afterwards, how much more does the worldview of a teacher impact a student’s development? If the consequences of worldview are even remotely close to the consequences of academics, a student–even as young as elementary school–who has a teacher that is at best “neutral” in their worldview (though that isn’t really possible) and at worst actively opposed to a biblical worldview could experience influence on his or her own worldview for years to come.

When there is that much at stake, does it really make sense to risk a child’s future by exposing him or her to a worldview that isn’t grounded in Scripture?

January 4, 2012

We Interrupt These Messages…

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 9:35 pm

I am interrupting my reflections on my reading over the past five years to take a look at last night’s Iowa Caucuses.

I love presidential politics, so I might be blogging along these lines off and on all year. You certainly aren’t required to agree with me (or even read my thoughts!) but I hope my ramblings will prove thought-provoking and perhaps prompt you to look into the candidates and the issues more deeply yourself…because I can respect a voter who disagrees with me, but have trouble with a voter who is uninformed.

First of all, let me say that I am a fan of the Iowa Caucuses. I have been on both sides of the debate as to whether or not Iowa should get to be the powerful voice that it is in presidential elections, because I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for the “first in the nation” vote to rotate each time so that different states and different voters get to have the influence of that first vote. That aside, whether it is in Iowa or elsewhere, there is something powerful about the personal level of politics required to be successful in Iowa, and I happen to think that the caucus system is more effective for the initial vote than a primary would be, so I have no qualm with that. At the same time, I have to say that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses tends to be relatively low, and–surprisingly, in my opinion–it was no higher this year than it was 4 years ago, despite the strong opinion among many that real change is needed in America.

Having attended undergraduate school in Des Moines, Iowa, I have some personal experience with the Iowa caucuses, too. To my absolute astonishment, there were precincts in and around Des Moines in 1996 who had no one to be in charge of the caucus meetings. As a result, a number of political science students from Drake University–including me–had the opportunity to get quite involved. I was not a resident of Iowa, so I could not vote, but I was in the position of checking voters registration, leading the caucus meeting, counting the votes and calling in the results. Pretty cool stuff! Even more surprising than the fact that there were some precincts with no one charge, there was one precinct meeting where no one showed up to vote. The precincts in that particular section of Des Moines were small enough, and ideal potential meeting locations rare enough, that two precincts were meeting in the same building. That turned out to be quite fortunate for me and the other student from Drake assigned to the building, since we were both able to be involved despite one having no one in attendance. But the bottom line is, whoever shows up gets one vote…and last night’s results clearly showed that one vote does make a difference, since Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum finished the night separated by only eight votes.

This was a surprise to many people, because Rick Santorum has consistently polled in the single digits, and he has been banished to the far end in every debate thus far. However, Santorum has campaigned consistently and persistently in Iowa, visiting every county in the state (and most of the Pizza Ranches, apparently) holding more than 300 meetings with voters. He does very well with local politics, and he has a clear and consistent message that many voters find appealing.

Still, there are plenty of people already saying Rick Santorum’s showing in yesterday’s Iowa caucuses will have little or no meaning on the rest of the campaign, presenting nothing more than slight bump in the road to Mitt Romney’s inevitable nomination. I have to disagree, and a deeper examination of the results of the Iowa vote reveals why: Quite simply, Santorum has broader support among the GOP candidates than anyone else.

Look at the numbers from the polls:

* Among men, Santorum and Romney each received 23% of the vote, just one percent behind Ron Paul’s 24%;

* Among women, Santorum and Romney each received 26% of the vote, 6% ahead of Ron Paul’s 20%;

* Among Republicans, Santorum received 28% of the vote, 1% more than Romney, and double the next closest candidates (Gingrich and Paul at 14% each);

* Among Conservatives, Santorum received 27% of the vote, 5% more than Romney and 9% more than Paul;

* Among young voters (17-29), Ron Paul was the runaway winner, with 48%, but Santorum was second at 23%, 10% more than Romney, the next-closest candidate;

* Among voters 30-44, Santorum was the winner with 29%, 1% more than Paul but 10% more than Romney;

* Among voters 45-64, Santorum was just 1% behind Romney (26% to 25%) and 8% ahead of Paul;

* Romney was the clear leader among voters 65+ with 32% of the vote, but Santorum was second with 19%, ahead of Gingrich (17%) and Perry (12%) and Paul (11%);

* Santorum was the clear winner among Evangelical voters, with 32% of the vote to Ron Paul’s 19%. Romney and Gingrich each had 14% and Perry 13%;

* Santorum finished third among non-evangelical voters, behind Romney (38%) and Paul (26%), and third among non-Tea Party voters behind Romney (44%) and Paul (21%);

* Santorum clearly won the Tea Party vote, with 28%. Romney and Paul each received 19%;

* Romney narrowly edged Santorum among college-educated voters (26% to 25%), but Santorum narrowly edged Romney among those without a college degree (23% to 22%).

Santorum’s only areas of huge weakness in Iowa were Independent voters, who went overwhelmingly with Ron Paul, and moderate voters, who gave a combined 74% of their vote to Paul and Romney. Among Independents, though, Santorum received 13% to Romney’s 18%. And Santorum did not finish lower than third in ANY category of voters. He finished third in four categories…but Romney finished third in three. Ron Paul’s lowest finish was fifth, among voters 65+.

So what can we take from this as we look ahead? First, Santorum is unlikely to perform as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa. New Hampshire is an area where Romney enjoys considerable support…support that will only be enhanced by John McCain endorsement of Romney there today. McCain has long been a New Hampshire favorite. However, along with Michele Bachmann announcing the end of her candidacy today and Rick Perry expected to do the same, McCain’s endorsement of Romney is actually likely to benefit Santorum. Many Republican voters, and particularly those who were drawn to Bachmann and Perry, voted against Barack Obama more than they voted for John McCain, and they tend to look at Mitt Romney the same way: he is better than Obama, but if there is another option they are likely to go that route. And right now, there are other options. Ron Paul will continue to generate his share of votes, because he appeals to a unique niche of voters and has a very unique message, but he will not be the Republican nominee, and will be unlikely to pick up much support from from the exit of Bachmann and Perry. New Hampshire is Jon Huntsman’s one chance at a decent showing, but it will end there for him. If he doesn’t finish second to Romney it will be a loss, and even if he does finish second, it won’t likely generate any additional success thereafter. Huntsman is the epitome of what many call a RINO, a Republican in Name Only, on many issues, and he simply isn’t going to find broad support. Gingrich has a chance to try to redeem himself in New Hampshire, but he seems more likely to devote his attention to defeating Romney than actually winning himself. And that, too, will only help Santorum.

Looking past New Hampshire, Santorum is likely to perform much better in South Carolina. There is a large number of voters in South Carolina among the constituencies in which Santorum scored well in Iowa, and if he can manage to pull off a finish in the top three in New Hampshire he will be in great shape heading south. Even a top-four finish is unlikely to hurt him.

This is crunch time for Santorum, though…especially at the two debates this weekend. Santorum will no longer be on the sidelines of the debate, and he will have to get more time and attention from the moderators. Gingrich isn’t going to attack him, and Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman will likely continue to direct their more aggressive attacks on Mitt Romney. (Paul already minimized Santorum in his speech to supporters last night, saying he does not have the funds for a national campaign). Santorum needs to stick to his message–repeating the themes of his speech last night–and stay true to his positions. He does have some things in his background that he will need to explain, most notably his past endorsement of Arlen Specter, but he is now primed to be the most likely candidate to emerge as an option to Mitt Romney for any GOP voters who aren’t considering Ron Paul’s candidacy a serious option.

As Santorum said last night, “Game on.”

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.