Month: June 2012

Violation of an Oath

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

For those of you who keep current with political news the topic I am about to address, yes, I realize that the topic I am about to address is a few months old. It is not that I am just becoming aware of it. In fact, I was “hot on it’s trail” when it happened…but I decided to put it on the back burner and address it later after I had had some time to “cool down,” so angry did this news make me.

I am well aware of the fact that I tend to pay more attention to politics and care more passionately about it than the average citizen, and so I may get riled up over things that others may not even notice. But if this one goes unnoticed we have a serious problem.

See, in February, U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Egypt, and while she was there she took a swipe at the U.S. Constitution. She said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, she suggested that the constitution of South Africa might be a better model, since it “embraced basic human rights [and] had an independent judiciary.” Justice Ginsburg has also been known to express admiration for the Canadian Charter of Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

One of the reasons Ginsburg has expressed discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it originally excluded women, slaves and Native Americans. (Of course, until recently, South Africa excluded blacks, too). I don’t think anyone would argue that the the U.S. Constitution is perfect. It was wrong to tolerate slavery and to exclude the vote from women and other minorities. Those flaws have, thankfully, been corrected. Therein, however, lies part of the beauty of our Constitution; it allows for corrections and amendments.

I do not fault Ginsburg for suggesting the a newly-forming representative democracy look at a field that does not contain the U.S. Constitution exclusively while preparing to draft its own constitution. What I do find egregious is her suggestion that the U.S. Constitution not be looked at at all. Notice she did not say that she would not look exclusively at our Constitution; she said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution.”

By the way, are Canada and the EU really examples we should encourage other countries to follow? The freedom of speech in Canada is under attack pretty regularly. The Bill of Rights of Kenya–which was drafted by later-Supreme-Court-justice Thurgood Marshall and is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, guarantees rights to health, welfare and work. We have already seen what has happened in other countries (including Canada and the many members of the EU) who have included rights to health and seen it necessary to provide state-run health care systems in order to do so–and we see now what that looks like as Barack Obama tries to institute the same thing here. We have seen the economies of many European nations crumble as their debts have spiraled out of control, due in no small part to the right to work and absurd guarantees for workers. See, here’s the paradox of socialism: when it becomes essentially impossible to fire someone there is no longer any incentive for someone to work. Look at recent strikes in Spain and riots in Greece, among other examples.

How does any of this relate to her oath, by the way? Well, Supreme Court justices have to take two oaths of office, and if you want to read all of the particulars you can do so on the Supreme Court’s web site (supremecourt.gov). Part of the first oath, which is taken by all federal employees, reads, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” When a justice publicly (and in front of international audience, at that) says that she would not refer the U.S. Constitution if she were drafting a constitution today, it stretches the imagination to think how that can be consistent with supporting or defending the Constitution, or bearing allegiance to it.

Am I suggesting that Justice Ginsburg should be impeached? Not necessarily. But I think her comments are troubling, and I think they point to two very important demands that “we the people” must make of our senators: (1) the responsibility of approving nominations to the Supreme Court must be taken seriously, and we must demand that our justices be faithful to the Constitution; and (2) we have to have justices who see the Constitution as a living document, able to be changed when appropriate and within the prescribed channels, but who will interpret the Constitution with faithfulness to the intent of the Founders and the people. It’s time we say “enough” to those who want to remake our Constitution from the bench to have it more closely resemble those of other nations.

Heard and Seen

~ jbwatson ~ 3 Comments

In the June issue of Tabletalk magazine Ed Stetzer has an article entitled, “Preach the Gospel, and Since It’s Necessary, Use Words.” You may recognize the well-known saying Stetzer is addressing in his article; supposedly St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” At least that’s Stetzer’s rendering of it; I have seen it in a slightly different version, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. In the first paragraph of his essay Stetzer says that there are “two basic problems with this quote and its supposed origin. One, Francis never said it, and two, the quote is not biblical.”

I am not concerned with whether or not Francis said it. Stetzer says that according to Mark Galli there is no record of Francis ever having said it, and I reckon I’ll just take his word for it because, as I said, it really doesn’t matter. What I think does matter though is Stetzer’s assertion that the idea is not biblical. Before I share my thoughts on that, though, I think I should let Stetzer speak for himself (and quote Galli).

Stetzer cites Galli’s claim that the quote suits our culture well with this quote: “‘Preach the gospel, use words if necessary’ goes hand in hand with a postmodern assumption that words are finally empty of meaning. It subtly denigrates the high value that the prophets, Jesus and Paul put on preaching. Of course, we want our actions to match our words as much as possible. But the gospel is a message, news about an event and a person upon which the history of the planet turns.” (I don’t know where Galli wrote this; Stetzer doesn’t say). Stetzer then goes on to say that the quote “gives an incomplete understanding of the gospel and how God saves sinners. Christians are quick to encourage each other to ‘live out the gospel,’ to ‘be the gospel’ to our neighbors, and even to ‘gospel each other.’ The missional impulse here is helpful, yet the gospel isn’t anything the Christian can live out, practice or become.”

Stetzer makes a bold claim when he asserts that the idea articulated in the quote in question is not biblical. After all, for a Christian, that is–or certainly should be–the deciding factor. If something is not biblical, that is synonymous with saying that it is wrong. So, I suppose I will need to respond with a bold claim of my own. While there are several words that come to mind, I’ll go with this one: ridiculous. For Ed Stetzer to suggest that preaching the gospel without words is not biblical is ridiculous. According to dictionary.com that means “causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable.”

Stetzer goes on to say that, “The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn’t something we can do, but it is something we must announce.” I do not disagree with this, of course. The gospel–literally, the “good news”–is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth as a human, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins (and yours), was buried, rose again three days later, was seen alive by thousands, ascended to heaven where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again some day. None of that is anything I can do, and it is, as Stetzer writes, something I, and every other believer, is called to announce.

The trouble comes in the fact that Stetzer seems to assume that the announcement has to be made by words. I–and whoever it was who said what has been attributed to Francis–do not agree. It is not enough for me to simply say I do not agree, though–or at least it should not be. Rather, let me explain to you why I do not agree, and provide biblical support for my position.

First, Paul, when writing to the church at Philippi, wrote, in 4:9, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things…” (ESV). I would, for the purposes of this discussion, emphasize that four-word phrase “and seen in me.” The message of the gospel requires a verbal announcement (words) but it also requires a demonstration–a life lived out in a manner that is consistent with the words that are proclaimed. And, I might add, it generally requires this both before and after the words. The actions are the book ends that support or hold up the words.

In the same letter, Paul encourages the believers to “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ. Why? “[S]o that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit…” (Philippians 1:27, ESV). In other words, Paul told the believers to preach the gospel with their lives, and if they did so, he would hear about it. Actions would lead to words.

In Matthew 5 we read Jesus Himself teaching that actions are indeed an essential part of preaching the gospel. In verse 13 Jesus calls believers to be salt. That takes action. After all, salt is an actual thing; to borrow from and rearrange another passage of Scripture, it will not do you any good if you ask for salt and I say, “There you are, pretend your food has been salted.” Nope; that won’t work. You need me to give you real salt. In the next verse Jesus says that each believer is like a light, and that believers are not to hide their lights but to “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Same thing–action required.

Another well-known quote I heard numerous times growing up but have no idea who originally said is, “If you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” The meaning is, of course, that if someone really believes the gospel it will be evident in the way he or she lives their life. Belief leads to action. While I agree with Stetzer that the gospel message needs to be proclaimed with words, I dare say that his assertion is far more dangerous than any danger he sees in the “live out the gospel” position. Why? Because there are many, many believers who preach, teach and live like the gospel message is nothing but words. What I mean is that I have heard many times–and likely you have, too–someone say, “If you’ll just say this prayer,” or “If you ask Jesus into your heart….” If this is news to you than I hate to disappoint, but there is no magic in saying the words. Words in and of themselves are just that–words. They do not mean anything; they are mere sounds that literally linger but a moment in the air. It is the meaning of the words that matters, and the meaning comes from whether or not I act in a way that indicates my belief in the words I speak.

Stetzer gives only one nod to the point I am trying to make in his article, and that comes in this statement: “While the process of making disciples involves more than verbal communication, and obviously the life of a disciple is proved counterfeit when it amounts to words alone, the most critical work that God has given to the church is to ‘proclaim the excellencies’ of our Savior.” Stetzer ends his article with four ways in which Christians should use words, and I do not disagree with any of them. Sadly, however, the words alone simply are not enough.

If I tell my wife I love her but my actions never demonstrate that love will she believe me? Not for long. Neither will anyone else. That’s why the words in and of themselves are not enough; the action is required. In fact, if you want to take Mr. Stetzer’s argument to its logical extreme, the very gospel he so wants Christians to proclaim with their words would not exist if words were all that was necessary.

What do I mean by that?

Well, if words were really the most important thing, God could have had His Son come to earth and tell everyone that He was the Son of God and that He could pay the penalty for their sins–and that if they would just believe Him their sins would be forgiven. If words were what mattered, Jesus did not have to die. Instead, I–and anyone else–could simply express my belief that Jesus could die, rise again, conquer sin, hell and the grave, and provide a way for my sins to be forgiven. But God is not concerned with whether or not I think Jesus could do that; He wants to know if I believe Jesus did do that.

So, Mr. Stetzer, I respectfully disagree with your premise. Not only do I disagree with your assertion that to preach the gospel always and when necessary to use words is not biblical, I would actually embrace the exact opposite argument–that to suggest that the gospel can be preached without actions is what is not biblical. The gospel demands action; it demands lives that are “worthy of the gospel of Christ.” So let us live lives that draw people to Christ, that open doors for words to be spoken, and that cause those outside of the church to ask about Jesus.

Does Success Equal Validation?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

My family and I enjoy watching several of the competition shows on the Food Network — Chopped, Cupcake Wars, and Sweet Genius specifically. It recently occurred to me, though, just how many of the competitors on those shows say that they are competing, at least in part, out of a desire to prove to their families that they made the right decision by going into the culinary arts. This prompted two questions in my mind. First, does success necessarily equal validation?

The implication of the statements so many of these competitors have made is that if they win the competition their families will then see that they are good at what they have chosen to do and therefore the right choice was made when the individual decided to go into cooking or baking. I think this is a dangerous line of thought in general, and particularly so in these instances. These Food Network challenges are designed to be legitimate tests of the contestants’ skills, but in an outside-the-box sort of way. A competition on Chopped, for example, may be required to utilize four ingredients that have no connection to each other at all–and in more than one instance I have seen mandatory ingredients that the contestants indicate they have never used–and to make a creative, tasty and visually-appealing dish in 30 or 40 minutes. On a recent episode of Sweet Genius the contestants were required to use split pea soup in making a chocolate dessert. The real rub comes, I think, in taking the inverse of the argument being suggested by so many of these contestants–that if they do not win, their families may not be proud of them, and/or somehow their failure to win means that they were wrong when they chose to pursue a career in the food industry. I think that this is a dangerous manner of thinking. Never mind the fact that to even get on the show the individuals have obviously demonstrated real culinary skill. The simple reality is that anyone can have a bad day. And in a competition that has such limitations as an unfamiliar kitchen, wacky ingredients, and a strict time limit, one small mistake can make the difference. Or even if someone happens to have his or her best day ever, the “luck of the draw” may have paired them with another competitor who is better. We’ve all seen instances, I am sure, when someone would have beat any other competitor in the field but the one they were paired against. No one, however, would suggest that the individual who therefore lost is somehow unsuccessful. In some ways this would be like suggesting that a major league slugger is a complete failure if he makes it into the home run derby but does not win. Does that make any sense? Of course not.

When considering a biblical worldview it is also necessary to remember that success does not necessarily mean that the right choice was made. Using my own life as an example, I reached a crossroads when I needed to decide whether I was going to live for me or live for the Lord. I could have gone on to graduate school or law school as I had planned and then become (this is an illustration, remember) a top-notch incredibly successful lawyer, political strategist, etc. I could have achieved a recognizable name, a six-figure income, a prestigious address, and so on. In other words, I could have achieved worldly success. Yet, if I was outside of God’s will for my life I would not have been successful at all in any context that really matters.

The second question I have been considering is whether or not someone has to be good at something in order for them to be happy doing it. I think the answer is no…and I also think that “good at” is a highly subjective measure. Speaking for myself, I tend to take more pleasure out of activities I do well. I would rather play baseball or softball any day than play golf, but that’s due in no small part to the fact that I don’t play golf very well. Do I enjoy baseball because I am good at it, or am I good at it because I enjoy it? I suppose that’s a catch-22 in some ways. Because I enjoy it I do it more, and, generally speaking, the more we do something the better we get at it. But that’s not always true. I enjoy bowling, but I am not that good at it. The few times I have been skeet shooting I have been fairly good at it–but, while it was enjoyable while it lasted I have never felt the need to buy a gun and spend hours shooting clay pigeons. I can take it or leave it.

Let’s go back to my bowling example. Suppose I decided that I wanted to become a professional bowler. Would my decision to do that only be validated by becoming a champion professional bowler? In other words, do I have to be the best in my chosen pursuit in order to convince others that I was not wrong in how I have chosen to spend my working years? Perhaps that standard it too high… After all, there have been some incredible baseball players that have never won a World Series title, but no one would suggest that they were not good or thus should not have played professional baseball? No. So maybe we need to ask if making it to the highest level of a profession is what makes the individual successful. Again I would have to say no.

I think that there are two standards that need to be considered. First, does the chosen profession make the individual happy? Does it allow him or her to find enjoyment and to take pride in the work? If so, I think the right decision was made, whether or not the trophies, accolades and “big bucks” come along, too. I can still remember my father telling me that he did not care what I chose to do with my life so long as I was happy. “I don’t care if you decide to be a garbage collector so long as it is what you want to do,” he said. And, I can honestly say, he never pressured me to pursue any particular career or vocational path. One caveat to this standard is the ability of the individual to meet his or her needs and, when applicable, those of his or her family. If I decide I want to paint pictures of trees all my days, and it makes me incredibly happy to do so, that’s not okay if in so doing I am unable to provide for my wife and children.

There is a second caveat, though, and it is one I alluded to above. The ultimate standard for validation for any believer must be whether or not he or she is in the will of the Lord. Worldly success will not necessarily come, but that does not automatically mean that the wrong choice was made. God will provide for the needs of His servants. Sometimes He blesses with incredible material wealth, and sometimes He provides just enough to get by. But it doesn’t matter; what matters is whether or not we are in His will.

So to parents, I would suggest this: pray for and with your children that the Lord will clearly reveal His plan for their future, and that your children will submit to His leading in their lives. To everyone, don’t let the size of your paycheck, the length of your title, the number of letters after your name, the kind of car you drive, or any other worldly term of measurement define whether or not you are where you should be. Rather, seek first the kingdom of God. Find His will for your life, and go where He calls you to go; do what He calls you to do, regardless of the material rewards that do, or do not, follow. God does not define success the way man defines success…and it is God’s definition–and only God’s definition–that matters.

The First 100

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

My last post marked my 100th since I launched this blog last fall. The number 100 has a certain appeal to it, I think. I always hoped to see a 100 on an assignment in school. I try to give one hundred percent in any task I take on or any game I play. I can still remember the first time I saw a $100 bill, when my Grandma Watson took me shopping to buy Christmas presents for my parents and brother. And, ever since FDR, the First 100 Days is seen as a bit of a trial period to see what a new president will be able to complete during that initial honeymoon period when (presumably) public approval of him is high and good will is still present in the Capitol.

So, it would seem amiss not to note the achievement of reaching my 100th post, and to reflect on what, if anything, I have accomplished in those posts.

First, I have to pause and ask myself if I am surprised that I made it this far. To be honest, the launch of this blog was sort of a whim. I had been reading some blog postings for a blog that one of our high school teachers was using to engage his students in thoughtful discussion through technology. It was their posts that got me to thinking about doing some blogging of my own. I had blogged before, but sparingly. And though I tend to have plenty of opinions and ideas, the possibility of typing them out on a regular basis is not something I had ever seriously considered. Any efforts I have made to journal over the years have fizzled in short order, and I suspected a blog might end up the same way. One major difference, I think, is that the blog is not for my own consumption. Others read it, and, frankly, it has been the feedback that I have received from those who have read it that has probably kept me going. I have ceased to be surprised at who might find this little corner of the web and take the time to read my musings.

Second, I have to pause and ask myself whether I have accomplished anything through the blog–or maybe a better question would be is accomplishing something necessary in order to continue? To answer the second question first, I think there needs to be more purpose in it than simply spouting off about current events, and I think I have succeeded in addressing current events but not doing so in an offensive or overly partisan manner, and not in such a way that would tend to turn this site into another political blog. (If you disagree, please feel free to comment and set me straight!) That does not mean that I have shied away from current events that I felt required addressing, nor will I do so in the future.

Third, though, I think I have learned through blogging that my own thoughts and experiences and, dare I say, insights, can be an encouragement and a blessing to others. Simply sharing what I have learned and am learning as I walk along the road of life can be a means of ministry. I think that blogging has proven to be an ideal venue for me to do this because I am more comfortable expressing myself in writing than in conversation in many instances. I am not as shy as I once was in interacting with others, but, for whatever reason, I rarely need conversation and I still tend to avoid small talk. If someone asks me a question I am happy to answer, and if I have something to say I will certainly say it, but I do not go out of my way to strike up a conversation very often. So for those of you who do interact with me “in real life” please don’t be offended by that! I do not intend to be standoffish or unapproachable, and I’m not mean (I promise!)…I just don’t feel the need to talk!

However, the Lord has revealed to me over the last fifteen to twenty years that things that I might not think are that important or that meaningful sometimes are to someone else, and therefore, if any erring is to be done, I should probably err on the side of sharing rather than not. I can still recall many a Sunday evening church service when the song leader or pastor would ask for people to share praises or testimonies, and many times that my mother would speak up and share something that had happened during the previous week and how the Lord had worked in the situation. It saddens me to say that there were quite a few times that I would sit in my pew thinking, “Who cares, Mom? Big deal!” I mean, compared to someone being delivered from a drug addiction or healed of a life-threatening illness, overcoming the challenge of a flat tire is really not that important, right? Well, wrong, I have learned. While there are dramatic and exciting instances like the drug addicts and cancer survivors–and those are important and valuable examples of the power and mercy of God–God does not only, or even usually, work in such big ways. God is in the details. He cares about the little things in life, and He does desire that we talk to Him about the flat tires of life. He can reveal Himself through those seemingly minor inconveniences–when we let Him and take the time to seek Him. I’m hard-headed, I guess, but I hope I have finally learned that my mom was right; sharing those testimonies are important, too. So if my comments on a book I read, a recent news story, a personal experience or a truth I have gleaned in my own walk can encourage you, praise God. I am humbled that people are reading and benefiting from my rambling.

And Lord willing, I’ll still be at it after another hundred entries….