Author: jbwatson

Jason B. Watson is a follower of Christ who enjoys "thinking out loud" when he has time to do so.

Biblical Integration

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Biblical integration is why I believe in Christian education. Yet, the term biblical integration can sometimes mean different things to different people, and it is important to make sure that we are clear on our terms.

First, what are some things that biblical integration does not mean:

* Having a Bible verse at the top or bottom of a worksheet or sprinkled throughout a textbook
* Starting a class with prayer and/or devotions
* Finding and reading all of the Bible verses on any specific topic after learning about it

To be honest, I dislike some textbooks produced by Christian publishers because they seem to use the “sprinkling” approach to biblical integration. Either for lack of effort or lack of ability they seem incapable to drawing a real connection between the Bible and the subject being taught. They are Christian textbooks, though, so there needs to be Christian content. As a result, they sprinkle in some Bible verses or they find a Bible story that has a tangential-at-best relevance to the subject and then stretch the application of the biblical narrative. The problem is, students see right through that, and it ultimately defeats the purpose of Christian education. Why? Because when we have to twist, bend and stretch in order to make the Bible seem relevant we cause the Bible to actually seem irrelevant. It appears we are trying to make it something it is not, and as a result those efforts seem weak.

Rather, biblical integration means that every subject and every class is taught with the Scripture as the foundation and the filter through which everything else is done. Every topic taught can reveal the nature of God, of creation, or man, and/or moral order. The Bible is relevant to every subject. Sometimes that relevance and connectivity is more clearly seen that at other times, but if a publishing company and/or teacher cannot make a clear and effective connection between the Bible and whatever subject is being taught, (1) they should resist the temptation to do so on the fly, and (2) they should stop publishing and/or teaching until they have grown enough in their own understanding of the Scriptures to make a real and relevant connection.

Biblical integration means teaching and equipping students to see every subject as God sees it. This means that students learn that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that it can be known. This also equips students to identify fallacies when they exist.

Biblical integration means that students learn to think biblically and critically about every subject, and to see the connection between the Bible and the world around them, between the Bible and their everyday lives. The Bible is not just a history book, it is not just a love letter—it is the owner’s manual for life, and in it God reveals Himself to us and equips us to live our lives for Him. Only when students see the connection and the application of Scripture to “the real world” will we have truly provided an education with biblical integration.

A biblically integrated curriculum provides students with knowledge, with wisdom and with understanding – in other words, with information, with the ability to apply the information, and with the discernment to know when and how to do so.

Portion Control

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

New York City has been in the news again lately, this time for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to restrict restaurant soda sales to 16 ounces. His reasoning? He told MSNBC, “The percentage of the population that is obese is skyrocketing. We’ve got to do something.”

In an editorial on USAToday.com, Dr. Deborah Cohen, of the non-profit, non-partisan RAND Corporation said Bloomberg is right in advocating portion control as a way to combat the obesity epidemic in the U.S. Bloomberg has been quoted as saying, “You tend to eat all of the food in the container. If it’s bigger, you eat more. If somebody put a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.” Cohen agrees, writing that the mayor’s proposal “opens the door to one of the most important solutions to address obesity: portion control.”

According to both Bloomberg and Cohen the average person is apparently too stupid to regulate consumption on his or her own, and therefore needs to government to do it. Cohen points out that, “The Agriculture Department has established serving sizes for every type of food available — although there are no regulations applying portion sizes to restaurants.” That’s because the Agriculture Department has developed what are known as “recommended daily allowances.” The key phrase there is “recommended.” If the government wants to conduct the research necessary to determine what a healthy quantity of foods, or food categories, would be for a person, then it can do so, I suppose (though even the necessity of that is dubious at best). However, for the government to get into the business of determining how much of a food can be served to any person is a serious violation of a free market society, not to mention the “inalienable right” to the pursuit of happiness referenced in our Constitution.

Bloomberg pointed out that is someone really wants more than 16 ounces of soda there will be no restriction on that person buying another one. I have not seen what impact the restriction will have on free refills offered at some restaurants; perhaps as long as no more than 16 ounces is served at one time that will be okay, I don’t know. And frankly, I don’t care.

See, Cohen’s editorial is headlined, “Bloomberg right that portion control works.” And with that statement I agree. Unfortunately, that’s about the end of my agreement with Dr. Cohen. See, she thinks, as does His Honor Mayor Bloomberg, that the government needs to control the portions for me (or anyone else). I counter that with the argument that portion control does indeed work–but if someone does not care enough about his or her health to restrict their own portions, the government has no business doing it on their behalf.

I have no problem leaving some of the food on my plate if I get full, or leaving some of the drink in my glass if I do not need any more. If someone cannot do that–if someone is so lacking in self control that he simply must eat and drink everything that is set before him–he has problems that go way beyond the sugar content of a 16 ounce soda. It’s still his problem, though; not mine, not yours, and certainly not the government’s (at any level).

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to my 20 ounce soda….

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….

Memorial Day

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

Today is the day selected on the calendar when our nation is supposed to take time to remember the sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives in the service of our country. Hundreds of thousands have paid the ultimate price while wearing the uniform of the Minute Men, the Continental Army, the Confederate or Union army, or the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard. This the day when we are supposed to pause to remember that freedom is not free.

Unfortunately, for many people in our nation it is simply a day off from work, a day to have a bbq or to go to the beach. There is nothing wrong with those things, of course, and the greatest celebrations and remembrances often involve times of sharing a meal. The trouble is, though, when people see today as for those activities only. Yesterday our pastor shared some of the history of Memorial Day, and I have to say that far too few of us really take time to remember what has been done on our behalf.

I suspect that those who have served in the armed forces and those who have lost loved ones in the service of the nation have no trouble remembering what Memorial Day is really all about. My grandfather served in World War II and, as I understand it, was injured and assumed dead by his unit while in Italy. He was on top of a building that was hit by a shell, causing the building to collapse. He was buried in the rubble. Though his unit moved on, some other soldiers (not American) later found him, and stitched him up with hemp that came from untwisting a rope. I say “as I understand it” not because I have any reason to doubt the veracity of this account, but because I never had the opportunity to hear it from my grandfather. Of the ten grandchildren my father and his brother and sister gave to my grandparents, I am the only one who ever saw my grandfather at home, and that was only when I was very young. The remainder of his years were spent in a nursing home or a VA hospital, and rarely was he in full possession his faculties when any of us visited him. He passed away while I was in high school. Were the injuries he sustained during the war the direct cause of his poor health and mental powers later in life? I don’t know. I really never knew him, and what I have learned about him since he passed away leads to believe there were other causes, too. Regardless, thinking about my father’s father standing on top of a building half a world away when that same building was hit by a shell fired by an enemy determined to eliminate America and what she stands for helps to put into perspective what the men and women of the armed forces do, and do willingly.

My father was in the Navy. He was never involved in conflict, though the Vietnam War was still going when he enlisted. He has talked some about his service, and has shown us his white sailor’s cap and pictures of him in uniform and the ship he served on, but his time in the Navy was short and, I suppose, relatively uneventful, and it has never been the subject of lengthy conversation. Still, I am proud to think that my father wore the uniform of the United States Navy and was willing to do so. I have a step-nephew who recently returned from his second tour in Afghanistan.

War during my lifetime has been completely different than any previous war. During the first Gulf War I, along with millions of others, watched the action on the television. We could literally watch the path of a missile as it sped toward its target, the screen going white and then black when it hit. We could listen to daily briefings from General Schwarzkopf or General Powell. We had unprecedented access to the realities of war. And yet, at the same time, I think war has also seemed more remote and disconnected to our daily lives that conflicts of the past. We never hear air raid sirens, we don’t own gas masks, and we have not been subjected to rationing. There is no push to buy war bonds. In other words, unless we know someone who is in the war, we have not been inconvenienced by war other than at the gas pump.

Except for September 11, 2001, I have never known what it was like to feel like our nation was vulnerable. The possibility of an attack has always been a remote possibility during my lifetime. Even though I can remember the last years of the Cold War, and I remember being aware that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. possessed hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear weapons and that, at least in theory, nuclear war could bring the world as we know it to a sudden halt, it was always such a remote possibility that I do not remember ever being afraid that it might happen. I have never wondered if I would be drafted to serve in the military, and when I turned 18 our nation was at peace and there was absolutely no push or pressure for me to even consider service in the military. While I grew up respecting the men and women who serve, and recognizing the value of their service, there seemed little need for me to even think about the armed forces.

Yet, the reality is that there seemed little need because there have always been enough men and women willing to serve. Other than 9/11 and the completely unorthodox tactic of turning commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction our country has never been attacked during my lifetime because we have men and women who stand on the proverbial wall and keep me safe. The freedoms I so often take for granted were purchased with the blood of patriots who gave their all to gain freedom and to protect it. The liberties I have grown up accustomed to have been defended by men and women who thought they were valuable enough to give their lives for. And I am grateful….

Not So Common

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

One of my favorite professors in graduate school used to say, “Sometimes common sense is not so common.” We all see abundant examples of that on a regular basis, I know, but one example I read about recently seems to be crying out for a comment…and I feel I simply must oblige.

If you have ever lived in or visited a large city you have likely seen homeless individuals. I am not suggesting that homeless individuals reside only in large cities; I am well aware that that is not true. However, they do seem to be more evident in large cities, and there are often sizable efforts and ministries in place in those cities that seek to help meet the needs of the homeless.

I am not interested here in exploring the reasons why someone may become homeless. I am well aware that some are homeless by choice and some are homeless through no fault of their own, and some are somewhere in the middle. Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that if someone is homeless there is no reason why in the United States of America such individuals should not be able to obtain shelter, clothing and food, at least temporarily.

In New York City, however, there is an egregious example of a lack of common sense. (Not that that in and of itself is much of a surprise, I suppose. After all, NYC, if you recall from a not-too-long ago post, has also banned churches from meeting in public schools out of fear that the students will be unable to discern between the doctrines/positions of the church and the secular nature of the school). The example to which I am referring now pertains to feeding the homeless. The powers that be in NYC have passed, and are enforcing, a regulation that bans homeless shelters in the city from accepting donated food because there is no way for the shelters to determine if the donated food meets the standards established by NYC for fat, salt and fiber content.

Milne wrote that Winne the Pooh was a bear “of very little brain,” and yet I bet even Pooh could figure out that when the choice is between no food and food that might not be as nutritious or as healthy as the NYC politicians/bureaucrats think it should be, the choice should be obvious.

The irony of all this is that the very same people who would claim to be “bleeding heart liberals” and would under most circumstances bend over backwards to protect rights and provide services for the homeless are the very same ones who promulgate such idiotic regulations. And the truth is, such regulation is one more example of the absence of a true market-driven economy in the United States.

I read an editorial recently–I cannot remember where, but I am thinking it may have been in WORLD Magazine–discussing the fact that there are so many regulations, limitations, subsidies, and other artificial influences on the economy and every industry in the U.S. that we cannot truly claim to have a free market economy. And that’s sad, because as we stray from free market principles we necessarily find ourselves wandering closer and closer to government control.

Is it a good idea for government, at any level, to regulate the amount of fat, salt or fiber in food that is served, whether in restaurants, food stands, or homeless shelters? That’s a lengthy debate that should probably wait for another day, since it goes far beyond the realm of restricting food access for homeless individuals in NYC. For now, I just have to echo Dr. Jones…”Sometimes, common sense is not so common.”

I’m Still Here

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Wow…I cannot believe more than a week has gone by since I last posted a blog entry! I’m still around…things have just been very busy with the end of the school year and all of the activities that go along with that. Today is the last day for teachers to work, and so I should start to see things slow down a bit, meaning I should have time to blog again! Good thing, too…because I have plenty of ideas for things to blog about.

A few thoughts for graduates

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

I suspect we may be able to find more than one, but let’s suppose we could find only one thing that everyone reading this has in common. Every one of us, from the youngest to the oldest, has hopes and wishes for the future. There may be absolutely nothing that we can do to make some of them come true no matter how hard we might try. There’s nothing wrong with wishing for those things, but we ought not to spend too much time thinking about them either. Instead, we should focus on those things which we can influence.

I have always been a fan of Mr. Rogers. He had this to say about wishes: “What makes the difference between wishing and realizing our wishes? Lots of things, of course, but the main one, I think is whether we link our wishes to our active work. It may take months or years, but it’s far more likely to happen when we care so much that we’ll work as hard as we can to make it happen. And when we’re working toward the realization of our wishes, some of our greatest strengths come from the encouragement of people who care about us.”

Mr. Rogers hits a couple of very important points. First of all is our willingness to actively work toward the accomplishment of a goal or a wish. In “the real world” wishes only come true by hard work, dedication and self discipline. No matter how long it takes to make the wish come true, it is much more likely to come true when “we work as hard as we can to make it happen.”

The other important thing that Mr. Rogers said was that, “some of our greatest strengths come from them encouragement of people who care about us.” Never underestimate the importance of the people who care about you. The people who care about you are the people who will be there with you and for you through the rough times and through the good times. When you want to give up they’ll be there to help you keep going. When you reach the top they’ll be there to help you celebrate your success. When your success goes to your head they’ll be there to remind you where you came from. When you start to lose your temper they’ll help you stay cool. When you feel like you’ve reached the end of your rope and no one cares anymore they’ll be there to remind you otherwise.

We all have dreams and wishes. Some of them are more realistic than others, but what they all have in common is that we will have to work for them. Mr. Rogers also tells the story of wanting to learn to play the clarinet when he was eight or ten years old. “I just didn’t practice the clarinet,” he wrote, “so I didn’t learn. I think I wanted to learn by magic. I think that I had the idea that if I got the clarinet I would somehow know how to play it. But magic doesn’t work with learning, not with anything worthwhile.” Anything you’ll ever accomplish in life that is worth accomplishing will take hard work, self discipline and dedication. Don’t give up. Don’t stop dreaming. But don’t limit yourself to dreaming, either. Be willing to work to make your dreams come true. And don’t forget the people along the way who help you get there.