Author: jbwatson

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

By Way of Introduction

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

It is interesting to listen to introductions, I think. When people are introduced to a crowd–a speaker, for instance–the introductions are often long and flowery and, even when entirely accurate, seem to present the individual as “the best thing since sliced bread.” I have been asked on more than one occasion to provide a biography when I have been scheduled to speak somewhere, and I am well aware that those asking fully expect me to provide a page-long description of what I have accomplished and why people should care to listen to anything I have to say.

Even in person-to-person conversation we tend to introduce ourselves by saying one (or more) of three things: what we do, where we are from, and/or to whom we are related. The setting sometimes makes a difference. For example, if I am visiting my brother’s church I might introduce myself and then add, “I’m Phillip’s brother.” If I am at an educator’s conference I would likely say my name and then add, either on my own or in response to the inevitable question, that I am the superintendent at Sunshine Bible Academy. And, over the past year, as a newcomer to South Dakota, I have been frequently been asked within the first few minutes of meeting new people, “Where are you from?”

If we look in the Bible, though, at the way that the writers of the New Testament epistles introduce themselves we find an approach quite unlike those described above. James starts his letter with, “James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ…” (ESV). Notice James does not say, “James, half-brother of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or “James, pastor of the largest church in Jerusalem.” Peter begins 1 Peter with, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,” and 2 Peter with, “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (ESV). Paul starts Philemon with, “Paul, a prisoner for Jesus Christ,” begins Titus with, “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” and starts both 1 and 2 Timothy by referring to himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The same basic introduction is used in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, too. 1 and 2 Thessalonians simply identify Paul, Silvanus and Timothy; there is no other qualification mentioned.

What is the point of all this? Quite simply this: we ought not think too highly of ourselves, our accomplishments or our positions (Romans 12:3). Those things should not define who we are. Who we are and what we have done is not nearly as important as WHOSE we are. That is the point that James, Peter and Paul were making. Any one of them could have rattled off titles, accomplishments, positions, and experiences that would have rivaled any we have heard in our churches, schools and civic gatherings, yet they chose to introduce themselves simply as servants of Jesus Christ.

Would that I too might remember that My God is more important than my grades, my Savior is more important than my salary, and the propitiation for my sins is far more valuable than the position I hold. I want this to be my introduction: “I am Jason Watson, a follower of Christ.”

Christian Teacher Appreciation

~ jbwatson ~ 3 Comments

Yesterday I shared about the value of teachers, shared some recollections of the best teachers I have had, and in general shared about what makes a great teacher. Everything that I said yesterday would be true of any teacher, at any level, in any setting. There are some additional opportunities and responsibilities that Christian school teachers have, though, that those in secular settings do not have.

A Christian teacher, in a Christian school, has the wonderful responsibility of presenting everything he or she teaches from a biblical perspective, integrating biblical principles into each and every lesson. The Christian school teacher has an opportunity that even Sunday school teachers, youth group leaders and pastors often struggle with, and that is the opportunity to make clear connections between what the Bible says and what the textbook says, between the Bible and every day, real world life.

This does not happen by accident, and it does not even necessarily happen in every Christian school. Sadly, some Christian schools look much the same as their secular counterparts, with the only difference being the word “Christian” in the school’s name and perhaps a prayer or two scattered throughout the day.

I was involved once in trying to start a Christian school. The name selected for the school did not include the word “Christian” and as I was talking about the school around the community several people asked me why it did not. I told them that a large part of the reason was that “Christian” means different things to different people, and there are a lot of people who claim to be Christian yet provide no evidence of that claim in their daily lives. Our goal was that the school and its faculty/staff would speak for itself and that the “Christian-ness” of the school would be evident even if not “advertised.” Actually, the absence of the word “Christian” in the school at which I currently serve is a plus, in my opinion. Instead of Christian School or Christian Academy, this school is Sunshine Bible Academy. I like that a lot, because being true to the Bible and its truth is far more important and more distinctive than what some people mean when they say Christian.

In his book A Christian Paideia, D. Bruce Lockerbie addresses the importance of teachers this way: “A school isn’t ‘Christian’ because it says so on the cornerstone or signboard. There is no such thing as a biblical brick or a charismatic chem lab or a sanctified schoolroom. Only people can be a Christian. A school is Christian–or not!–because of the living members of that school’s population.” I could not say it any better than that. The teachers are what makes any school great or not great–not the facilities, not the textbooks, not the technology. Those things are wonderful, and they are valuable tools, but if you have the grandest facilities, the newest textbooks and the latest technology, but you do not have teachers–specifically, excellent teachers–those things will not amount to much. Likewise, if a Christian school does not have Christian teachers, who are walking with the Lord, growing in their relationship with Him, seeking His guidance and discernment for their daily responsibilities, modeling His love and grace through their interactions with students, and integrating biblical truth into their lessons, the school will be Christian in name only.

I did not attend Christian schools. I was in public schools my entire life, and I had some very good teachers in those schools. And even though I recall very few of my teachers ever being antagonistic toward a biblical worldview–and I am confident that some of them had such a worldview themselves–I was never in a classroom where I was taught how math can demonstrate characteristics of God, how God’s hand is evident throughout human history, how so many elements of the study of science testify to the evidence of a Creator….

Lockerbie goes on to say of Christian educators, “Our role is to teach girls and boys how to read, how to count, how to write, how to listen, how to discern, how to interpret, how to think, how to analyze, how to synthesize, how to critique, how to know. And in that act of knowing, how to acknowledge who God is and what His claims on one’s life may be.” Amen. If you are a Christian educator, thank you. If you are a parent who makes sure that your child gets an education from Christian educators, thank you. And if you received or are receiving an education from Christian educators, thank God for that blessing.

Teacher Appreciation

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This week is national Teacher Appreciation Week. As an school administrator I take note of this week specifically because it serves as a great reminder to tell the teachers in my school how much I appreciate them, but it also prompts to think about the importance of teachers.

Yesterday I was reflecting back on my own teachers, trying to see how many of them I could remember. I can remember, by name, every teacher I had for every subject through sixth grade. For seventh through twelfth there a handful whose names I cannot remember (and in some cases even whose faces I cannot remember!). Like anyone else, I could tell stories of teachers that I loved, and teachers that I loathed. The first teacher I remember loving was Mrs. Irwin, my second grade teacher. I can remember a lot of things about my second grade year, from the layout of the classroom, to some of the spelling words I had, to how I somehow managed (with a little help from my mom) to plan a surprise birthday party for Mrs. Irwin, complete with cake, balloons, and a gift that the entire class contributed toward. I can still clearly remember playing “Around the World” with vocabulary words in second grade. I always did quite well, but for some reason that year I had a mental block on the word “head,” and every time Mrs. Irwin would flash that card I would say “heed.” It got to be a bit of a joke in the class, actually.

I could also tell stories of teachers I did not expect to like, but did. Ms. Nelson, my third grade teacher, was one of those. My elementary school had an open design, so there were no walls between classrooms. Their spaces were delineated by changes in carpet color and by shelves and cabinets on wheels that were arranged to provide semi-walls between classes. Thanks to this arrangement, though, I could hear Ms. Nelson quite often while I was in Mrs. Irwin’s class, and I thought Ms. Nelson was quite possible the meanest teacher in the school. Turns out I very much enjoyed her class, though, and she wasn’t mean at all so long as I did what I was supposed to do.

I had some wonderful teachers in middle school, high school, college and graduate school, too. I also had some that were not all that great. Or at least I didn’t think they were. Quite possibly some of those teachers were able to connect well with other students. The worst teacher I ever had is a no-brainer; my fourth grade teacher, hands down. In order to protect the guilty, though, she shall remain unnamed. But it was the teachers like Mrs. Irwin, Mr. Urbain (one my high school history teachers), Mr. Marty (one of my college professors, who had his doctorate but preferred to be addressed as Mr.) and Dr. Jones (one of my grad school professors) who immediately come to mind as the best teachers I ever had.

Why were they the best? For one or both of two reasons, I think. They took an interest in me as an individual, not just as a student, and they loved what they did. All of them were very knowledgeable in their field, but knowledge by itself is not enough. I have been through lectures given by teachers who were undoubtedly brilliant, but they had absolutely no personality, no enthusiasm, and/or no inclination of how to make whatever it was they were droning on about relevant to me or anyone else in the room. Great teachers connect with their students, get to know them, care about them and not just about their grades. They also teach their classes in a way that makes their students look forward to finding out what they will learn next.

It was not until college, in Mr. Marty’s classes, that I ever had a teacher give any indication that he desired to learn from his students, not just to have his students learn from him. That, too, is a mark of a great teacher. A great teacher is well aware of the fact that he does not know everything, and is not afraid to say so. He never stops learning. He learns because he enjoys learning, and he teaches because he enjoys sharing what he has learned with others, and helping them learn, too.

Great teachers also stretch their students. They take them outside of their comfort zones. They do not do it obnoxiously, and they do not put students on the spot and embarrass them, but they do help their students expand their horizons. Mr. Marty was really good at that, too. He had high expectations for each of his students, and he would not let them shy away from a challenging task or take the easy way out when he knew they could do more. He never did let up on me when he learned that I had taken the easiest math class the university had to offer to satisfy my math credit requirement. During one honors class, entitled “Lincoln at Gettysburg: Propositions of Equality,” Mr. Marty instructed us to bring to the next class a question about Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It could be any question, so long as it was something we thought it would be interesting to know about Lincoln and the speech. Well, truth be told, I did not put a lot of planning or forethought into the assignment. At the next class, we had to write our questions on a 3×5 card and turn them in to him. He then read them out loud to the class. Before doing so, though, he said that we were going to use the questions submitted as the topics for a research paper that we were to write. We could select from any of the questions submitted. At least that’s what he said. Then he came to my question: “Lincoln’s speech includes the line, ‘The world will little note nor long remember what we say here.’ How, if at all, would Lincoln have changed his address if he knew that it would still be studied and quoted more than century later?” Guess what? After reading that, and commenting that it was a very interesting question, Mr. Marty looked and me and said that he was going to require me to write my paper on that question. Wow… I was less than thrilled. Quite frankly, I thought it was an interesting question for a parlor game discussion, but I could not imagine trying to actually answer it. And yet, I did manage to answer it. I got an A on the paper, too.

Great teachers also help their students find answers without necessarily giving them answers. Another of my college professors did this most memorably after TNT aired a movie called Andersonville, about the Confederate prison of that name that held Union POWs. I asked Dr. Summerhill one day if he had seen the movie, and he said he had seen some of it but had not watched it in its entirety. I said I had asked because I was curious as to the historical accuracy of the film. His response? “Why don’t you do some research on Andersonville and then you can tell me how accurate it was.” See, I had wanted the quick and easy answer, and he called me on it. So, I did. And three or four books later I had learned that movie actually did a respectable job of sticking to the facts. My mother used this approach, too, from as long ago as I can remember. “Mom,” I might ask, “how do you spell [whatever the word was I needed at the time]?” Her response? “Look it up.”

So I am grateful for the great teachers that I have had, and I have admiration and respect for every teacher who goes into teaching for the right reasons and does his or her best to provide an excellent education for the students in his or her class. If you happen to still be in touch with any of the great teachers you had, perhaps this would be a nice occasion to make a phone call, send an e-mail or drop a note letting them know how much you appreciate how they influenced your life. Next time I will talk more about teachers, and Christian school teachers specifically.

National Day of Prayer

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Today is the annual National Day of Prayer. Since 1952, when Congress mandated the event, there has been an annual day set aside to pray for our nation. In 1988 the law was amended, setting aside the first Thursday in May as the Day of Prayer. Long before it became a law, however, there were instances of national prayer, and presidential proclamations encouraging prayer. It is impossible to read the history of the United States or the original documents of the Founding Fathers are come to any conclusion other than the Founders’ belief that prayer is important and appropriate, and that national proclamations and days of prayer in no way violate any separation of church and state the Constitution may require.

The National Day of Prayer is most prominently observed by evangelical Christians, and the chair of the NDP has long been Shirley Dobson, the wife of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. The day is not reserved for Christians, however, and it is not an exclusively Christian event. President Obama, in his proclamation for this year’s NDP, said “… I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.”

While my faith directs me in a very definite way, and while I am one of those “intolerant” people who believes that biblical Christian faith is the only true faith, I also happen to respect the right of every individual to exercise his or her own faith, and I agree with the President that each person should give thanks and pray in accordance with their faith tradition.

In today’s Faith and Reason column on USAToday.com, Cathy Grossman writes, “The very conservative evangelicals who control the privately-run celebration will do their thing. The coalition led by Shirley Dobson allows only people who agree with a specific Christian expression of prayer to take the microphone at their events although all are welcome to attend and say amen.” It is clear from her tone that she does not approve. I cannot help but ask why? If the “celebration” (and I question the use of that word for the event) is privately run, why should the organizers not be free to set their own guidelines and limit the public prayer to those whose faith is consistent with their own? I would not expect any private event to do otherwise. If the organizers of a private event want to have an ecumenical event, or an event that includes many faiths, that’s great. If they want to have an event that adheres strictly to their own faith, equally great. If there happens to be a NDP event organized by Muslims I would not expect them to invite Christians to pray at their event.

The oh-so-tolerant organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has, of course, made their annual opposition known. Director Barry Lynn said, “Americans don’t need to be told when or whether to pray….” Agreed. Americans can and do pray all the time without being told or invited to do so. But there is also absolutely no problem with the President, the Congress, a governor or a mayor inviting and even encouraging people to pray. The only problem would come if any of those individuals were to mandate prayer, and no one is doing that.

Stephen Prothero, in his My Take blog on CNN.com, titled his entry today, “Dear God: How to Pray on National Day of Prayer?” He raises interesting points and questions in his blog. He seems to respect the right and desire of people of any faith to pray in a manner consistent with their faith, but he also asks questions about whether any one faith should become the “national voice” and whether we as a nation are guilty of using God rather than following Him. Good questions, and worthy of consideration and discussion.

Here’s where I come down. The theme selected by the NDP task force for this year is Psalm 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” I do not think the Lord is the God of the United States of America. By that I mean not that He is not sovereign over the U.S., because I believe that He is sovereign over everything. I mean that I do not believe that America, as a nation, has submitted itself to God, His ways and His will. As I have said here before, our nation is not a theocracy, and I am not sure that I think it should be. However, ours is a nation founded on religious freedom, and that freedom does, and should, include the right both of the President to call on the nation to pray, of the Congress to set aside a day to be known as the National Day of Prayer, and of the NDP Task Force to design its events for the day in ways consistent with its faith and belief, even when that includes disallowing those whose faiths and beliefs are not consistent with its own.

As for me, I put my faith in the God of the Bible. I believe that both the Old Testament and New Testament are the inspired, infallible Word of God, and I desire to be a follower of Christ. Accordingly, I will pray to the God of the Bible. Having accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on my behalf I have forgiveness of sins, and I have the right to go boldly before the throne of God and speak to Him directly (Hebrews 4:16). And that’s what I will do…today and everyday. I will continue to ask God to protect this nation, to give discernment to our leaders, to cause our nation to desire to turn to Him. And I will continue to thank God that I have that right.

Tell Your Face

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This past Sunday my wife and I attended a church we had never visited before. We were out of town for the weekend, and we unfamiliar with the area. We selected the church by looking in the phone book and then checking out the web site of the church we selected.

Visiting a church is always an interesting experience for me. It is fascinating to think that (assuming you visit a church that believes and preaches the Bible) I have “family members” all over the world–brothers and sisters in Christ. In that regard, I know I can go into a new church and feel at home. At the same time, though, I also know that when I visit a church I will more than likely get asked multiple times what my name is, whether I am new to the area, what brings me there, where I am from, etc., etc. (This assumes I am visiting a church that actually notices and speaks to visitors!) That part, frankly, I could do without. It almost makes me wish I could stand up in the service and tell everyone at once so I don’t have to repeat it over and over again. (Come to think of it, I visited a church last September that asked me to do just that. Of course, my family of four increased that day’s attendance by about 25%, too, so it was pretty obvious to everyone that we were the visitors!) Visiting churches is also interesting for seeing what ministries other churches offer, how they conduct their services, etc. From that perspective I quite enjoy the experience, and I love to read church bulletins.

Now I digress. This is not supposed to be about visiting a new church. I was merely trying to set the stage for what I really want to share, and it just so happened that the inspiration for this came while we were visiting the church on Sunday. The congregation was singing a hymn. (An actual hymn…in a hymn book! The words were projected on screens, but the song leader actually said, “Please turn with me to page ___ in your hymnbook.” That in and of itself qualifies as rare nowadays!) I remember that the song title included the word “wondrous.” I cannot remember if it was “Sing the Wondrous Love of Jesus,” (also known as “When We All Get to Heaven”) or “I Will Sing the Wondrous Story,” but it doesn’t matter. The point is that it was a joyful song about the wonderful love of Jesus, and the gift of eternal life made possible through salvation.

As we were singing I looked off to my left (you know you look around in church, too). Across the aisle and two or three rows ahead of us was an older man. He was singing the words to the song, yet he had his arms folded high on his chest, his head was leaning down and he was looking over the top of his glasses, and he had a bit of a frown on his face. Quite frankly, I think the best way to describe this gentleman is that he was harrumphing.

Now, I don’t know the man in question. Sunday was the first time I have ever laid eyes on him, and I did not speak to him. Please do not think I am judging him, because that is not my intention. However, seeing the obvious disconnect between his facial expression/physical posture and the song he was singing was almost comical. His demeanor seemed to be saying, “Bless me if you can, I dare you,” while his mouth was singing the wondrous love of Jesus. It just didn’t fit.

We have probably all seen people like that from time to time. Truth be told, we have probably all been those people from time to time. Honestly, it was convicting for me to think about. I’m not one to bubble over with emotion or even be liberal with my smiles. I have been accused more than once of seeming standoffish or unapproachable. I have tried to work on that, because I don’t intend to send that message (most of the time!) But it is also a good reminder that if my actions and my life do not line up with my words, there is a disconnect that is going to cancel out my words every time, because actions will always speak louder. It reminded me of something I heard or read once, though I don’t remember where: If you know Jesus and you have the joy of the Lord in your life, don’t forget to tell your face!

Do Unto Others (Business Edition)

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday I wrote briefly about the Golden Rule and what that looks like lived out in everyday life. Today I’d like to talk about what it looks like in the business world…or should look like, in my opinion. Specifically, I’d like to address what it should look like when dealing with employment inquiries.

I know from firsthand experience that many companies do not in any way acknowledge employment inquiries if they are not interested in pursuing the inquiring individual for a position. More than ten years ago I sent an inquiry to a couple of ministries that I respected and who had needs that my skill set could have matched. In these instances I sent the inquiries via good old fashioned postal mail. In neither instance did either ministry acknowledge my inquiry or follow up with me in any way. Not only is that disheartening but, quite frankly, it caused me to lose some respect for those organizations.

I am not suggesting that such behavior on the part of an organization–secular business or Christian ministry, for-profit or nonprofit–is unusual. I am suggesting, however, that it should be. If someone takes the time to submit a serious, respectful and well-written inquiry regarding employment, it would behoove the receiving organization to politely, respectfully and promptly acknowledge the receipt of that inquiry. Even if there is no position available, it would take at most a few minutes and the cost of a piece of paper, an envelope and a stamp to send a letter acknowledging receipt of the inquiry, thanking the inquirer for his or her interest, and explaining that there is no current opening.

When I reached a position of leadership wherein I was the one responsible for reviewing and deciding on employment inquiries and applications I had the opportunity to put this approach into practice. I still remember looking at an inquiry, deciding that we had no opening for which the inquiring individual was qualified, and then asking my administrative assistant to prepare a letter indicating that we had no opening at that time. She said, “We usually just file the inquiry. We have never sent a letter.” I think she was genuinely just trying to inform me of what established practice had been, but I told her that I would like to send a letter. We did so that time, and every subsequent time. Why? Because I knew from experience the frustration of not having my inquiry even acknowledged, and I wanted to “do unto others….”

The inquiries I referenced above were initiated by me. I did not know if there was an opening or not, but I was interested in working for those ministries because I respected what they stood for and the work that they did. I don’t whether there is an advertised opening or not, however, should make any difference when it comes to responding to legitimate inquiries. An example of how responding can make a positive impression came once several years back. I am a long-suffering fan of the Baltimore Orioles. I say long-suffering because the Orioles haven’t had a winning season since I was in college. Once, in the midst of a particularly lousy season and even more lousy moves by the Orioles front office I went on their web site, found the link for employment inquiries, and submitted an inquiry for the position of General Manager. I knew full well that the position was not open, and even if it was I would not be considered. It was intended as an expression of my dissatisfaction with the organization. Yet, within a few days, I received an response from the Orioles personnel office informing me that the Orioles GM position was not open at that time. Guess what? I was still disgusted with the performance of the team, but the organization gained new respect in my mind.

I found myself exploring employment opportunities again in 2010-11…which opened up a whole new opportunity for learning by experience. I would like to say, first of all, that every inquiry I sent during that go around was in response to an advertised opening. It amazed me how many of my inquiries or even submitted applications received no acknowledgement or response. I kept a list of the organizations I inquired or applied to, the position I applied for, the date I inquired, and the response received, if any. Several organizations grew in my estimation because of polite acknowledgements, updates on their progress in the job search and/or sending me additional information about the organization. One school I applied to, for example, sent me a folder with information about the school, the position, the town, the cost of living in their area, etc. Even just brief acknowledgements to let me know that my information had been received and a human being had seen it, though, went a long way.

Here are a couple of examples of responses that had the opposite impact:

One organization to which I inquired, by submitting a cover letter tailored to their organization, the advertised opening, and my qualifications and experience relevant to the opening; my resume; and another document relevant to the opening received a response from the organization within less than five minutes of the moment I hit “send,” telling me that I did not meet the qualifications they had in mind for the position. First of all, I did meet the qualifications as described in the ad, so if there were other qualifications that were that foundational to the process they should have been included in the ad. Second, it simply is not possible that anyone could have opened and read thoroughly all of the attachments I sent, formulated a realistic evaluation of my qualifications, and responded within 300 seconds or less. And to be honest, even if it somehow had been that obvious, the very act of shooting down a sincere applicant that quickly is probably about as bad as not responding at all.

Another organization sent no acknowledgement of receiving my application and communicated with me in no way…until five months after I had sent it. Then I received a phone call telling me they were now ready to start the process of reviewing candidates and wondered if I was still interested. While I had accepted another opportunity by that point, I would not have been interested even if I had not. There is no excuse for that kind of a lapse, and it spoke volumes about the organization in question.

Lastly, I had two instances of in-person experiences that are great examples of “don’t do unto others.” In the first instance I had submitted my resume, then a completed application, and had completed a phone interview before driving to the school for an interview. During the interview I met with the superintendent, toured the school, met the outgoing principal, toured the town, then went to dinner with the superintendent. At dinner I also met the board chair. Despite it being clearly stated in the school’s handbook, application and during the interview that, as a non-denominational school there were some issues on which the school did not take official stances, the superintendent then proceeded to ask me this question: “As you know, there are some positions on which the school does not take a stance, because our faculty and our students come from various churches and backgrounds. But where are you on Calvinism?” Despite being surprised, I answered his question, only to find that he held a different position than I do. (I am what Norman Geisler calls a “moderate Calvinist,” whereas my questioner was a 5-point Calvinist). He then proceeded to tell me why he was right and I was wrong, and wanted to know if I would be able to work with him and other strict Calvinists. Enough said…I was no longer interested.

In another instance I was again being considered for a high school principal position. I had again submitted a resume, a completed application, and had gone through a phone interview. I then took two flights to fly to an interview several states away, went through questioning with the superintended and with the middle and elementary principals, went to lunch with the superintendent and development director, and then took a flight home…making for a VERY long day. The next morning I literally was not even out of bed yet when the superintendent called and wanted to know when I could return for a second interview to meet with the board. I went through the process of identifying flights that could get me there within the time frame she wanted only to receive an e-mail in response saying she wasn’t so sure after all, because she didn’t know if my skill set was what her staff expected in the new principal, even though she thought I would do a great job and that the two of us would work well together. I thanked her for letting me know and politely informed her that we would, in fact, not work well together if her style of leadership was one in which she substituted her own thoughts regarding what was best for the organization with what she thought the other staff members may or may not prefer, and if she thought it was acceptable business practice to ask someone to return for a second interview and then chicken out. Again, “do unto others….”

Unfortunately, I can also cite other examples of poor business practices from personal experience, from a search committee calling me on a Saturday afternoon (in our first direct contact) and asking if I was available for a phone interview right then (I said no) to a board failing to mention during the phone interview, first in-person interview or second in-person interview that the school was deeply in debt and had no realistic expectation of being able to continue operations while still honoring all outstanding financial obligations.

In closing, I can tell you that, having now been the one “in charge” for the last seven years of professional life, and the one who is involved in the review of employment inquiries and interviews, that I have had several instances when individuals (none of whom I hired, by the way) thanked me for responding to their inquiries, answering their questions, and being honest and thorough in the entire process. Just last month, in fact, I had someone I had been in contact with about an opening at our school send me an e-mail telling me that he had accepted a position at another school. That e-mail also included this statement: “I really am extremely grateful for the opportunity however. It has been eye opening how many schools/districts/teaching councils/etc. do not even contact people who show interest in teaching at their schools.”

I am not writing any of this to pat myself on the back or to hold myself up as an example. Rather, I’m simply trying to point out that the Golden Rule has very real and very powerful implications for business practice, and it is the wise organization/ministry that will put into practice the idea of “do unto others….”

Do Unto Others

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I think most people are familiar with the Golden Rule, whether they claim to believe the Bible or not. It is, after all, simply a nice way to live. But the truth is that the Golden Rule, when Jesus first taught it, was rather revolutionary. It took the expectations of how people treated one another to whole new level.

See, the Pharisees and other religious leaders had a rule of their own that went something like this: Don’t do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

At first glance it may not seem like there is a lot of difference between those two , but in reality there is a world of difference. I can refrain from doing things to you and still not treat you kindly or even acknowledge you. After all, I don’t think I would have a difficult time going through life not hitting others upside the head, or not shooting people who annoy me, but that still leaves open all kinds of ways in which I could treat or interact with others without doing so in love and kindness.

The Golden Rule that Jesus taught is a proactive approach. It is not enough to sit back and avoid doing things to you that are unpleasant because I wouldn’t want them done to me. Rather, to obey Jesus’ commandment, I need to actively treat others with the kindness and respect that I would want them to extend to me. This takes a lot more effort and intentionality than the old version of the rule for interacting with others.

It’s a good reminder for all of us of how we should interact with those we come in contact with, whether family members, coworkers, neighbors, students, cashiers, or strangers. If we want others to acknowledge us, we must acknowledge them. If we want others to be polite and helpful, we must be. If we want others to speak in a respectful tone and with polite language, we must do that, too.

It’s not an easy thing to do, and it simply does not come naturally…but it is a commandment from the Lord and is a lifestyle choice we should all strive to make.

To and Fro

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday evening my family and I had the opportunity to spend some time visiting friends who own a ranch. While there we all rode around in the pick up truck to check the cows, which included tagging a couple of new-born calves. Since just about everything that ranching involves is foreign to me, it was a neat experience to learn more about what all is involved. Later, I asked my friend how many times each day he goes around to check the cows, to which he replied, “Six or seven.” I’m guessing (I didn’t ask, actually) that this number is indicative of the number of times he checks during calving time, and that it is not necessary to check that often year-round, but it still prompted me to think about God, and the incredible reality of His omnipresence and omniscience.

The Bible reminds us in several passages that God always knows what is going on. 2 Chronicles 16:9a says, “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth.” God is able to watch everything that is going on everywhere on earth. He knows what’s happening with all 7 billion-plus people at every moment. Proverbs 15:3 says, “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (ESV).

My friend cares for his cattle, so he goes around regularly to check on them. God cares for us, too…but because He is God, we do not have to wait for Him to come check on us. If something happens, we need not wait until the next time He makes His rounds in order to ask Him for help. We can go to Him in prayer anywhere, anytime, and know that He will hear. Even more amazing though is the fact that He will already know what is going on with us. As His eyes run to and fro throughout the earth God has never laid eyes on me and though, “What’s that guy doing? I didn’t expect to see that!” No, He knows. He is never caught unaware or by surprise.

The other important thing to remember about this truth, though, is that just as God always knows what we are doing and what we need, it is equally true that we can never hide anything from God. The passage above in Proverbs makes it clear that He is watching the evil and the good. He knows everything that happens…even those things we might prefer He did not know. If someone wanted to steal some cattle, he would likely watch to see when my friend had made his rounds, and then try to act quickly before he went around again. As a school administrator, I know the reality of students sometimes behaving differently when I am in a room than when I am not. As a supervisor I have seen examples of employees behaving differently when I am present than when I am not. As a Christian I know that there have been times when I have acted differently when I am in church or around other believers than when I am not. The fact that God is always watching, is ever aware, and is never able to be fooled is an excellent reminder that there really is no such thing as anything done in secret.

A Response to Feedback

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

My last post, addressing Kirk Cameron’s statements about homosexuality during an interview with Piers Morgan, prompted a comment from someone I do not know. This individual responded to my post with this comment:

“No tolerance is living YOUR life YOUR WAY, and letting other people live THEIR LIVES, THEIR WAY. I don’t interfere in Mr. Cameron’s choice of who he’s going to spend his life with nor am I interested in what sort of consensual sex he has. The LGBT community would certainly appreciate it if he didn’t concern himself with our lives either. Scripture (and its interpretation) is only of interest to those who follow it, certainly not to those who do not.”

This comment reveals several important points that are relevant to an issue that includes, but is larger than, discussion of homosexuality. First, the commenter argues that tolerance means letting everyone live their lives in their own way, without interference from others. Interestingly, however, it has not traditionally been those who are opposed to homosexuality and other hot button issues in the tolerance discussion that have dragged the issue out of the realm of the private and into the realm of the public. In the specific instance that was the basis for my last entry, it is important to recall that Cameron’s remarks came in response to a question that he was asked–and a question that was not consistent with the reasons he had been led to believe that he was on the show. Had Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Cameron a question about his new documentary, and Mr. Cameron proceeded to contort his answer in such a way that provided an opportunity to speak out against homosexuality then the comment above would have merit. In light of the reality of the situation, however, his comment does not hold water.

This principle holds true for the entire matter of homosexuality. I am not aware of anyone in this country going around suggesting that homosexuality should be a crime, or that engaging in homosexual behavior should result in criminal or civil penalties. On the contrary, there are many people–most them plenty noisy and aggressive–who are suggesting that homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples, that marriage should be redefined to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and that the legal protections, rights and benefits that have always been reserved for marriage should be extended to include homosexual couples. Who, then, is interfering with whom? It is the LGBT community that is actively seeking to force its views on everyone else. If asked, I am confident that Mr. Cameron would say that homosexual behavior is unnatural and is a sin. So would I. But I also feel confident saying that Mr. Cameron would not suggest that two consenting adults engaging in homosexual behavior should be criminalized, and neither would I. Put differently, if the LGBT community would, as my commenter suggested, live their lives their way and let others live their lives their own way, the issue would pretty much go away. Issues such as homosexual marriage, sodomy, birth control and others deal with issues that should be private, and if they were kept private rather than brought out into the open by those who actually want to destroy their own definition of tolerance and force their positions on everyone else, they would not be nearly the controversy that they are. There are people who believe that the use of contraception is a sin. I do not know of anyone, however, who has argued that the manufacture and sale of contraception should be outlawed. There are those, however, who believe, and argue strongly, that contraception should not be paid for by the government. This only became an issue when those on the other side of the argument began demanding that the government pay for contraception, claiming that contraception is a right.

The second element of my commenter’s statement is that Scripture is only of interest to those who follow it, and not to those who do not. I hope the individual who took the time to leave the comment does not think that he has just advanced a novel or arresting argument, because it is disingenuous and, quite frankly, obvious. I am not suggesting, nor, in my opinion, was Mr. Cameron suggesting, that what Scripture says should be forced on everyone in our country. We live in a representative democracy, not a theocracy. We live under a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” meaning that “we the people” have the right and the responsibility to be actively involved in the affairs of government, to make our voices heard, and to seek to effect the changes we believe should be made.

That does not mean that those who believe the Bible should not speak out in accordance with their beliefs. The same right that an unbeliever has to say he does not believe it is held by those who believe it and have their opinions and convictions shaped by its teaching. The presentation of arguments is a required, and healthy, part of the democratic process.

So here’s what it comes down to, sir… If you, and the LGBT community at large, want to keep your positions to yourselves and live your lives in such a way that do not interfere with mine, then we would probably get along just fine. I will continue to believe that you are living in sin, but I will also continue to love you with Christ’s love. You will be free to continue to think that I am an arrogant and bigoted Bible-thumper, and you can love me or hate me, or just plain ignore me, the choice is up to you. But if you, and the LGBT community at large, is going to continue to actively seek to redefine foundational elements of our heritage, our law and our culture, please be prepared for to speak out against those redefinitions. If you want to argue passionately for your beliefs, convictions and opinions, please respect my right to do the same thing. If you want to ignore the Scripture, please respect my desire to embrace it. You just cannot have it both ways.

Oh, and one last thing, for Piers Morgan and anyone else…if you ask a question, have the decency to respect the other person’s answer even if it is one with which you completely disagree. Isn’t that actually what freedom of speech is all about?

Taking a Stand

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Actor and former teen-heart throb Kirk Cameron has been in the news a lot lately, and most of it has been in the form of attacks on Cameron for his stand on the issue of homosexuality.

Cameron has a new documentary, Monumental: In Search of America’s National Treasure, in which Cameron addresses the founding of America and the decline of the nation, which he directly attributes to a turning away from those founding principles. I have not seen the film, so I am going by what I have read about it in articles and reviews. Apparently, though, the film has nothing to do with those issues for which he has been in the news, and according to Cameron himself, “never alludes to such hot-button topics.” The controversy stems from Cameron’s appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight in early March.

Morgan asked Cameron about homosexuality, abortion and other so-called social issues during the interview rather than talking much about the documentary. Morgan’s approach, in my opinion, was a result of Rick Santorum’s prominence in the GOP presidential race at the time and his focus on such issues, combined with the general tendency of the liberal media to seek out opportunities to attack Christian beliefs that are consistent with Scripture.

When asked about homosexuality, Cameron told Morgan, that homosexuality is “unnatural” and that it is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” That should not come as any surprise to anyone who (1) is familiar with biblical teaching, or (2) expects a Christian to stand by his beliefs. Cameron made the point in the aftermath of the interview and resulting frenzy that there should have been nothing surprising about his answers. Rather, he said, “the only thing that would have been surprising is if I had not answered the way I did. That would have been more newsworthy than what I said” (WORLD, April 7, 2012, p. 61).

Initially Morgan said that Cameron had been “brave” and “honest to what he believed,” according to the Huffington Post. But when Cameron expressed during an interview on FOX that he was blindsided by Morgan’s questions since he had been told that the interview would be about his new documentary, Morgan took offense and retaliated through Twitter, tweeting that Cameron was “moaning” and “whining” and accusing Morgan of “stitching him up” on the issue. One tweet said, “So I’ll let others decide if he was stitched up…or just a bigot.” That was followed by Morgan’s final tweet on the issue: “I respect his religious beliefs – just don’t respect his use of bigoted, inflammatory language re homosexuality.”

Hmmmm… Let’s see. There seems to be a contradiction there somewhere. Piers Morgan respects Kirk Cameron for speaking out for his religious beliefs, and for staying true to them, but he thinks that in so doing Cameron was bigoted and inflammatory? I don’t see how it could be both ways. After all, there is not really any less-direct or less-offensive way to say what Cameron said, is there? I suppose he could have simply said that he believes it is a sin and left it at that, but that would not really change the message. And I think that it is relevant to point out that Cameron did not launch into an attack on homosexuals or use the platform of Morgan’s international audience to advance his convictions; he merely answered Morgan’s question.

What we have here is yet another prime example of the intolerance of those who so loudly preach tolerance. Apparently tolerance means tolerating just about any position, belief or idea other than those held by Christians and taught by the Bible. After all, there were no loud cries of inflammatory language against those who spoke out against Cameron after his interview. Herndon Graddick, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said that Cameron’s comments cause “gay youth and victims of bullying” to “truly suffer,” and said that Cameron said that homosexuals were detrimental to civilization. (What he said, of course, is that homosexual behavior is detrimental to civilization). Roseanne Barr went much further, tweeting, “Kirk or Kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” GLAAD launched a petition called, “Tell Kirk Cameron It’s Time to Finally Grow Up.” Notice the implication–having a conviction that is contrary to what the media or the noisy masses say is okay is considered juvenile and immature.

This issue also serves to highlight the growing tendency of liberal churches and liberal Christians (and I do not mean “liberal” in the left-wing political sense) to compromise on, and even ignore, biblical teaching. Entire denominations have, of course, now sanctioned homosexual marriage and allow homosexual clergy. Outspoken individuals professing to be Christians are lauded for saying that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that God created homosexuals that way. The problem is, the Bible clearly does not teach that. Why would our culture embrace those who claim to believe something and then deny part of what it is that they claim to believe? It is easy-believism. Believe the parts we like, leave out the parts we don’t. That way we can feel good about ourselves and still do what makes us feel good.

A case in point, unfortunately, is actress and singer Kristen Chenoweth. She is a professing Christian, but is also a support of gay and lesbian rights, and she says there is no contradiction between those two things. How does she explain that? By claiming that homosexuality is not a choice, but is actually how God makes some people. “If it was a sin to be short, what would I do? Well I’d be right on the hell bus,” she has said (Chenoweth stands 4’11”). “I don’t believe God makes mistakes, and that includes a person’s sexuality.” I have addressed this issue in previous posts so I will not elaborate other than to point out again that there is a definite and important difference between physical attributes over which people have no choice and they cannot change (height or race, for example) and behaviors over which people do have a choice, even if you believe they were born with a predisposition toward such behavior.

Here is a comment from Chenoweth, posted on Flordia Agenda’s web site (Florida Agenda is an LGBT newspaper): “Even as a young child, I thought, ‘Why is being gay bad?’ I didn’t understand it. So I asked my grandma, who is the best Christian I ever knew. I’d say, ‘what about my friend Denny: he’s gay, is he going to hell?’ She told me, ‘I read the Bible like I eat fish. I take the meat that serves me well but I don’t choke on the bone.'”

The problem is, the hard teachings of Scripture, those that are contrary to what we may like or want them to say, are not bones in the sense that Chenoweth’s grandmother used that analogy. Fish bones are not intended to be eaten. The Scripture, however, is intended to be read and understood–eaten and digested, if you will–in it’s entirety. Not just the parts that taste good.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” That little three-letter word at the beginning makes all the difference. Not some…but ALL.