Author: jbwatson

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

Making Church Uncomfortable

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Marriage

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now for some good news…

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re Slipping

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line…we’re already slipping.

Why Do I Care?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chopping Block

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

The Law of the Harvest

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Admired

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting the Minds of Impressionable Youth

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Most Important Quality

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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