Category: Biblical Worldview

Are you kidding me?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Ever see or hear one of those stories that just makes you say, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” Well, I saw one like that yesterday. A lady by the name of Sabine Moreau, age 67, left her home in Erquelinnes, Belgium to go to Brussels to pick up a friend from the train station. That should have been a 93-mile trip, one-way. However, Ms. Moreau either entered erroneous information in her GPS or has a faulty device–and chose to follow its directions anyway, despite what should have been recognized relatively quickly as an obvious problem. How serious was the error? Rather then heading generally north, Moreau traveled south east for some 900 miles, finally realizing something was amiss when she ended up in Zagreb, Croatia. By that time Moreau had been in five different countries (besides Belgium), passing through parts of France, Germany, Austria, and Slovenia before crossing into Croatia.

Along the way she stopped for gas twice, was in a minor traffic accident, and even stopped to sleep for a while. I do not want to be too judgmental, but it would seem that something more may be wrong with Moreau than an over-dependence on her GPS. After all, to put this in context for those of you who live near me geographically, Moreau’s trip would be akin to me setting off for Gettysburg (SD) and finally realizing something wasn’t quite right when I hit Dallas, Texas. When Moreau figured out was going on and called home she discovered that her family had filed a missing person report, and police were about to start searching for her!

As I pondered the silliness of this story I was reminded of a few things. First, technology–no matter how good it is–is only as good as the one operating it. This is an important thing to keep in mind as we become more and more dependent on the every-multiplying number of technological conveniences around us.

Second, as ridiculous as it seems to think that someone can go 900 miles in the wrong direction without realizing it, we have a tendency to do the same thing spiritually. Moreau had to have passed hundreds of road signs on her way to Zagreb, and almost any one of them should have clued her in to the error of her ways. She either had absolutely no understanding of her surroundings and of basic geography, or she was oblivious to the signs around her, ignoring the direction that was plenty clear.

Romans 1:19-23 (ESV) says:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

God has provided plenty of signs for us. There is really no way Moreau can claim to have had no idea that she had passed through five countries going in almost the opposite direction of where she should have gone, almost ten times further than she should have gone. Given the signs that abounded along her route, the only possible explanation is stupidity (which I define as refusing to use the intelligence you have). Quite frankly, Moreau became futile in her thinking (if she was thinking) and she became a fool. At the end of the day, though, it just makes an interesting (if ridiculous) story.

So many of us, however, are ignoring the signs that God has placed around us. God has clearly and plainly revealed Himself to us, and when we fail to see the signs that is our fault, not His. When we ignore the signs, that is our fault, not His. We are without excuse. And while we think we may be wise, we are really fools. Stupid fools. At the end of that journey, though, there will be something much worse than an embarrassing story…and I’m not kidding.

Costly Christianity

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This past Wednesday the students, faculty and staff of the school where I serve spent time learning about persecuted Christians around the world. Students met together in the chapel and watched a couple of short videos, including one that tells the story of a man persecuted and imprisoned in Laos. (You can find plenty of videos about persecuted believers on YouTube). Afterwards the students went by ones and twos to different homes on campus where the groups talked about a specific country where Christians are persecuted and spent time in prayer. We made everything as much like it was a secret church meeting as possible–we had “police” out to interrogate students found walking outside, secret knocks were used to gain entrance to the homes, and meetings were held quietly and in the dark.

It was tremendously enlightening for me to learn about the persecution faced by Christians in Eritrea…a country I had heard of but knew almost nothing about.

There is no way to artificially create a setting that will feel exactly like Christians around the world feel when they literally risk their lives to own a Bible, share the gospel, or gather together in prayer. As I sat in my home awaiting the students in my group, however, I was struck by the thought that I have been going to church my whole life, and I have never felt afraid to do so. There are probably a couple dozen Bibles in my house. And while I have not been as bold as I should be in my testimony most of the time, I have never felt that my life would be in danger for sharing the gospel.

That caused me to ask the famous two-word question, “What if?” What if I did live in an environment where those dangers existed? What if I did put myself and my family at risk by owning a Bible or professing Christ? Would I be willing to do it? Would I knowingly risk imprisonment and torture to possess even a page of the Bible?

The sad truth is, I don’t know. I hope I would…but I think it would be arrogant to say with absolute certainty that I would. I am blessed to live in a country where I can own Bibles–as many as I want–attend church as often as I want, pray openly, and tell others about Christ. I must be very careful, though, not to let the freedoms that I have become an excuse for casual Christianity. My faith does not cost me anything, but I must never forget that it cost God His Son, and I need to remember in prayer those who have given their lives in His service, and those who are still risking their lives for Him today.

Thank you, Lord, for the freedoms I have. Help me not to take them for granted. Instead, help me to capitalize on that freedom and be a bold witness for You, salt and light in my sphere of influence. Help me to remember the men and women who are in prison right now for naming the name of Christ, and thousands more who live in constant danger because of their faith. Give me the courage that they have, Lord, the courage to live a life shaped by costly Christianity. Amen.

An Atheist Chaplain

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Stanford University, that veritable institution of higher education in California, has recognized an atheist chaplain. John Figdor, the “chaplain,” is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, and while he is officially employed by Stanford’s Humanist Community, the university has recognized him as a chaplain under the school’s Office of Religious Life.

Figdor was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as explaining that “atheist, agnostic and humanist students suffer the same problems as religious students–deaths or illnesses on the family, questions about the meaning of life, etc.–and would like a sympathetic nontheist to talk to.” Ignoring the fact that there was probably no shortage of “nontheists” around Stanford before Figdor arrived, I wonder what Figdor tells these students? When someone is struggling to make sense of an unexpected death or a serious illness or some tragedy that occurs, how could you even attempt to explain it or offer hope through it with the backdrop of “there is no God”? I cannot imagine trying…and I cannot much encouragement is readily forthcoming in that setting.

Among Figdor’s recent projects? Leading students through what he called “The Heathen’s Guide to the Holidays,” which included such heartwarming and inspirational suggestions as singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” and celebrating “Festivus,” the holiday “for the rest of us” made famous on the hit television sitcom Seinfeld.

The San Francisco Chronicle described Figdor as “one of a growing number of faith-free chaplains at universities, in the military and in the community who believe that nonbelievers can benefit from just about everything religion offers except God.” The article quoted Figdor describing his vision for “creat[ing] a vibrant, humanist community here in Silicon Valley, where people can find babysitters for their kids and young people can meet each other.” That sounds like a social club…and there are plenty of those around. So what moves Figdor to the level of chaplain? Figdor says, “we emphasize the values of compassion and empathy alongside reason and science. Humanism is about using science and technology to solve human problems. But it’s also the belief that we should ask if something will create suffering or ameliorate it.” He also stated that it is not necessary to believe in a supreme being in order to be a moral person. Of course, without a supreme being and any absolute right and wrong, “morality” is an ever-changing target, fluctuating with the whims, opinions, habits and desires of the individual–because if there is supreme being and no absolute, you cannot tell me if my behavior is moral or not. You can try, but if I deny your standard, what can you do about it? Nothing. The perk for me is then I get to accuse you of trying to force your morality on me…and in this instance it really would be your morality, since it is based purely on what you think, want and prefer.

I am poking a bit of fun at Figdor and at Stanford and at the idea of an atheist chaplain, of course, but in reality this story serves to illustrate the reality that so many in our country have tried so vehemently to deny, and that is that there is no such thing as religious neutrality. Atheism is just as much a “religion” as is evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.

And why does that matter? It matters because, despite what American United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union and black-robe-wearing judges across the land have tried to assert for decades now, when the government tries to ban “religion” from the public sphere it is in fact violating the Constitution, the First Amendment of which begins with this statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” So as laughable as the idea of an atheist chaplain seems at face value, Stanford is right…atheism is a religion. Perhaps Mr. Figdor and his brothers and sisters in the atheist and humanist chaplaincy can convince the rest of the country of that fact, and then we can begin to reverse the tide we have been on since the 1960s. If they can accomplish that I will be perfectly happy to recognize atheist chaplains…even if their greatest accomplishment to date might be a good deal on movie tickets.

Stanford graduate student Armand Rundquist is the president of AHA!, the campus group of atheists, humanists and agnostics, and the Chronicle quoted him saying that many atheists at the school were not interested in having a chaplain…until they realized the potential perks. Said Rundquist, “He got us some discount tickets to the atheist film festival in San Francisco.”

Funny; Figdor failed to mention that among the problems both believing and unbelieving students share is overpriced movie tickets….

Shameful, Part 2

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Apparently the story that prompted yesterday’s post is not a hoax. In fact, it is so legit that the server who posted the picture of the receipt that sparked it all was fired after the pastor complained. You can find this story just as easily as you can find the original one with a few key strokes and a search engine. But, in Joe Friday fashion, here’s the facts:

* The pastor is Alois Bell, a pastor at Truth in the World Deliverance Ministries Church.

* The restaurant in question was an Applebee’s.

* The originally-posted picture of the receipt did not redact or in any way obscure Bell’s signature (which is no doubt what led to the firing, since it violated her privacy).

* Bell complained to the manager at the Applebee’s where the incident occurred, leading to the firing of Chelsea Welch, the waitress who posted the original photo.

* Bell told The Smoking Gun, “My heart is really broken. I’ve brought embarrassment to my church and ministry.”

Indeed you have, Pastor Bell. I suspect I am one of thousands, if not millions, of people who looked up Truth in the World Deliverance Ministries Church to see if I could find the church’s web site. I did not find one; I did find a church in Michigan with the same name, but I do not know there there is any relationship between the two, as Bell’s church is in the St. Louis area. I did find a YouTube video of Bell preaching, and that will no doubt get thousands of hits. Unfortunately, not for any good reason; in fact, the negative and judgmental comments are already piling up in the video’s comments section.

Scripture makes it clear that we are to be careful in judging others, lest we too be judged, and I want to be careful that I am not judging Bell in a holier-than-thou manner. After all, I have made plenty of mistakes, and will no doubt make plenty more. There have surely been times when my actions have not brought honor to the Lord. And I am sure that Bell is embarrassed. Sadly, as we all know, we humans are sometimes more sorry that we got caught or called out than we are sorry for what we did. And though I don’t know Alois Bell, I cannot help but think that she would not have given her receipt comment a second thought if it had not gone viral on the world wide web.

So what can we learn from all this? I think James 1:19 is relevant: “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.” Bell did not speak, she wrote, but the principle is the same. When we are irritated or frustrated or aggravated…those are the times that it is more important than ever to slow down before we open our mouths, pick up our pens (or sit down at our keyboards…).

I have not taken the time to read every article that pops up when this story is searched, so I do not know if Bell has said anything more than that she is embarrassed. If she has not, though, then her statement is lacking. Yes, she surely has brought embarrassment to her church and to her ministry, but that is not even close to being the most important thing. Most import is that she brought embarrassment on the Lord. To paraphrase what David said in Psalm 51, Alois Bell needs to acknowledge that it is against God that she has sinned; that is far more important than anything else. She has embarrassed her church, she has damaged her ministry, but she has sinned against God. She misused His Word in an effort to justify skimping on a gratuity, and that violates 2 Timothy 2:15:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Alois Bell identified herself as a pastor, but she now has reason to be ashamed, because she did not rightly handle the Word of God. I hope and pray that she is ashamed more than embarrassed, and that she asks God for forgiveness and can learn from this experience. She needs to apply His word much more carefully, and to bring honor to the Lord, not shame.

Shameful

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

There is a story making its rounds on the Internet these days about someone claiming to be a pastor using a “theological argument” to protest paying an automatic 18% gratuity. If you haven’t seen the story, you can Google it; it won’t be hard to find. But here is the bottom line: a customer at a restaurant in the St. Louis area write a note on his receipt, that included the 18% automatic gratuity, “I give God 10% why do you get 18” and then signed his name “Pastor [redacted].”

Not that it necessarily matters, but when I first saw the receipt (yep, the stories include pictures of it) I wondered why there was an automatic gratuity since the total was only $34.93–not exactly a huge bill, and not a total that would usually trigger the automatic gratuity policy. Upon reading the story, though, I learned that the pastor was a part of a large group that accumulated a bill exceeding $200. Apparently the pastor asked to have the charges broken down in order to avoid paying the automatic gratuity.

I have several problems with this incident, if it did happen. (After all, as Becket Adams points out on The Blaze, it could be a hoax “designed to stoke some sort of anti-Christian sentiment.”

First of all, as Adams also correctly points out, the automatic gratuity policy is not the decision of or the fault of the waitress who served the party in question. Not only is it pretty standard for restaurants to charge an automatic gratuity for large parties, the menu at the restaurant where this incident occurred clearly states that gratuities of 18% are automatically added for parties of eight or more. So either the pastor read it and figured he could get around it after enjoying his meal (shameful) or did not read it and did not like it when he found out (lazy). Furthermore, the automatic gratuity for large parties is, as I said, pretty standard, so I cannot believe this individual was truly surprised even if he did not read it.

Second, the argument scrawled by this pastor does not hold water. Many people–quite possibly this pastor included–spend more than 10% of their income on a variety of things, most notably car payments and mortgage payments. Too, the idea of a 10% tithe applies to one’s entire income, not to percentages on any given purchase. The restaurant did ask the man to pay 18% of his monthly paycheck as a tip.

Third, the argument is not even biblical. In Luke 10:7 Jesus Himself tells His disciples, “the laborer deserves his wages.” In I Timothy 5:18b Paul quotes Jesus, writing, “The laborer deserves his wages.” The waitress in the incident in question deserves her wages, too. And let us not forget that gratuities are part of those wages. Restaurant wait staff are exempted from minimum wage laws; the per-hour pay they receive from restaurants is quite low. But they compensate for that through providing good service and earning tips. So this alleged pastor is not only using Scripture out of context in his note, he is ignoring Scripture that speaks very clearly to the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, this idea is not new and is not rare. Whether this incident really happened or not, I have heard for years–and you probably have too–that wait staff will consistently say that Sunday afternoons is when they get the worse tips. And who is often eating at restaurants on Sunday afternoons? The folks who just left church. (Even worse, the professing Christians are not only among the worst tippers, they also tend to be among the most rude). What kind of testimony is that? According to the server at the restaurant in the story that prompted this post, “They had no problem with my service, and told me I was great. They just didn’t want to pay when the time came.” Shameful…and damaging to the cause of Christ. If we’re going to bring God into an argument, as this individual clearly did when he included “Pastor” with his signature, it better be to bring praise and honor to Him, not to misquote Him for our own ends and bring scorn and mocking on Him.

When the server shared this story originally on Reddit she included this caption with the photo: “My mistake sir, I’m sure Jesus will pay for my rent and groceries.” Yes, her irritation is evident in her statement, but she is also right. If I am going to avail myself of the service provided at a restaurant where someone serves me, I ought to compensate the wait staff appropriately. Not only is it polite, it is literally the server pays his or her bills. If I don’t like it, I can always eat at home or go to any fast food restaurant where I pick up my meal at the counter.

Over the years my wife has developed a fondness of sorts for watching my tipping habits. She can tell if I am unhappy with some part of the service, and she will sometimes even say, “the tip just went down, didn’t it?” Usually she’s right on, too! But there is also another truth in that statement–notice she says, “it went down.” That implies that it had already been “up.” Fifteen percent is a standard rule-of-thumb for a gratuity for restaurant servers, and that should be what we expect to add to the bill when we have finished dining. I do not think lowering that is wrong if the service is lousy; after all, a grumpy or incompetent server is not “worthy of his wage.” But there is also nothing that says fifteen percent cannot be increased. The other part of the guess-the-tip game my wife likes to play stems from the fact that she sometimes thinks I tip too much. I’ve never given anyone a life-changing tip, but I have been known to tip well above fifteen percent when the service is outstanding. Nothing wrong with that, either.

So, remember…when you dine out someplace where someone serves you, expect to compensate them accordingly. And please, do me a favor…if you just can’t do that, and you happen to be a Christian, please keep it to yourself.

Worse than murder?

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

A judge in Bucks County, Pennsylvania has sentenced a man to 494 to 982 years in prison for molesting children between the ages of 4 and 17 over a thirteen year period. Apparently he was initially arrested for tattooing a 15-year-old girl in exchange for sex, and the subsequent investigation led authorities to other victims. In all, he was convicted of 170 counts.

Now, I want to say right off that I find child molestation and abuse to be reprehensible, and I am absolutely in favor of severe punishments for such crimes. There is simply no excuse for adults preying on defenseless children.

At the same time, I cannot help but wonder what the point is in sentencing someone to hundreds of years–potentially almost a thousand years–in prison. Unless this individual is going to be the next Methuselah, he obviously is not going to serve even a small portion of that sentence.

I remember a similar situation years ago…probably almost twenty years ago…when a ridiculously long sentence was handed down in a similar conviction. I remember commenting on it to someone, who responded, “He would have been better off killing her.” Now, that sounds harsh, but it’s true. There are murder convictions every day that result in sentences that will allow the guilty to leave prison with years left to live. Sure, there are life sentences and even death sentences, but they are the exception, not the rule.

That leads to a question that I am not sure I know the answer to: is there such thing as a crime worse than murder? Is it possible to do something to someone that is worse than killing them? Can some offenses more seriously damage someone, physically or emotionally, than taking their life? As I said, I just do not know.

Scripture talks about “an eye for an eye.” And while some have taken that as a excuse for retribution, and some have even twisted its meaning by employing the line “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.” That is not the intention of that Old Testament teaching, however. “An eye for an eye” was intended to prevent retaliation and excessive punishment, not to encourage or sanction it. Tribes in the Old Testament would usually take the same attitude toward wrongs done to one of their own as gangs do today–which is generally summed up in this statement: “if you put one of ours in the hospital, we will put one of yours in the morgue.” In order to prevent that kind of vigilante justice, the Old Testament provided guidelines to ensure that the punishment would fit the crime. Thus, “an eye for an eye,” not “an eye for a tooth.”

There is considerable debate about what the purpose of incarceration is, and that is beyond the scope, really, of what I wanted to think about here today. (Perhaps I will explore that another time). And I am not wondering about the legitimacy of a 450-950 year sentence; I think it is absurd. I see no point in handing down a sentence that cannot possibly be served; why not just sentence him to the rest of his natural life in prison? Delivering a sentence that cannot possibly be served as given makes about as much sense as a teacher threatening a student with a consequence he or she cannot possibly carry out. What I just do not know is whether some crimes may be “worse” than murder and therefore justify a sentence equal to or harsher than those handed down for murder.

Monuments

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I’m back! It has been a hiatus of nearly a month since I posted last, which is hard for me to believe. I took some time off and did some traveling around Christmas, and though I thought perhaps I would blog some during that time I never did. And even though I have intended to do so several times since, it seems as though something else always came up. But, I am back, determined I was definitely going to post today, and hopefully I will get back into a routine of posting a few times a week.

While I was traveling my wife and I took our children into Washington, D.C. I grew up just a few miles outside the city, and as someone who loves politics and U.S. history I have always loved much of what Washington, D.C. has to over. My children enjoyed it too, for the most part, though they did grow tired of all the walking as we tried to cram as much as we could into the few hours we were there.

While we did spend some time in three of the museums that are part of the Smithsonian Institution, we also saw several of the most recognizable monuments in the city: the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial and the World War II Memorial. Visiting these monuments provided me with an opportunity to tell my children about why the monuments had been erected, and about the people and events they were there to remember and honor. That, of course, is exactly why the monuments are there.

Of course, monuments are not unique to Washington, D.C. or even to America. In fact, monuments are described in the Bible. Numerous times the Scriptures record God instructing the nation of Israel to erect monuments–usually in the form of piles of stones–to commemorate a specific event, a specific way in which God had intervened and met the needs of the nation in a supernatural way. One of the best examples is contained in Joshua 4:1-3, which reads:

When all the nation had finished passing over the Jordan, the Lord said to Joshua, “Take twelve men from the people, from each tribe a man, and command them, saying, ‘Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly, and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.’”

However, God’s instructions included more than the erection of the monument. He went on, explaining that the purpose of the stones was this:

“[T]hat this may be a sign among you. When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever.” (vv 6-7)

Joshua elaborated on this instruction. When the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan River and the stones had been erected, Joshua said to the people:

“When your children ask their fathers in times to come, ‘What do these stones mean?’ then you shall let your children know, ‘Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.’ For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.” (vv 21-24)

So, just like I can take my children to look at the Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial and use those to teach my children about the lives of those great men and the impact that they had on the shaping and survival of our country, or we can look at the World war II Memorial and I can talk to them about my grandfather’s service in the U.S. Army during that war, or the many men and women who served to defend our country and to defeat the Axis powers, so too the Israelites could show their children the pile of stones near the Jordan River and tell them about the miracle that God had done of stopping the waters to allow them to pass over on dry ground.

Looking at the monuments in Washington reminded me of the biblical instructions, and also reminded me of a song written several years ago by Bev Lowry (perhaps most well-known as the mother of Christian comedian Mark Lowry). Her song, entitled “Monuments,” includes this chorus:

Where are the monuments we should be leaving
so our children can find the way to get home?
We should be laying stones so they can follow
the pathway that leads to God’s throne.

That’s a powerful and thought-provoking question and reminder. While it is true that I have never seen God part the waters or seen manna provided from heaven, I have seen and experienced God do amazing things in my life and in the lives of the members of our family. Am I taking care to teach God’s provision to my children? Am I reminding them of all that God has done for me? For them? Probably not nearly as well as I should be. I think it may be time to build some monuments….

Most Desirable

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

The online men’s magazine AskMen.com recently announced their list of Top 99 Most Desirable Women of 2012. In announcing the list, the site asks and then answers the question, “What does it really mean to be a desirable woman?” Their answer? “Is it solely about a pretty face or a career accomplishment? Is it about having perfect proportions or about being ‘wife material’? You answered these questions by voting in our annual Top 99. And judging from your responses and those of our staff, one thing is clear: Desirability isn’t any one of these things, but all of them. You chose women who represent the complete package of beauty, brains, ambition and charm. And we think you chose wisely.”

So, according to the 2 million-plus votes submitted to the site, which has a motto of “Become a Better Man” and features such important content areas as “The Guy’s Guide to Romance,” “From the Bar to the Bedroom,” and “The Style Bible,” who are these most desirable of all women?

Some of them I have never heard of, though that does not really surprise me since my interaction with so-called popular culture is not as extensive as many of the readers of AskMen, I am sure (and that doesn’t trouble me in the least!). In checking it out, I worked my way up the list. So number 99, for instance, is Bérénice Marlohe. Apparently I am not to be troubled by not knowing her, though, as the site’s description says, “While your average Joe probably doesn’t know all that much about this French beauty, he will before long.” Reading further, I learn that Ms. Marlohe was the latest in the long line of Bond girls in this year’s James Bond film, Skyfall. So, given the attention and popularity that has been granted so many Bond girls of the past, and the obvious focus the film series places on sex appeal, perhaps I should be encouraged that this newest member of that growing-but-exclusive club is the final entry on the list. Could that mean that the majority of the respondents to this survey truly did look beyond the physical in casting their votes? I would soon see…

Right away I was encouraged, because Kim Kardashian checked in at number 98. When someone as ubiquitous in the celebrity-worshipping culture as she is was next-to-last on the list, there really might be hope, I thought.

Unfortunately, the list does not continue to encourage me. Checking in at number 92 is Paulina Gretzky, daughter of NHL legend Wayne Gretzky. I had never heard of her, either, but the description posted with her entry says that she has proven to be “a prolific poster of provocative pictures on both Twitter and Instagram,” and after mentioning that her father has complained about her photos, the site says “we sure won’t,” before ending her entry with this statement: “This year, she’ll continue to be one of the best arguments for social media, Daddy’s dignity be damned.” Not only is such a statement disrespectful to the opinion of a father (who has every right to “complain”), it clearly emphasizes an appreciation for this young woman’s willingness to show off her body. The site’s description states that Ms. Gretzky gained her following by being “crazy hot and proud of it.” While we are still in the nineties, my hope that the poll would support women famous and “desirable” for more than showing skin is dwindling at this point…

By the time I reached number 85 and read the description for Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (whom I had also never heard of) I was afraid to go on. A Russian, this young lady, according to the short description, is an inmate in a Russian prison, was part of punk band with a name I will not even include here, and “participated in a public orgy” to protest the election of Dmitry Medvedev in 2008. If this is even close to desirable we are in real trouble.

Deciding it had to get better, I decided to venture on. Remember, I am less than one-fifth of my way through the list at this point.

I found more of the same. Cassie, the entry at number 77, is apparently known as a recording artist, model, dancer and actress, and for a “love affair with P. Diddy” and “jawdropping topless photos.” Sherlyn Chopra, number 63, “became the first Indian model to ever appear nude on the cover of Playboy magazine” in 2012. If these are most notable accomplishments the magazine could produce when giving a brief bio of these women how could they seriously suggest that this is a list of women that “represent the complete package of beauty, brains, ambition and charm”? The emphasis is overwhelmingly on “beauty,” though I feel I must set that apart in quotation marks since the true emphasis seems to be on women willing to show off their bodies, not necessarily on “beauty.”

That kind of focus seems to be the trend of the majority of the list, and certainly seems to be the focus of the editors of AskMen. Even those women on the list who are famous for reasons not involving taking off their clothes or splashing revealing pictures all over cyberspace are almost always depicted in the most revealing or suggestive photo the site could likely find. There were two notable exceptions, and at least the site had the decency to avoid overly suggestive photos or comments in those instances (which will be revealed below) but one need not “AskMen” to figure out where the attention was focused.

There were a couple of encouraging things about the list. First, the list includes women from a variety of fields… Plenty are actresses. Some are athletes (tennis player Ana Ivanovic is number 96; Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn is 73; Olympic javelin thrower Leryn Franco is 64; Antonija Misura, 53, is a basketball player; Lolo Jones, 41, is an Olympic hurtler; Hope Solo, 30, is an Olympic soccer player; and Michelle Jenneke, number 10, is a hurtler). Some are models (Kate Moss is 95; Bar Paly is 87; Liu Wen is 82; Joan Smalls is 78; Doutzen Kroes is 55) or musicians/singers (Iggy Azalea, 81; Carly Rae Jepsen, 75; Solange Knowles is 50; Beyoncé is 32; Katy Perry is 21; and British pop star Cheryl Cole is 16). One, Marcela Valladolid (number 60) is a chef and another one, Marissa Mayer, is the CEO of Yahoo!. Ronda Rousey (43) is a mixed martial artist and Olympian, and Sara Carbonera (37) is a sports reporter. First Lady Michelle Obama is number 33, and Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, is number 25. These last two are the list-makers that the site was decent enough not to turn into sex objects, though they did deem it necessary to mention the topless photos that appeared during the year of the Duchess.

There are as well a variety of nationalities on the list (see Marlohe and Marion Cotillard [39] both French; Ivanovic [Serbian]; Amrita Acharia [94, Nepalese]; Rocsi [91, Honduran]; Paly and Bar Refaeli [62] are both Israeli, and actress Natalie Portman [48] is a dual Israeli-American citizen; Imogen Poots [86], Keira Knightley [52], Rosie Huntington-Whitely [31], and Emma Watson [29] are all British, as is Middleton, of course, and Cheryl Cole [16] and Emilia Clarke [15]; Liu Wen [Chinese]; Azalea, Jenneke, and Miranda Kerr [6] are Australian; Tracy Spiridakos [79] and Cobie Smulders [64] are both Canadian; Smalls [Puerto Rican]; Bipasha Basu [67] and Chopra [63] are both Indian; Morena Baccarin [66], Alessandra Ambrosio [40], and Adriana Lima [27] are Brazilian; Leryn Franco [Paraguayan]; Kroes and Freja Beha Erichsen [28] are both Dutch; Misura [Croatian]; Sofia Vergara [12, Colombian]; Candice Swanepoel [11, South African]; and number 2, Mila Kunis, was born in Ukraine).

It was nice to see an age range, too–Jenneke is only 19, several entries are barely out of their teens, with Selena Gomez (56) the second-youngest by my reckoning at 20, while Mayer and Christina Hendricks [14] are 37, Heidi Klum (61) is “pushing 40,” Vergara is 40, Tina Fey, (80) and Rachel Weisz (72) are both 42, and Lucy Liu (69) is 44. The First Lady is 48 years old.

The emphasis AskMen has is revealed in many of the comments provided in the descriptions of the 99 women. The description for Antonija Misura, for example, says, “Antonija Misura is a women’s basketball player you absolutely have to see. Just to clarify, you don’t actually need to see her play (she only averaged 3.3 points per game for Croatia in the 2012 London Olympics); rather, you just need to see her because she’s one of the hottest women to ever play the sport.” Their focus for Jenneke? “Dressed in the smallest two-piece tracksuit available, Jenneke bounced and danced, swaying her hips and swinging her hair like a total coquette. She finished first, winning a gold medal for her race but also for the sexiest warmup of all time.” That was their description of her performance at the World Junior Championships…and a young woman who is only 19 years old!

The number 84 entry “made waves when she revealed her bisexuality” and number 49 is “openly bisexual.” I cannot help but wonder how in the world these things would make one “desirable.”

So, after all that, who was number one? Jennifer Lawrence, the actress who starred in The Hunger Games.

So what is point in exploring all of that? There are a few points, actually. One is at least potentially positive, and that is that the list clearly reveals how small current technology has made the world. I cannot help but think that if such a list had been generated twenty years ago there is no way there would have been women from nearly twenty countries included. However, I said “potentially positive” because if we are using this incredible technology just to objectify women from around the world, that is a problem.

Two, I have to ask whether or not it is even possible to “vote on” women in a poll like this without objectifying them. After all, of the two million-some votes that were cast, how many of those voting, if any, actually know any of these women? Can I or anyone else determine the desirability of someone I do not know by any other than the most superficial of means?

Third, shouldn’t there be something troubling about considering someone else’s wife as desirable? Many of the women in the poll are married. I cannot imagine many men would appreciate having their buddies come up and say, “Hey man, we think your wife is really desirable!” I suspect there would be a very serious conversation that followed such a comment, if not a fist fight. When I was in middle school I had a youth pastor who was also a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. One evening he and his wife were entering a fast food restaurant and some men in a truck in the drive through line whistled at her. He politely but in no uncertain terms told them to knock it off. Somehow their expression of her desirability did not strike him as complimentary or appropriate. (And the men in the truck were not willing to heed his warning, so they got out of the truck and started a fight. Given his background, my youth pastor dispatched them quickly).

Fourth, I was struck by the fact that there are either a lot of men who have warped concepts of “desirable” or else are more than willing to “enjoy” behavior from women not their wives or daughters that they would never condone or tolerate from them.

Having said all that, I have to point out that the Scripture also describes a desirable woman. Interestingly, the description in Proverbs has no similarity to the one on AskMen.com. The woman in Proverbs 31 is industrious, wise, physically fit, generous, a sharp and fashionable dresser, pleasant to be around… The same proverb addresses charm and beauty; the first is deceitful and the second is vain.

In the government class I teach we have been discussing recently the diminishing influence of biblical values in public life today. It would seem that AskMen has provided ample evidence of the diminishing influence of biblical values in social life, too. Unfortunately, many of the women on the list expresses appreciation for their inclusion. If only they could see that such activities serve only to diminish their professional accomplishments. There is nothing at all wrong with women being athletes, actresses, singers, models, business professionals or almost anything else. And there is nothing wrong with a woman who is any of those things also being physically attractive–or even with men noticing that she is physically attractive. But when her physical attractiveness becomes the sole focus of those around her, she is diminished. When we allow ourselves to not only let that be the sole focus, but to celebrate that we have done so, we are diminished.

Evidence Not Necessary

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Perhaps you saw the newscast or read about it online… Underwater explorer Robert Ballard, who found the Titanic, among other underwater finds, says he may have found evidence for Noah’s Ark and the biblical account of the flood. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, Ballard discussed his efforts in Turkey to find the ark, or at least evidence of the flood. Said Ballard, “We went in there to look for the flood. Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed… The land that went under stayed under.”

Finding the ark has been akin to the Holy Grail for many explorers for a long time, but no one has ever been able to find the ship, or any evidence of it. In the 1990s two geologists did find credible evidence that a flood had occurred in the Middle East about 7,500 years ago.

According to MSN.com, “Robert Ballard says he now supports a theory floated by two Columbia University scientists, which holds that the Black Sea was once a freshwater lake overrun thousands of years ago ‘by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea.’ Ballard found evidence of that inundation 400 feet below the surface of the modern-day Black Sea — an ancient shoreline. He now believes the ‘great flood’ may have taken place in 5,000 B.C.E.”

UK’s The Telegraph spins the story a bit, citing Ballard’s findings (which do not, to this point anyway, suggest a global flood, I should mention) before concluding with this statement: “As the theory goes, the story was then passed down over the years, with the story of Noah eventually forming.”

Therein lies the point I would like to make… If science does eventually find conclusive evidence that a flood occurred or finds evidence of the ark, that would be, for lack of a better word, neat, but will it really change any minds? Those who believe the Bible believe it in faith, not in scientific evidence, and those who do not believe it are likely to spin any evidence supporting Scripture by giving it some alternative explanation (like The Telegraph suggests).

Scripture makes it clear that the “wise men” of earth are not usually going to be the ones who will believe Scripture. Contrary to what might seem to make sense, these individuals are usually too smart for their own good, and they wind up “claiming to be wise” but in actuality are fools (Romans 1:22).

What is forgiveness?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Janie B. Cheaney’s column in the December 1, 2012 issue of WORLD accomplished something for me that few other journalistic offerings have accomplished in recent memory. Her piece, entitled “Bound by blood: The perils of forgiveness,” has not only provided a catalyst for this blog post, but also resulted in good discussions in the two classes I teach when I shared it with students, prompted a discussion with a colleague (after one of the students shared the discussion with him), and, probably most importantly, was actually thought provoking! So, while I disagree with Cheaney’s conclusion, I thank her for accomplishing what so few seem to be able to.

The backdrop of Cheaney’s editorial is the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other men at the U.S. embassy in Libya on September 11 of this year. The father of Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL who was a security guard at the embassy and was killed in the attack, appeared on Sean Hannity’s television show and extended forgiveness to those responsible for what many have come to see as an intelligence failure. Cheaney quotes Woods as saying, “I don’t know who [the responsible parties] are, but one of these days the truth will come out. I still forgive you, but you need to stand up.” According to Cheaney, Woods cited his Christian faith during the interview and as the reason why he was able to offer forgiveness, as did his daughters, who expressed their forgiveness in the same interview.

Interestingly, Cheaney uses this to address what she believes is a too-casual approach to forgiveness by many in the Christian community. At one point, she writes that those who she calls “vendors of blanket forgiveness” miss two important elements of forgiveness: “the involvement of the offender, and the Person who is ultimately offended.”

Cheaney provides a quick overview of her own look into the Scriptures to see what they have to say about forgiveness, and she concludes that “in no case is forgiveness offered without knowing who the perpetrator is, and Psalm 51:4 makes it clear that in every case the ultimate offended party is God.” She proceeds to ask about forgiving “unknown perpetrators” (like Woods did). The first problem, Cheaney says, is this: “I doubt it’s even possible to forgive someone who has not asked for it…. Forgiveness is not an initiative, but a response. Forgiveness on one side must be balanced by confession and repentance on the other….”

By way of agreement, let me say that I absolutely agree with Cheaney that God is always the One ultimately offended. Every sin is an offense to God. However, I just as absolutely disagree with her conclusion that an unknown person cannot be forgiven and that forgiveness requires someone asking for it before it can be granted. I disagree for several reasons. First, forgiveness is for the benefit of the one forgiving as much or even more than for the benefit of the one being forgiven. Cheaney alludes to this when she writes, “We can agree that to remain bitter and angry over unconfessed wrong isn’t healthy.” And she is right; if I am unwilling to forgive a wrong, I am most likely the one that will suffer. My refusal to forgive will hinder my relationship with the one who wronged me, but it will also hinder my relationship with the Lord and perhaps with others. But Cheaney doesn’t stop there. In fact, her very next sentence reads, “But forgiveness that wasn’t requested isn’t true.”

This statement–which is erroneous, in my opinion–leads to my second point. For all the examples that Cheaney does cite, she never mentions Luke 23:23, which reads, “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'” Jesus is hanging on the cross, and nowhere does the Scripture indicate that anyone standing there asked for forgiveness for crucifying Him, but He offers it anyway. In fact, far from seeking forgiveness, the next verse says that “the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him….” Scoffing is a far cry from repentance! Furthermore, Scripture is clear that God provided forgiveness for my sins–and yours–long before I ever asked for it. Romans 5:8 says, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Furthermore, in Colossians, Paul writes, in 3:13, “if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” God does not forgive with condition! Now, God’s forgiveness is completed when the sinner accepts it, by accepting the death of Christ on the cross, and in that regard human-to-human forgiveness is also completed when an offending party asks the offended party for forgiveness (and it is granted). But Christ offered the forgiveness long ago…long before I asked for it!

Another problem with Cheaney’s position is that it would prevent anyone from ever forgiving someone who is dead (or, due to impairment, incapable of asking for forgiveness). Suppose a drunk driver hits and kills someone. If the drunk driver also dies, or is put permanently into a coma, can the parents/siblings/spouse/children/friends of the one who was hit never forgive the drunk driver? Or take a different scenario… Suppose I was wronged by someone–recently or years ago, it doesn’t matter–but I have not yet forgiven the offender. Maybe because I accept Christ later, or am convicted of my need to forgive later, but if my desire to forgive does not come unless after the offender has passed away am I then unable to forgive? To take the inverse of Cheaney’s question, can forgiveness be granted if forgiveness is requested but not granted prior to death? There have been many deathbed requests for forgiveness. If someone makes the request but the offended party is not present to hear it, and does not learn of it until the offender has passed, is it too late? Or if the offender is present, but cannot bring him/herself to forgive until after the offender has passed, it it too late?

And why do I need to know the identity of the offender anyway? What does that add to the situation that will benefit me? I cannot think of anything. It will enable me to put a face on the offense, perhaps, but to suggest that I cannot forgive if I do not know the identity of the offender doesn’t seem to make sense. When someone backed into my car and left a big dent in the fender, then drove off without leaving any information, I am precluded from forgiving that person if I understand Cheaney’s argument. I am probably never going to know who did it, but why can I not forgive “whoever dented my car”? The offender will never receive my forgiveness–which is his or her loss–but I will have forgiven, and I will benefit as a result.

I was wronged in high school by someone who should have known better. He was an adult, he was in a leadership position, and he abused a trust and confidence that had been placed in him. He is well aware of what he did, but he never apologized or asked for my forgiveness. I doubt seriously he ever thinks of what he did now. I have not seen him in almost twenty years, and I do not expect our paths will ever again cross. If they do, I doubt he will ask my forgiveness. So I know the offense and I know my offender, but forgiveness has not been requested. According to Cheaney, then, I cannot forgive him.

She writes, “Setting aside revenge and looking to God for vindication are proper Christian responses (I Peter 2:23), but they aren’t the same as forgiveness, and it doesn’t help to confuse one for the other.” I agree that they are not the same, and I agree that I could surrender my claim to revenge without forgiving, but I do not see any biblical support for suggesting that is what I should do.

In her conclusion Cheaney writes that God “forgives on one basis only: the blood of His Son. Only then can He grant forgiveness, and only for those who ask.” I would suggest otherwise. I believe God has already granted the forgiveness. It was granted when Christ bled, died, and rose again. Hebrews 10:10 says, “…we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The payment was made, and the forgiveness was given. Only those who ask will receive God’s forgiveness–and those who do not ask will be separated from God for eternity–but offering and receiving are two different things. And it is my position that God offered forgiveness long before we asked, and we are called to offer forgiveness regardless of whether it is asked for. When it is asked for and received the process is complete, but we can only do our part.