Category: Biblical Worldview

“Complete absence of parental involvement”

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

I have not seen the movie The Perks of Being a Wallflower. All I know about it is what I read in Stephanie Perrault’s review in the September 22, 2012 issue of WORLD Magazine. Neither have I read the book on which the movie is based, a book that Perrault describes as “a series of letters to an imaginary friend, the book tells the story of introspective and slightly awkward Charlie as he starts high school and struggles to find friendship.”

According to Perrault, the book is one of the American Library Association’s most frequently challenged books of 2009–justifiably so, she says. According to her review of the film, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is “a morass of teenage drug use, sexual experimentation, homosexuality, suicide, and obscene language. It originally earned an R rating, but Chbosky [the filmmaker] and his associates at Lionsgate Motion Picture Group appealed the rating and got it down to PG-13, removing nothing from the original footage.”

This is alarming to me for several reasons. Taking the last part first, that a film can contain that kind of content and still get away with a PG-13 rating serves only to remind me that I seem to find more PG-13 movies objectionable in recent years than I do R-rated films. Not that I watch all that many of the trending movies (I think the last time I was in a theater was to see Russell Crowe’s version of Robin Hood in 2010), but when I see a preview on television, read a review in a magazine or online, or even watch the movies, I find that the PG-13 movies tend to be more blatantly sexual, crude, disrespectful of authority and all-around offensive than many of the R-rated ones.

According to IMDb.com, the film earned a 15A rating in Ireland (not appropriate for children under 15), and a NC-16 rating in Singapore (children under 16 not admitted). In the UK children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult to see the film, and in the Philippines the movie is strictly for children 13 and up. Also according to that site’s information about the film, “Sex is a big part of the story, and it’s implied (mildly for some) all characters encounter it at some point during the movie, without any actual scenes shown.” The main female character, Sam, has apparently been sexually active since age 11, when she was kissed by her dad’s boss. Furthermore, while Sam does not “randomly hook up” with people any more, when she was a freshmen she would get drunk and engage in sexual activity freely. A homosexual student gets another boy drunk so that they can have sex. And, “On their first date, Mary Elizabeth tries to get Charlie drunk for sex, giving him a bottle of wine, resting her head on his leg, and pulling down her dress, revealing her bra. This fails when her parents come home.”

And this story is set in the 1990s–nearly twenty years ago!

IMDb’s report goes on to include additional scenes of alcohol use, instances of violence and abuse, use of profanity, and more.

According to one of the “Super Reviewers” on rottentomatoes.com, KJ Proulx, this film earns five starts (out of a maximum five). He writes, “This is not a film, this is a presentation of real-life events that stole my heart from the very beginning.” The movie info describes it as a “modern classic,” and “a moving tale of love, loss, fear and hope-and the unforgettable friends that help us through life.”

Eighty-six percent of reviews cited on Rotten Tomatoes like the film, and a whopping 95% of the 14,579 users of the site who have rated it liked the movie.

I do not know which is more troubling…that a movie with this kind of content is so popular, or that the movie is supposed to be such an accurate and true-to-life depiction of teenage life. What does it say about our culture if we are not only allowing teenagers to grow up this way, but we then make movies about it?

In her review, though, Perrault goes on to say that the behaviors depicted in the film are “not the most disturbing part.” What’s worse than that? “[T]he complete absence of parental involvement in the young people’s lives.” The movie’s character Charlie, Perrault writes, comes from a “functional two-parent home” but his parents have absolutely no idea what is going on in his life, or in the lives of his friends.

In reading this, I am reminded of Koren Zailckas’s book Smashed. In her troubling memoir of growing up as a teenage alcoholic, I was troubled by this same thing. She was from a functional two-parent family, as well, and she even interacted with them, but they were completely clueless that she was drinking regularly, and dangerously, all throughout her high school years. I have had experience with parents like this, too. On a personal level, I have never forgotten going to the home of a girl I was quite fond of in high school, meeting her parents, and having them retreat immediately to their bedroom, not to be seen or heard of again the entire time I was there. Yes, they were physically present in the house, but they had no idea what was really going on. I have interacted with numerous parents, throughout my experience as a children’s home administrator and educator, who seem to pay attention to their children only when they need something from them. Otherwise, so long as the kids stay out of the way, it seems not to matter what they are doing.

Teenagers need adults in their lives who are actively involved. Being present is not enough. Teens who have not had this kind of interaction are usually looking for it. That is why they are drinking, abusing drugs, and engaging in sexual behavior, in most instances–because they are seeking an escape from the pain of their life and/or they are looking for a sense of belonging and value from anywhere/anyone they can get it.

If you have children, make sure you spend time with them–really with them. Talk to them, ask hard questions, get to know their friends. And if their friends are missing an involved adult, take advantage of the opportunities you might have to be involved in their lives, as well. And even if you do not have your own children, there are numerous ways in which caring adults can be involved in young people’s lives, from church youth groups to mentoring programs to youth league coaching, and many more. Find opportunities, and take advantage of them.

Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering?

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

The question above is one of the most frequently asked questions in the world, I think. Unbelievers ask it of believers, and believers ask it of other believers and of God Himself. It is not an easy question to answer, but there are some relevant biblical passages that I think help to understand.

I am indebted to John MacArthur, John Piper, Lee Strobel and others in developing my own understanding of how to handle this question.

The tragedy and suffering to which I am referring can fall into various categories, I think. Natural disasters and acts of human depravity are the ones we most often think of, and the ones of which this question is most often asked, I think, but the same question can be asked when bad things happen to good people or when wicked people seek to prosper (when good things happen to bad people, in other words). While my answer is aimed primarily at the first two, the principles are applicable to the second two.

Acts of human depravity prompt strong emotions. The resulting emotions are so strong, in fact, that in extreme instances people can remember exact details of where they were when they first heard of the tragedy. Those who were alive during the attack on Pearl Harbor never forgot that news. I can remember my mother telling me of her recollection of getting the news that President Kennedy had been assassinated. I, like many others, remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first learned of the events of 9/11. It is normal to try to make sense of these senseless acts of violence, and it can be difficult, at best, to try to reconcile these events with a belief that God is a loving and all-powerful God.

Before looking at Scripture in an effort to understand why such horrible acts of human depravity can occur if God is indeed a God of love, two background principles are important. First, Jesus Himself promised, in John 16:33, that we will have tribulations as long as we are on this earth. Second, in I Corinthians 13:12, Paul explains that right now, in our finite human minds, we can see only dimly–we know only in part. Like looking through a fog or gazing into a dirty mirror, we cannot get a high resolution image of why things occur. God has that perspective, and perhaps in eternity–if we still want to know–God will grant us that perspective, but we will never be able to grasp sharp, specific answers to any one natural disaster or act of depravity. As frustrating as that may be for me or for you, that’s simply “the way it is.” I do not know why God allowed Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans, or why God did not stop a young man from chaining doors shut to maximize the loss of life on the campus of Virginia Tech. Furthermore, I would approach with skepticism any person who claims to have a specific explanation for such tragedies. The reality is, we cannot fully know the mind of God in such instances.

But there is plenty that we can know, and I turn now to that.

First, God did not create evil and suffering. In Genesis 1:31 God said, after six days of creation, that the world He created was good. Accordingly, there was no evil or suffering at the end of creation; had there been, God could not have said everything was good. In I Corinthians 14:33 it says that God is not a God of confusion. Regardless of whatever else may occur in the aftermath of natural disasters or acts of mass violence, confusion always results. The panic, the screaming, the smoke and dust, the complete chaos… God does not, and cannot, author such things. I John 1:5 says that in God there is no darkness at all. Habakkuk 1:13 says that “God is of purer eyes than to approve evil or behold evil. He cannot look on wickedness.” And I John 2:16 says, “All that is in the world, all evil categorically, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life is not of the Father.”

However, God had to give human beings a free will in order to give humans the ability to love. Love, whatever else it is or however else it may be defined, is a choice, and without the ability and freedom to make a choice, humans could not love–one another, or God; for if love is a choice, “forced” or “programmed” love is not love at all.

So how did evil enter the world? First, recall that Lucifer was cast out of heaven for wanting to be like God. Isaiah 14:12-14 describes Lucifer’s arrogance and resulting fall. Notice the repeated “I” statements in that passage. Lucifer wanted to be like God. In Luke 10:18 Jesus describes seeing Lucifer fall from heaven like lightening from the sky. Interestingly, Satan, in the guise of a serpent, then tempted Eve the same way in Genesis 3, telling her that if she ate of the fruit, she would be like God.

Sin, then, entered the world through Adam and Eve, and has been inherited by every human being thereafter. See Romans 5:12. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the human heart is desperately wicked. James 1:14 says that each person is drawn away by his own lust–meaning we each have our own unique sin nature and proclivities.

John MacArthur, in his sermon “The Origin of Evil,” says: “Listen to this, to disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something, evil is the absence of righteousness. You can’t create evil because evil doesn’t exist as a created entity. It doesn’t exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It’s the absence of holiness. It’s the absence of goodness. It’s the absence of righteousness. Evil became a reality only when creatures chose to disobey. Evil came into existence initially then in the fall of angels and then next, in the fall of Adam and Eve.”

So, God did not create evil, but He did create the possibility for evil to exist by giving human beings a free will, the ability to choose, and make their own decisions. God could have chosen to make us robots, but He didn’t.

Second, God is omnipotent, and He could stop or prevent evil if He wanted to do so. This is perhaps the hardest part to wrap our minds around and come to grips with, because we, in our limited understanding, cannot fathom having the ability to prevent evil and not doing so. In Genesis 18:14a we see the rhetorical question, “Is anything too hard for God?” The answer, of course, is no. In Mark 10:27 we see Jesus Himself say, “All things are possible with God.” In Job, we see that God limits the power and reach of Satan (see Job 1:12 and 2:6). So no evil takes place that God does not allow to occur, and no evil takes place that God could not stop. Remember, however, that preventing or eliminating evil would necessitate the removal or, at the very least, the partial suspension of free will.

Third, though evil (including pain, suffering, tribulation, persecution, etc.) is not good, and is not from God, God can and does work through evil to accomplish His purposes. In Romans 8:28 we have the verse that is probably too cavalierly used in attempting to comfort and encourage those who are going through difficulties, but that does not change the veracity of the verse: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (NASB, emphasis added). That little three-letter word “all” is really a huge word, because it means that there is nothing that God cannot and does not work through for the good of those who love Him. God is never surprised, and is never left thinking, “Now how am I going to make anything good out of this?” In His omniscience, He knows full well exactly what will happen and when, and how He will work through it.

In Isaiah 46:9-10 we see that God’s purposes will be accomplished–so evil cannot thwart or derail the plans of God. In Genesis 50:20 we see an excellent example. If anyone had lived a life that would prompt questioning God’s goodness and love it was Joseph. He was sold by his own brothers into slavery, then, after working his way to the top of Potiphar’s household was falsely accused of rape and imprisoned, and when he translated dreams for two of Pharaoh’s servants he asked them not to forget him, but they did, for several years. Yet, looking back on all that, Joseph was able to tell his brothers that what they had intended for evil God had used for good. In Philippians 1:12 there is a great New Testament example. Paul had suffered tremendously for the cause of Christ, from beatings to stonings to shipwrecks to imprisonment, and yet he wrote that what had happened had really served to further the gospel. We may not be able to understand why, but for whatever reason, God allows deeds that He hates, and He works through them to accomplish His purposes and to bring glory o Himself.

After all, the greatest example of evil ever perpetrated by man would be the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Jesus was perfect–He had never sinned, never done a single thing worthy of punishment, and yet He was executed on a Roman cross. God could have prevented that evil; Jesus Himself could have refused to allow Himself to be executed. Yet, through that horrible act of human depravity, God worked to accomplish His plan to pay for the sins of humanity and to make possible the forgiveness of sins and the free gift of salvation.

Fourth, it is important that we keep in mind that we can question God–so long as we remember our place, and do so with reverence and respect. Many questions are put to God in the Psalms. Job questioned God. Habakkuk questioned God, too. After asking God whether He was aware of what was going on–and receiving God’s response that He knew exactly what was going on, and was going to address it–Habakkuk was incredulous. God’s solution seemed worse than the problem! By the end of the book though (see Habakkuk 3:16) Habakkuk is well aware of His place. He remembers that God is God, and he is not.

The web site gotquestions.org says, “It is entirely different to wonder why God allowed a certain event than it is to directly question God’s goodness. Having doubts is different from questioning God’s sovereignty and attacking His character. In short, an honest question is not a sin, but a bitter, untrusting, or rebellious heart is. God is not intimidated by questions. God invites us to enjoy close fellowship with Him. When we “question God” it should be from a humble spirit and open mind. We can question God, but we should not expect an answer unless we are genuinely interested in His answer. God knows our hearts, and knows whether we are genuinely seeking Him to enlighten us. Our heart attitude is what determines whether it is right or wrong to question God.”

In other words, there is a world of difference in questioning God out of a desire to understand and questioning God as an accusation. One is a humble acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty and an expression of a desire to know what we can learn, how we can help and how we can grow. The other is based on the position that we know better than God, and is the equivalent of yelling at God, “How dare you!”

Fifth, we must remember–and be encouraged by the fact–that God will eventually conquer evil once and for all. Satan has already been defeated, but God has thus far allowed the battles to rage on even though the war has been won. But Revelation 20 makes it absolutely clear that one day that will change; God will say “enough,” and Satan will be thrown forever into the lake of fire.

Finally, we must bear in mind that our suffering in this life is temporary, and it pales in comparison to what God has in store for us as believers in eternity. See Romans 8:18 and I Corinthians 2:9.

No one wants suffering or trials or tribulations or the seeming triumph of evil in this world. And there is nothing wrong with feeling grief, sadness and even anger over man’s inhumanity to man. There is nothing wrong with humbly questioning God. But the truth is, as long as we exist on this earth there will be evil. God, for reasons only He may understand, allows it, and works through it to accomplish His purposes.

So, what’s the bottom line? Evil exists in the world because God loved us enough to allow for the potential for evil to exist. I realize that does not seem to make sense. And please note that I did not say that evil is an expression of God’s love. It absolutely is not, and God hates evil. But God’s love for humans is stronger than His hatred of evil, and therefore He created a world in which we each have the freedom to make our own decisions–even when those decisions are to commit evil.

When we are faced with evil, we must decide how we will respond. We can turn from God, or we can turn to God. But the good news is found at the end of that verse we started with; John 16:33 does promise that we will have tribulation, but Jesus then says, “But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

“Beauty is an opinion”

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Actress Hayden Panettiere has revealed recently that she struggled mightily in her later teen years with body dysmorphia. According to an interview in the most recent issue of Women’s Health, Panettiere says the struggle stemmed from a picture of her published in a magazine when she was only 16. The photo showed her from behind, a the magazine printed the word “cellulite” over the photo. Panetierre’s reaction? “I was mortified,” she said. Of course she was; who would not be, to see a photo of themselves published for all the world to see, with such a demeaning and critical comment made about her body?

Panettiere was, at the time of publication in question, the star actress on the hit television show Heroes. Panettiere is all of 5 foot 1, and never have I seen any photo of her in which anyone with an appropriate and realistic understanding of a healthy body would consider her overweight. No human body is perfect; even those who are in top physical condition have flaws and imperfections and, yes, even a bit of fat.

The International Business Times quotes the Mayo Clinic as providing this definition of the disorder: “Body dysmorphic disorder is a type of chronic mental illness in which you can’t stop thinking about a flaw with your appearance. Treatment of body dysmorphic disorder may include medication and cognitive behavioral therapy.”
The article goes on to cite the Christian Post as reporting that between one and two percent of the U.S. population is affected by this disorder.

As I have seen numerous outlets reporting on the revelation that Panettiere has suffered from body dysmorphia, however, I was reminded of some research I have done myself. When I was the administrator of a children’s home, I conducted workshops for educators on teenage behaviors. Probably the most popular one was entitled “Troubling Teenage Trends,” and one of the areas that I discussed in that workshop was body image.

Some of the data that I shared in that session included these stats:

* The average American comes in contact with more than 3,000 advertisements per day
* Corporations spend $250 billion per year on advertising
* The super-tall, super-thin idealized female body consistently portrayed in advertising exists in less than 2% of the U.S. population.

Now, those figures came from a 2004 article; I imagine the reality is even more startling now.

Another troubling revelation, this from a 2006 article:

* Mediafamily.org conducted a study of Saturday morning toy commercials which found that 50% of ads aimed at girls spoke about physical attractiveness, while none of the ads aimed at boys referred to appearance.
* The number one wish for girls ages 11-17 is to be thinner.

The result? As of 2004, approximately 80% of 4th grade girls claimed to be dieting!

The influence of the media is rarely used to promote a healthy body image, and the prevalence of web sites that allow users to submit photos of themselves to be “rated” certainly does not help.

Another serious side effect of such unhealthy self-perception is the large number of girls and women who suffer from eating disorders, often brought on by a desire to obtain the perfect body. My research from 2006 indicates that there were, at that time, more than 500 web sites that dealt frankly and, in most cases, approvingly with anorexia and other eating disorders. According to a professional presentation I attended in 2007, eating disorders have the highest death rate of any psychiatric disorder. This is not something that parents, educators or anyone else can take lightly!

From the Christian perspective, it is important that we remind young girls, teenagers and even women, that we are each “fearfully and wonderfully made” according to Psalm 139:14. It is not trite to be reminded that God Himself put each of us together exactly the way He wants us to be. And while there is nothing wrong or sinful about physical beauty, that is not the standard or goal toward which girls should strive. Proverbs 31:30 says, “Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.”

Some people like to make fun of Mr. Rogers for regularly telling children through his television show, “Each of you are special just the way you are. You are special just because you are you.” But there is tremendous truth in that message. No person is more special than any other because of physical attributes or beauty. Each person is special, and worthy of love, because each person was made in the image of God and is loved by God.

One of the ways in which Panettiere says she has overcome the challenges of body dysmorphia is this: ” I [remind] myself that beauty is an opinion, not a fact, and it has always made me feel better. … People can tell when you’re happy with being you and when you’re not. It’s only cheesy because it’s true.” This is part of a healthy body image, as well.

Please note that I am not suggesting that being healthy is a bad thing; it is not. The Bible is just as clear that self-discipline is important, including in the area of appetite. Children should be taught to eat healthy and in moderate amounts. We do have an obesity problem in the U.S., and it should be taken seriously–but not by pressuring girls to be stick thin without the least bit of fat or “cellulite.”

So, may each of us who is in a position to do so take seriously our opportunity to shape the self-image of young women, and actively counter the predominant message of the media and contemporary culture that screams at our daughters and sisters that their value, their worth and their merit comes in fitting a ridiculous mold of an unhealthy and unrealistic body type. As opportunity arises and the relationship makes it appropriate to do so, remind the girls and young women in your sphere of influence that they are beautiful.

Lessons We Can Learn

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I strive to avoid being overtly political in this blog, but that is not for lack of political opinions or positions. Rather, it is the result of my desire that this space be used for thought-provoking dialogue and not become another political blog that will only be read by people who agree with me.

That said, I have a few comments relating to the handling of the attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, and then some thoughts on what lessons can be taken from these events and applied to the Christian life.

First, I have to join with Mitt Romney, Charles Krauthammer, Mike Huckabee and others and say that I find the statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Egypt to be spineless and inappropriate. While I have not seen the movie, or the trailer for the movie, in question, there is no excuse for the United States, in any way, shape or form to apologize for the freedoms upon which our nation is built. According to the New York Times, the embassy issued the statement before the attack on the embassies in Egypt and Libya occurred. Be that as it may, the statement, which begins with, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”–sounds like the result of a politically correct sensitivity seminar. Does the United States really need to apologize that the actions of an individual–actions that are protected by free speech–hurt peoples’ feelings? If the U.S. government is going to assume the role of apologizing every time free speech results in someone’s feelings getting hurt, I have news for you: the government will do nothing else, as this will become a more-than-full-time job in and of itself. There are plenty of people who make comments on a regular basis that I find offensive (yes, Bill Maher, Howard Stern and Roseanne Barr, I am talking to you). I find many of their comments offensive to my sense of decency and politeness, to my Christian beliefs, and to my conservative political tendencies. Yet, never have I received an apology from the government (at any level) for the idiotic statements they make with such regularity, nor do I ever expect to. Why? Because one of the great things about the United States is the freedom that we have to speak our minds without fear of reprisal. I am exercising free speech right now by expressing my dissatisfaction with the actions of the U.S. government. I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot say, but that means I must also accept that that freedom necessarily allows others to say things that I may find offensive. What should I do about it? Turn it off, ignore it, or, when I feel the need, respond to it, but I would not suggest that the three individuals mentioned above should lose the right to say what they think and I certainly would not expect the government to apology to Christians around the world when those individuals “hurt the religious feelings” of Christians.

(Just to be equitable, by the way, I find plenty of things that Rush Limbaugh, et. al, Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson say to be offensive, too).

The embassy statement ends with, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Here’s the thing: religious freedom is a cornerstone of American democracy, yes, but no more and no less a cornerstone than freedom of speech–even when that speech “hurt[s] the religious beliefs of others.”

I do not agree with some of the attacks that I have seen directed at President Obama’s statement made Wednesday morning. I do not see in that statement an apology for America. At the same time, Mr. President, you do not have the liberty to say that the statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Egypt does not reflect the U.S. government’s position, because it does, whether you want it to or not. Every U.S. embassy is the U.S. government to the people in those countries, for all intents and purposes, and whether authorized or not, any statement those embassies may issue becomes–even if only temporarily–the position of the U.S. government. What I do find disturbing is that President Obama’s statement does not unequivocally state that the U.S. will punish those who attacked our embassies. A U.S. embassy is sovereign U.S. soil, and an attack on one of our embassies should be treated no differently than an attack on Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center. Do I want another war? No. But these attacks must not be allowed to pass quietly into yesterday’s news.

So, what lessons are there in this for Christians? First of all, just another clear example of the difference between Christianity and other religions–most strikingly, Islam. Christians do not respond with violence when their faith is mocked, ridiculed or even threatened. Historically, Christians respond in civil disobedience, and they suffer whatever consequences come their way as a result of doing so. Most Muslims are unapologetic about their desire to destroy Christianity…yet Christians do not respond with violence.

Second, we see, through the attack on the U.S., a reminder that what Christians believe and stand for is an offense to some people. Even though no one has suggested that the film that supposedly launched these attacks on U.S. embassies is a product of the U.S. government, the government represents America, and the actions of Americans are reflected on the government. Similarly, Christians will sometimes suffer persecution simply because of what they believe, whether they have taken any offensive actions toward another or not. And, as with the situation described here, Christians must always remember that the actions of anyone claiming the name of Christ will reflect on all others claiming the name of Christ–all the more reason for Christians to demonstrate Christ’s love in all interactions with others.

As a City on a Hill

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

One of the great privileges that I have is teaching dual enrollment U.S. History and U.S. government to some of the juniors and seniors at Sunshine Bible Academy. This privilege is two-fold. On the one hand, it is just plain fun for me. I love American history–especially early American history–and I love studying and teaching about U.S. government. On the other hand, I have the opportunity to teach these subjects in a Christian school, meaning that I have the opportunity to explicitly teach the Christian elements of American history that are not always explored in sufficient detail in the sterile, politically-correct classrooms of most public schools.

Today was one of those days when I was reminded particularly of the latter. As I taught my U.S. History students about the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony I was able to go much further than just a passing mention of the motivations of John Winthrop and company when they founded the colony, and much further than a glossing over when discussing the establishment of Harvard College (now Harvard University), the first institution of higher learning in America, and much further in explaining the Ole’ Deluder Satan Act beyond simply stating that it created the first public school system in America. Why do these things matter? For one, because they allow for a complete and accurate understanding of history, which also means that, two, the realities of the Christian influence in America’s founding can be presented.

I am not going to suggest that John Winthrop or the Massachusetts Bay Colony were perfect. Their complete lack of toleration of those that did not agree completely with their understanding of the Bible is not something I would like to see repeated today, for example, but they got a lot of things right, too.

For example, in 1630, while still aboard the Arbella en route to the New World, Winthrop wrote “A Model of Christian Charity,” and then delivered it orally to those aboard the ship. A few snippets of that address make it into many history books–specifically, his statement that the Massachusetts Bay Colony would be “as a city upon a hill.” That’s an important part of the address, but unless the full context of the thesis is understood, it lacks the power behind it. Throughout his address Winthrop expounded on the responsibilities of Christians toward each other and toward their neighbors. We went so far as to point out that there were no rules for dealing with enemies, since “all are to be considered as friends in the state of innocence, but the Gospel commands love to an enemy. Proof: If thine enemy hunger, feed him; ‘Love your enemies… Do good to them that hate you’ (Matt. 5:44).” Winthrop was preparing his fellow passengers for the challenges and responsibilities of creating a brand new society in a completely unknown environment–something we will likely have the opportunity to do–and his instruction bears remembering.

His address is filled with Scripture references, and reminders that each person has a part to play, and is an integral part of the whole. Winthrop was quite serious about the weight of that responsibility. Toward the end of the address, he said, “…if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant. Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God.”

And what exactly was the context when Winthrop said the colony would be like a city on a hill? Here is what he said immediately thereafter: “The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.” An excellent reminder for anyone who claims the name of Christ, and the responsibilities that come along with representing Him, and a good reminder for America as a nation.

And by the way, why was Harvard founded? To make sure that when the founding generation had passed away, that the next generation was prepared, equipped with a knowledge of the Lord and ready to carry on. And what about the Ole’ Deluder Satan Act–why did the Massachusetts Bay Colony require each town with 50 families to hire a teacher to teach children to read and write, and each town with 100 families to build a grammar school? To make sure that every person could read, and thereby be able to read the Bible for him- or herself, and thus defeat Satan and his attempt “to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures.” If only our public schools today had such a focus….

Must Christians Be Pacifists?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Last time I left one of Dale’s questions unanswered, because that entry had already grown lengthy and because the remaining question is one that can easily warrant its own post. The first part of the question was, essentially, are Christians called to be pacifists?

I would have to say that my short answer is no; my understanding of the Bible does not cause me to believe that Christians are instructed or called to be pacifists.

Certainly Jesus taught at length about turning the other cheek, and refusing to seek revenge, and I think that those teachings are relevant to an extent. I am not going to talk about the individual level here, because I did that last time. To me, the idea of going to war is a national-level discussion; a macro rather than a micro issue. That said, I realize, of course, that wars are fought by a collection of individuals, and it is my conviction that there are times when Christians are justified in going to war. I will try to explain why….

First, God Himself instituted the death penalty. In fact, the death penalty was the first civil ordinance God gave to man. Jesus did bring a new law when He came to earth, but I cannot find any of Jesus’ teachings that would negate God’s instruction that there are some offenses that are deserving of death. And I think this same principal can be applied at the macro level–there are times when going to war is justified.

Second, I think that is depends on the reason for the war. I think that Christians would have every right to question, and even to sit out, a war that was being waged purely for the purposes of conquest or territorial expansion. On the other hand, I think there are such things as “just wars,” and when a war is being fought to bring a person or a nation to justice, I see no biblical conflict with a Christian being a part of such a war. World War II would be a perfect example; the atrocities of the concentration camps not only warranted but, in my opinion, necessitated war to put a stop to the genocide.

Third, Scripture makes it clear that Christians are to submit to the government unless and until the government requires something that God prohibits or prohibits something that God expects. Only in those instances when obedience to government would mean disobedience to God are Christians justified in choosing to disobey the government. Accordingly, unless the purpose of a war is contrary to Scripture, one could legitimately argue that Christians have a responsibility to submit to the government and go to war when told to do so.

Of course, in the United States we have an all-volunteer military, so one could argue that no one should join the military who is unwilling to follow orders to go to war, but I think that skirts that main point that even in such instances it is possible for unjust orders to be given and for members of the military to have the right and Christian duty to disobey those orders.

Fourth, war may sometimes be a necessary method of enforcing the law. Just as God chastises those whom He loves, and expects parents to use the rod when necessary to teach their children, so nations may at times have to use force in order to enforce treaties, agreements, etc. For example, regardless of whether or not WMDs were ever found in Iraq, the case could easily be made that the use of force was justified because Saddam Hussein had repeatedly ignored deadlines established by the UN. The enforcement of law and the execution of justice may, at times, require going to war.

I do not think that killing someone is ever the loving thing to do, but I do think that there can come a time when the bounds of love have been exceeded. I realize that is hard to swallow, and it seems contrary to what we most often think of the Bible as teaching, but even God’s love has a limit. Despite the fact that everyone will believe in God after their death, not everyone will be saved, because there is no “last chance.” In His sovereignty, God has given a set period of time to each person, and once the time is up, it is up. I cannot see a problem with that same principle being applied (fairly) to nations; eventually, a refusal to repent may leave but one option.

Who Is My Enemy?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

My friend Dale commented on my last post with some very thought-provoking questions, questions that I suspect others wonder, as well. So, while I am certainly not the authority on the subject, I thought I would weigh in on what I think.

First, Dale asks, “Who is my enemy?” I always like to look at the definitions of words in order to ensure that I am understanding and using them accurately, and it seems that defining “enemy” is a good first step toward answering this question. Dictionary.com defines it this way: “a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.” If we start with that last part, we all have adversaries or opponents, when on the athletic field or court even if at no other time. Yet those should be temporary “enemies,” people we desire to defeat in athletic competition (or board game competition, or most any other kind of competition) but they do not necessarily have to be–indeed, they should not be–people for whom we feel hatred. Using the first part of the definition, though, my enemy would be any person for whom I feel hatred, against whom I foster harmful designs, or antagonize. Or, I might add, any person who feels hatred for me, fosters harmful designs against me, or antagonizes me. Interestingly, however, in the second instance, I could have enemies and not even know it.

The question “who is my enemy” reminds me of the opposite question asked of Jesus in Luke 10, when the lawyer asks, “who is my neighbor?” Jesus responds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then ends with a question: “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (verse 36, ESV). The lawyer’s response: “The one who showed him mercy.” Using that logic, then, my enemy is anyone who treats me like an enemy or whom I treat as an enemy.

Dale goes on to ask, “What constitutes loving somone who is your enemy? How do you do it?” That’s the hard part. I think Jesus gives instructions on that, in Matthew 5:44, when He says, ” Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” But a more detailed answer is provided in Luke6:27-28: “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” I think Jesus is answering the question of what it means to love my enemies when He provides some specific examples” I am to do good to them, not evil (turn the other cheek, for example); I am to bless them, and pray for them. As for the “how do you do it” part, though, the answer is only through dying to self and yielding to the Holy Spirit; no way would I ever be able to, or even want to, treat my enemies in such a way on my own.

Dale is quite right when he says, “Saying it is easier than doing it.” But specific examples are not as easy to give, because there are so many possible variations. By way of example though, if I have a neighbor that I do not like or who does not like me (I have had such neighbors, and when your neighbor lives twenty feet away it’s a lot more irritating than when he lives twenty miles away, let me tell you!), I have to decide: will I treat him with kindness, will I ignore him, or will I antagonize him? Most people would agree that the latter option is not right. The second option would have been fine for the Pharisees; remember, they taught “don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” So, from that perspective, ignoring them is fine. Just don’t throw rocks at them or antagonize them. Jesus, though, turned that teaching on its head and said that His followers are called to do to others what they would like others to do to them. So, if I want my neighbor to ignore me, I guess minding my own business is okay, too. But if I really would like to have a neighbor who would get my mail for me when I am on vacation, who would respect the property line, who would not blare loud music, who would or would not ____________ (fill in the blank with whatever fits in your situation) then I must do or not do those things to my neighbor.

“Is it possible for a Christian to be my enemy?” Dale asks. Unfortunately, yes. In fact, I think (sadly) that far too many Christians are more likely to have enemies who are other Christians than enemies who are not. Unless an unsaved person does something to wrong or offend me, I am not likely to even concern myself enough with that person for them to rise to the level of enemy. Other Christians, though, are professing to be what I am professing to be, and when their understanding of being Christian doesn’t line up with my understanding with Christian, I don’t like that. When I want hymns sung to the piano and organ, but they want praise choruses or contemporary worship songs sung to the accompaniment of drums, keyboards and electric guitars, I have a problem with that. That’s a simplistic and rather silly example, and yet such issues can destroy Christian fellowship and split churches.

Dale goes on to ask if it is possible to love someone who is evil. That is a difficult question. When I read it, I was reminded of the day I heard that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. military operatives. Osama bin Laden hated Christianity and hated the United States of America and made no secret of the fact that he wanted to destroy both. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. And yet, the morning after the news broke I remember sitting at the breakfast table trying to explain to my daughter that I was happy that bin Laden was dead, because of who he was and what he stood for, yet I could not rejoice in knowing that he was in hell. Can I love someone who is evil? No, not in the sense that we humans so often understand and define love. I cannot feel good about someone who is evil, and I cannot even want good things for someone who is evil. But I believe that I can love someone who is evil to the extent that I want him or her to recognize their sin, repent, and be forgiven. In other words, as hard as it may be to think about, I can love someone who is evil enough to want to spend eternity with them in heaven.

Jonah is a great example here, I think. Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah because the Assyrians were evil. Part of Jonah was likely scared of delivering God’s message (I know I would have been!) but an even bigger part of Jonah’s initial refusal to go was that he did not want the Assyrians to repent. He wanted God to judge them. He wanted God to wipe them off the earth. How do I know? Because when Jonah is sitting outside of town watching what is going to happen, he gets mad at God because the Assyrians did repent.

Jonah 3:10 says, “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it.” The very next sentence, in 4:1, says “But is displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry.” I’m thinking he was more than angry. He was ticked…irate…furious. Jonah was so mad at God he said he wanted to die.

So Jonah is a great example of what loving my enemies does not look like. Not only should I pray for them to change their ways, I should pray for them to get right with God. And if they do, I should rejoice!

Jesus loved people who did evil things. He loved Judas, despite knowing that he would betray Him. He loved Pilate, despite knowing that he would sentence Him to death. He loved the thief on the cross, despite his sins. And He loved the people who crucified Him, even asking God to forgive them.

Dale says he read Hitler’s Willing Executioners, and he knows too much about what some of the Japanese and Germans did in WWII to “be less than loving” toward some. I read that book, too, and as a student of history I can relate to Dale’s concerns. I read another book, though, that demonstrates exactly what God has in mind when He says “love your enemies,” and that is Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken. For Louis Zamperini to be able to forgive the Japanese for what they did to him is incredible…and only from yielding to God.

This is a topic that each of has wrestled with, and will wrestle with so long as we are in this world. In my flesh, I will always prefer to hate my enemies than to love them. But God has called me to be different…to die to myself and to let Him live through me. And yes, that even means loving my enemies.

Easy as Pie

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Perhaps you have heard about the recent ruckus over a bakery owner in Massachusetts declining an invitation to start accepting food stamps for her desserts. If not, here are the highlights, as reported in several places but quoted here from the Boston Herald:

Andrea Taber is the owner of Ever So Humble Pie Co. in Walpole, MA. On Fridays she sells her desserts at the farmer’s market in Braintree, MA. In May, Braintree Farmers Market chairwoman Donna Ingemanson wrote to all of the market’s vendors “‘encourage everyone who sells eligible products to participate’ in a program in which the market will sell tokens to EBT cardholders [food stamps] to use at market stalls.”

Andrea Taber declined. Why? “Taber told the Herald she has no problem with customers using their taxpayer-funded welfare benefits to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. But she draws a line when it comes to her own sweet, fatty goods.” Taber said, “I don’t think American taxpayers should be footing the bill for people’s pie purchases. … To me it’s no different than nail salons and Lottery tickets. It’s pastry, it’s dessert. My pies are great, but come on.”

Now, whether or not Taber’s decision not to accept the EBT tokens means that the market as a whole had to choose not to is not made clear in the article, but I cannot imagine why it would mean that. If the plan involves selling tokens to EBT users to use at the vendor stalls, it would seem easy enough that those tokens could simply be used at every other stall and anyone purchasing from Taber would have to make alternative payment. Apparently that is not okay, though, because Ingemanson told Taber that they “really need to work something out,” and the market management is planning to consider whether or not to make acceptance of EBT a requirement for the market vendors next year. Ingemanson called Taber’s refusal a “one-woman protest.”

Now, ignoring the fact that businesses have to apply to accept EBT payments, “and normally are not obliged to do so,” Taber is receiving a considerable amount of negative attention, and even being accused of being discriminatory for not accepting the payments.

In a separate Boston Herald article, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick avoided the real issue of the debate when asked about the controversy, saying simply, “Well, look, I think SNAP benefits at farmers markets is a great idea [the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program underwrites EBT benefits]. She’s entitled to her opinion. I respect it. But I think it’s really, really important that people who are poor and on EBT benefits have access to fresh produce.”

Taber, of course, agrees on that point, and I cannot think of anyone who would disagree. After all, vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet, and that is exactly what the SNAP and EBT programs are for–to provide healthy food for those unable to afford it.

Interestingly, if you visit the USDA web site’s page on the SNAP program the first thing you will see on the top of the page is this announcement: “Fighting SNAP Fraud. Americans support helping struggling families put food on the table, but they also want to know taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. FNS’ proactive strategies protect the Federal investment in SNAP and ensure that the program is targeted towards individuals and families who need it the most. Learn the facts and help us Fight SNAP Fraud.” Wouldn’t part of ensuring that these funds are spent wisely include making sure that they are spent on necessities–including fresh vegetables–but not spent on extras, unnecessary items, and even (let’s be honest!) unhealthy items…like whoopie pie?

The SNAP web site includes a FAQ section, and one of the questions is “What foods can I buy with SNAP benefits?” The answer: “You CAN use SNAP benefits to buy foods for the household to eat, such as breads and cereals, fruits and vegetables, meats, fish and poultry, dairy products. You can also use your benefits to buy seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.” Now that does not explicitly rule out desserts, but it would be stretch to fit desserts into one of those categories (other than the incredibly broad “foods for the household to eat”). Later in the answer it says, “Items that carry a nutrition facts label are eligible foods.” No, I could be wrong, but I doubt that Taber’s pies carry a nutrition label.

Under the “Answers Others Found Helpful” feature below the answer cited above is the question “Why can people buy junk food with their SNAP benefits?” The answer to that question includes this statement: “The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 defines an eligible food as ‘any food or food product for home consumption….'” It goes on to state, however, that FNS is “concerned about the health and nutrition of SNAP clients.” So, while pies and other unhealthy desserts do fit within the “let’s not miss anything” definiton of “any food or food product,” they are not healthy, they are not necessary, and they certainly should not be purchased with tax dollars.

Ignoring the politics of this debate, what if any biblical principles are applicable? Clearly Scripture instructs that believers are to care for those who are unable to care for themselves, including orphans, widows and the poor. Proverbs 3:28 makes it clear that Christians are to help those in need when they can, and do so immediately, not later. Jesus made it clear that God’s law can be summarized in two commandments: Love God, and love your neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). Galatians 6:10 says that Christians are to do good to everyone, and especially fellow believers. James 2 talks at length about the worthlessness of faith without works, and provides specific condemnation against telling those in need to be warm or be filled while doing nothing to meet those needs.

So I have no problem with helping those in need, and I think it is a biblical commandment to do so. Whether or not the Bible teaches that that is a government responsibility or a church responsibility is a separate discussion, and one I will not launch into now; for sake of this discussion, lets just say that food stamps in an of themselves are a fine program for assisting those in need. That said, though, I do not think there is anywhere in Scripture that one could find support for using assistance for those in need to purchase pie, or any other unnecessary “extra.” I do not think one could find a nutritionist that would argue that pies should be a regular part of anyone’s diet or that those least able to provide for their own nutritional needs should have pie provided for them. I do not even think that one could find a liberal politician–if he or she was willing to be completely honest–that could, with a straight face and genuine conviction–argue that individuals on food stamps need to be able to buy pie with their taxpayer-funded benefits.

So what’s the big deal? Andrea Taber is well within her rights to decline to accept food stamps. What’s more, she has brought attention to a real problem in the SNAP program–the use of taxpayer funds to purchase food items that are nothing but sugary fluff. Delicious, sure, but not at all necessary. Really, it’s as easy as pie.

Weeds

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Last week I spent several hours weedeating around my house and around the campus of the school where I work in preparation for the start of the new school year. Due to a drought here the past several months there has been little need to mow the grass. In fact, I do not remember the last time I needed to mow my yard. Remarkably, though, the weeds have done just fine. So fine, in fact, that some of the weeds I encountered last week were too big for my weedeater. These weeds had strong roots and thick–almost tree-like–stems. To remove them I needed to use a small hatchet or give repeated kicks with the heel of my shoe to pry them loose.

I was reminded as I was weedeating of the weeds of sin in my life. Even when I am going through a spiritual drought–actually, especially when I am going through a spiritual drought–the weeds of sin seem to have no problem. Like literal weeds, they crop up in every crack and corner, sometimes even right in the middle of the main sidewalk. If I am diligent to kill them right away, they don’t last very long, but if I ignore them for a while their roots grow deeper and they become stronger. Then it becomes more difficult–and more painful–to remove them from my life. It takes longer, and it takes either greater effort or more violent action to pry them loose.

God’s Word is spiritual water. Jesus is living water. I need Jesus and I need the Bible to replenish my soul. Along with that I need to be attentive every day to the weeds trying to sprout up in my life…and yank them out right away before they have any chance to get established.

Don’t Ignore God’s Design

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

I always find it interesting when scientific studies prove the validity of the Bible. I do not know whether the authors of such studies set out to provide or disprove the Bible, or whether the Bible ever even crosses their minds, but, without fail, accurate and legitimate scientific study consistently reaches a conclusion that is consistent with what the Bible has already established. As Solomon wrote, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, ESV).

I can remember back a number of years ago sitting in a large meeting room listening to one of the nation’s experts on the subject of dealing with troubled, aggressive and hostile youth, and hearing him state that the very best antidote for such behavior is “consistent, loving discipline over time.” The seminar was not hosted by a Christian group, and the speaker did not make any claim to be a Christian, but I thought to myself, “Hmmmm…interesting. That’s just what the Bible says.”

Well, another perfect example has emerged recently in a new study by Mark Regenerus, published in Social Science Journal. Regenerus, a sociologist and professor at The University of Texas, wanted to evaluate the validity of claims made by the American Psychological Association in 2005 that children are nor adversely affected by growing up in homosexual households. In 2010, social scientists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz claimed that lesbian households were actually better for children than heterosexual households. In Journal of Marriage and Family they suggested that, “Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers” (article abstract). That article was entitled, “Does the Gender of Parents Matter?”

But back in 2001 Stacey and Biblarz wrote, in American Sociological Review, an article entitled “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The abstract for that article asserts: “Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.” Stacey and Biblarz go so far as to state that “heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field.” It was this heterosexism that that they claimed caused the 21 studies that they examined to downplay what could have been important findings regarding the gender and sexual preferences of children. In their conclusion Stacey and Biblarz write that “researchers must
overcome the hetero-normative presumption that interprets sexual differences as deficits, thereby inflicting some of the very disadvantages it claims to discover.” In other words, they claim, it is the homophobic bias of researchers that results in studies showing that “lesbigay” families disadvantage children, since it surely could not be the case that those families in fact do result in disadvantages.

So, what did Regenerus find? His article was titled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” and was published in Social Science Research. First, he decided to test a far larger sample than other such studies have typically used, selecting at random more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 15 and 39. Of those 15,000 he found that 175 responded that their mothers had been in a lesbian relationship, and 73 indicated that their fathers had been in a gay relationship. Okay, so less than 2% of respondents were raised in a homosexual household; but what impact did that have on them? According to the research, those individuals were more likely than their peers raised in heterosexual families to report “being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.”

Now, let me be clear. I am not suggesting, nor, do I believe was Regenerus, that every child who is raised by a homosexual couple will be more likely to lose a job, get depressed, smoke marijuana, cheat on a partner, etc. But I am suggesting that it is not surprising to me to see those kinds of results. When we break the rules, there are consequences. When we ignore God’s design for the family, there are consequences. Do heterosexual parents mess up in raising their children? Of course. in case by case instances there will always be cases when we can find children of heterosexual parents who are far worse off than children of homosexual parents. But in general, children will be disadvantaged when raised by homosexual parents, because they will be raised in an environment that is contrary to God’s design.

I should mention that the article by Regenerus, and the study, have come under incredible attack since publication. Not surprisingly, it has been called “flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound” by GLAAD, HRC, The Family Equality Council and Freedom to Marry. Those organizations, obviously, want to advance the idea that homosexuals, and homosexual families, are no different than heterosexual ones, so their thoughts on the study are not surprising. There has been so much negative attention directed at this study that there has been an audit of the research authorized by Social Science Journal, and I understand that those findings will be published in November. I hope that the results will indicate that the study was appropriately and accurately conducted. At the end of the day, though, even if the audit finds some errors or tries to put a different spin on this subject, the truth will always be the same: no one can ignore God’s design for the marriage and family and think everyone will be okay.