Category: Politics/Current Events

Render to Caesar

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Tax day is here again. I do not know anyone who gets excited about tax day, or about paying taxes. Sure, those who get nice refund checks after filing look forward to their refund, but that is not happiness about taxes. After all, if you’re entitled to a refund, that refund simply means that the government has been holding your money for a year or so, getting an interest-free loan from you. So taxes are not fun, but they are necessary, and Christians do have a responsibility to pay them.

Perhaps the fact that I feel a need to point that out strikes you as odd, but I have actually had intelligent, well-informed and articulate Christians tell me that paying taxes is wrong, and that Christians should not pay taxes. If you’ll allow me, then, I would look to point out several examples where the New Testament very clearly instructs that Christians in fact should pay their taxes.

Probably the clearest example is found in Matthew 21. In this chapter the Pharisees are up to their favorite activity–trying to trick Jesus. Verse 15 says that they “plotted how to entangle him in his words” (ESV). How did they intend to do this? By asking Jesus this question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and their followers in His usual way, calling them hypocrites, but He proceeded to answer the question. First He asked for a coin, and He was handed a denarius. Jesus then asked those assembled whose likeness was on the coin, to which they replied that it was Caesar’s likeness. Jesus then told them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The fact that Caesar’s likeness was on the coin was indicative of the fact that the coins were issued by the government…much like coins in the U.S. say “United States of America” and “E Pluribus Unum.” Jesus was making the point that it would be foolish to accept and use money issued by the government and then refuse to pay the taxes that support the government. The issuance of money is one of those responsibilities which clearly belongs to government–then and now.

There are other passages that make it equally clear that Christians are called to submit to the government. In Titus 3, for example, Paul writes, “…[B]e submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work…” (ESV). In Romans Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Romans 13:1-2). That passage goes on for several more verses to stress the responsibility of believers to obey the government.

Now, am I saying that Christians are instructed to be supportive of the tax code regardless of how severe the tax burden may become? Of course not. Christians have the same rights as any other citizen, and perhaps even greater responsibility, to be informed, involved and influential in government affairs. In The United States, Caesar is “We the people,” and therefore we ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves for the actions of the government. Now that oversimplifies things, I know, but you get the point (I hope). We may not like the tax code, we may not like the government’s policies, and we may not like individual people who hold elected or appointed positions. In such cases we should work to bring about change, but we must still submit and obey in the meantime. Unless and until the government requires Christians to do something (or not do something) which is contrary to God’s Word, we have the responsibility to obey.

Think that Paul didn’t exactly have taxes in mind when he wrote his letter to the Italians? Read the rest of the passage: “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:5-7).

Happy Tax Day!

What the Bible Really Says

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

If you read or listen to Christian news, you may have heard about the controversy surrounding translations of the Bible for Muslim audiences. The problem stems from the translation of the term “Son of God.” Many have suggested that this term is offensive to Muslims because it implies that God had sexual relations with Mary, and therefore it is necessary to use an alternative translation in order to effectively communicate to Muslims what the Bible really says. Specifically, Frontiers has produced a translation of the Gospel of Matthew in Turkish that uses wording that means approximately “representative of God” where Son of God should appear. Since the term “God the Father” has the same implications, that title is presented as “great protector.”

Frontiers has explained that the new wording is essential to efforts to reach Turkey, where 99.8 percent of the population is Muslim. The U.S. director of Frontiers, Bob Blincoe, has been quoted in WORLD Magazine as saying that “these are paraphrases that help a conservative Sunni Muslim audience know what the Bible really says.”

With all due respect to Mr. Blincoe and Frontiers, how can you help someone understand what the Bible really says by telling them something that it doesn’t really say? If I was attempting to explain to someone who does not speak English that I am the son of Robert, it would never occur to me to tell them that I am Robert’s representative. And cultural differences aside, the Bible itself promises that it will be offensive. The very message of Scripture is offensive to unbelievers. But I see several glaring problems with this new version of Matthew.

First, it violates Scripture. Revelation 22:18-19 makes it clear that it is dangerous to mess the Word of God, either by adding to it or taking away from it. Proverbs 30 makes it clear that every word of God is pure. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “all Scripture” is given by God, and is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (ESV). Furthermore, John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (ESV). It was not the representative of God that became flesh; rather, it was God Himself in the person of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Second, one of the strongest testimonies to the authority of Scripture is the fact that so many lives have been completely transformed by faith in Christ. From John and Peter telling the Sanhedrin that they would obey God rather than man when there is a contradiction between the two, to the disciples dying martyr’s deaths rather than deny faith in Christ, to many examples over the two thousand years since of people who have willingly endured persecution, torture and even death because of the faith in the Scripture, because of their confidence that through the birth, life, death burial and resurrection of God’s Son that they have been saved and can look forward to eternity in the presence of God.

Third, I would be the first to agree that it is important to use methods that take culture into consideration. In other words, I would not expect anyone to go plant a church in the jungles of Brazil, the deserts of Africa or the slums of India and utilize the exact same approach that is used by churches in suburban USA. Part of spreading God’s message is doing it in a way that will effectively reach the people. Paul talked about becoming all things to all people in hopes that he would reach some with the message of salvation (1 Corinthians 9:22). So methods can and should change, and should reflect the culture in which the gospel is being shared unless and until that presents a conflict with Scripture. What should not change is Scripture itself.

Is it hard for a Muslim to understand that God exists in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit? I’m sure it is. It is hard for me to understand, too. Does it boggle the mind to think that Mary could carry a human baby without ever having had sexual relations, that she could give birth to God in human form? Absolutely. I don’t know anyone who thinks that makes perfect sense and is not amazed by it at all. The point is, the gospel message is not an easy one. It is simple, yet incredibly complicated. But if the foundational aspect of the message can be changed in order to prevent giving offense, what else might be changed? If, in an effort to win the lost, it is okay to say that God’s representative was born of Mary, and that, after his baptism by John, the great protector said that he was well pleased with God’s representative, what is to stop someone from changing other offensive parts? You know, the parts about the blood, the crucifixion, the complete worthlessness of human works?

At the end of the day, you simply cannot explain what the Bible says by changing what the Bible says.

That’s Not Sawdust

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday I made the point that some of the things that we get worked up about in life are really not that important, and we should be careful to appropriately prioritize our time and effort accordingly. I feel it is important to also note, however, that just as we sometimes miss the wheelbarrows for the sawdust, sometimes we try to make the wheelbarrows into sawdust. In other words, there are some issues that are significant, but we find it easier to act as if they are not.

The issues that fall into this category are those issues on which the Bible is explicitly clear. On the issues that I mentioned yesterday–and many others–there are biblical principles that can and should be applied but that can at the same time leave equally sincere individuals with completely different convictions or opinions. That is fine, and I think that those issues fall within the realm of free will and Christian liberty. Those are sawdust matters that we must not fight over unnecessarily (Titus 3:9).

At the same time, there are issues on which the Bible is clear, and it is the responsibility of every believer to refuse to compromise on those issues. Because many of these issues are ones that the world finds offensive–sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, homosexuality as a sin, only one way to salvation, for example–the world will argue that Christians who stand for the biblical position on such issues are intolerant. The world is making it increasingly difficult to take a biblical stand on such matters without facing ridicule and persecution, and I’m afraid it is only going to get worse. But when God, through His Word, is clear on an issue, there is not room for compromise. If God’s says something is wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of what the polls, the scientists, the politicians or the courts say about it.

Joel Belz addressed this very topic in his column in the most recent issue of WORLD Magazine. His column, titled “Sin is Sin,” was in response to a WORLD reader who was upset at what he sees as “gay-bashing” and “homophobia” in the pages of the magazine. Belz writes that the reader is correct about the absence of positive references within WORLD to the homosexual community, and goes on to point out that this does not make homosexuality unique because WORLD has also left out any positive references to “heterosexual adultery, to grand larceny on Wall Street, and to lying by public officials.” Belz writes, “Sin is sin; falling short of God’s glory means missing the mark. Period.”

Quite right. And a poignant reminder for us all. It may unpopular to do so, but let us not soften our stand for biblical truth. Let us never cower from calling sinful behavior exactly that–in whatever form it takes. Put differently, let us never see the wheelbarrow and pretend it is only sawdust.

The College Question

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

In recent days the political news cycle has been crackling with two sides of the question of how important college is in the United States. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum attracted attention–most of it negative–for saying in Michigan that President Obama is “a snob” for saying that he wants everybody in America to go to college. Eugene Robinson, writing in The Washington Post, went so far as to say that “[o]nly a fool or a liar is unaware that higher education is all but a prerequisite for success in the post-industrial economy,” and went on to call Santorum hypocritical because Santorum himself has both an MBA and a law degree, and two of his own children are in college.

Santorum’s comments in Michigan, however, included this further elaboration: “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day, and put their skills to test, that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he (Obama) wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.” In other words, Santorum was espousing the position that a college education is not essential for success in America. He was, of course, also making the point that liberals may desire–abuse, even–the power of influence that comes with being a college professor, but I am not concerned here about the politics of this discussion. I am more concerned about the basic root issue of whether or not college really is important.

Marvin Olasky wrote an essay on this very subject that appeared in the January 14, 2012 issue of WORLD Magazine. Olasky asks several significant questions in the essay (i.e., “Do colleges help or hurt character formation?”) but he states, in his concluding paragraph: “I’m not at all suggesting that those called to be lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. should not go to college. I am suggesting that work as an electrician, landscaper, or X-ray technician, or in hundreds of other occupations that don’t require a four-year college degree, also glorifies God and should be honored by all of us.”

As someone who is a school superintendent, has three master’s degrees, and would gladly spend his life as a professional student if it were possible to do such a thing, one might (understandably) assume that I would come down on the side of urging students to go to college. It might surprise you, then, to know that that is not my position. On the contrary, I have seen more than enough evidence to know that college simply is not for everyone, and that pushing someone to go to college who either does not want to go or who does not know what he wants to do with his life is probably not a good idea–and is a potentially huge waste of money.

I am a firm believer that there are certain things that everyone needs to know in order to be, in the words of E.D. Hirsch, Jr., culturally literate. Beyond that, though, four (or more) additional years of education simply are not for everyone. Taking a year or two off to work and explore possible careers is not necessarily a bad idea for a high school graduate who is still unsure of the Lord’s calling for her future. Even if a student is certain he or she wants to get a college degree, starting in community college is not a bad idea, either. Classes are generally smaller, almost always are less expensive, and the credits will transfer to a 4-year school if a student does decide to go on for a bachelor’s degree.

It is also important to keep in mind that college is always going to be available. Perhaps now more than ever before it is easy for someone to take classes part-time, either in-person or through distance learning, and to get a college degree at any point. In other words, someone may get out of high school, work for a few years, and then decide that a college degree is essential in order to accomplish his or her career goals. I can just about guarantee you that that individual will be a much better student now that he has decided he wants to go get that degree than he would have been if he was forced/pressured to go to college when he was not ready or did not want to go.

I am certainly not anti-college, either. I think that if a young person knows what he or she wants to do, or at least has a strong idea, and is ready and desirous to go to college, then he or she should go, right out of high school if possible. I think college can be wonderful, both for the experiences and friendships as well as for the learning. The point is, we do not need to make this an absolute. Students who aren’t sure they’re ready for college should not be pressured to go. As Olasky suggests, there are plenty of positions in which someone can be very successful–and very happy–that will never require a college degree.

As an aside, I have not seen the full context of the remarks, but I don’t think President Obama was suggesting that everyone in America should have to go to college. More than likely he was simply suggesting that everyone in America who wants to be able to go should be able to do so. Just so happens, I agree with that, too.

Making Church Uncomfortable

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Marriage

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now for some good news…

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re Slipping

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom line…we’re already slipping.

Most Admired

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting the Minds of Impressionable Youth

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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