Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
In the midst of the Congressman Anthony Weiner episode I heard a news channel commentator argue Rep. Weiner got into his sexting scenario because he was a “driven personality.” The commentator went on to suggest that certain personality types were more open to affairs and more likely to get caught with their pants down because of how they’re wired. In other words, the commentator attempted to explain Rep. Weiner’s behavior in psychological terms.
Later, I heard other news pundits reach for psychological constructs and language to explain why a spate of political and other leaders have gotten themselves into sex scandals. To hear these people tell it, these men can all be seen coming down the walk if we just know what to look for in their instincts for leadership. To prove their points the pundits trot out all the examples that seem to fit their hypotheses: FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, et al.
I don’t doubt psychological issues influence people. While I don’t believe in determinism I do believe Nature, which is to say our environmental background, helps form and affect us. I also believe in the influence of Nurture, the set of values we’re taught, internalize, and choose to live by. I don’t believe anyone is simply a product of his or her chemicals or social wiring.
It seems to me, the real issue with Congressman Weiner, the recently resigned shirtless Congressman Chris Lee, and a host of others is that these men made choices. Their problems are not for the most part psychological but moral, which is to say spiritual. They live in a society that is much more open to men or women making sexually immoral choices than it was in the days of JFK, much less FDR. They are living in the post-Clinton era when sex is something one does that’s somehow outside the boundaries of who you are and what your responsibilities may be.
I don’t know Congressman Weiner, but I can say with reasonable certainty that he has a sin problem. Not “personal demons” outside his control. Not some victimhood reaching back to his youth. But a series of choices on his part to follow his sexual urges wherever they may lead, even after his recent marriage. He admitted to 6 women, which experiences tell us means there are likely several more. Rep. Weiner isn’t acting beyond his control. He is doing exactly what he wanted to do, even if now he regrets being caught.
He said he loves his wife but not enough to discontinue his immoral and highly risky activity. He said, “It’s a private matter,” yet he’s a Congressman who wants to be known and respected and influential. He said he did not break the law, which is as vacuous as the old “There’s no controlling legal authority” argument Al Gore used to cover his poor choices.
Congressman Weiner and virtually all the others we’ve heard about reaching back a few months, Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzeneggrer, Mark Sanford, James E. McGreevey, John Ensign, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, many more in politics, sports, entertainment, corporate, even religion, are individuals who have made wrong choices. They aren’t psychologically impaired. They’re spiritually disconnected from God and a morality that is good for them and everyone around them. This observation sounds judgmental, but actually, it’s kind.
Blaming our lifestyle on psychological wiring or chemistry, as media are inclined to do, suggests our lives are beyond our own influence. If this is true, we’re hopeless.
On the other hand, if a person is free to make wrong choices, i.e. sin, than he or she is free to make good or proper choices, i.e. act rightly or righteously, which is to say there is hope. There is hope for Congressman Weiner and all the other men listed herein who are still living, if they acknowledge their sin, repent, and walk differently.
If they did this it would take time to rebuild trust with spouses, family, the public, if indeed some ever trusted them again. In most cases, they would lose their current opportunity to lead. But in time, many people would trust them again because human beings are more forgiving than they’re usually given credit.
It all depends on the one in the middle, in this case, Anthony Weiner. If he buys into the idea he’s a victim or the idea he’s controlled by forces beyond his influence, he’s toast. If he owns his behavior and chooses a different path, there’s hope.
What’s causing so many leaders to have affairs? Not their personality type but sin, their choices to chase what they want when they want it no matter the consequences.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
The overdue demise of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan Sunday generated worldwide reaction, most of it positive. Bin Laden was an unrepentant terrorist and mass murderer, the mastermind of 9/11, who finally met his fate at the hands of American Special Forces. To put it bluntly, millions are glad the man is dead.
If bin Laden’s ill-spent life teaches us anything, and there’s much that could be said, it is that one life matters, even an evil one. Osama bin Laden harmed thousands and influenced millions. Even beyond those who lost their lives as a result of his hatred for the West every person who’s ever traveled through an airport has been touched by this man’s (and people like him) evil. Throughout the world members of armed forces, security agents, and political leaders have altered behavior, considered thoughts, and took actions that in some way traced their origin to bin Laden’s actions, or at least the threat thereof.
In saying this I’m not trying to overstate bin Laden’s impact. Rather I cite him to illustrate how one person can affect the world.
We’re reminded anew that each individual matters. We may not exercise the extent of influence of an Osama bin Laden. Indeed God forbid any of us would emulate his evil reach. Nevertheless, we all possess a sphere of influence, a reach probably beyond what most of us acknowledge, much less imagine.
While we’re greatly influenced, limited or propelled, by Nature and Nurture no fates control our existence. We make our own way one choice at a time and our lives are the sum of those choices. Bin Laden made his choices. We make ours. And as he is accountable for his, we are accountable for ours. As he mattered, we matter.
Scripture reminds us not to be weary in well doing, that no man lives to himself or dies to himself. While we live we choose and we influence. The question is: what will be the sum of our choices?
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
“Proactive” is a word Alexander Graham Bell would have understood, and it’s a word every follower of God should learn. It means taking action based upon forward-thinking. It means we should not just react to circumstances, we should pro-act.
We should act with awareness, think innovatively and progressively. We need to try to anticipate changes in culture and seek to influence them. Better yet, we need to lead, not just respond.
Being proactive is what God talked about in the New Testament book of Matthew (24:42-51, 25:1-30). In a series of four parables, God says that he expects us to be watchful, ready, wise, faithful, and working. In other words, in the time that he gives us on this earth, God wants us to do something for him. He wants us to be active in his service, because he will hold us accountable for our work. He gives us life, creativity, and resources to use according to his rules for good living. It’s a form of stewardship—proactive stewardship.
Being proactive stewards as a way of life prevents us from falling into ruts. We keep fixing our eyes on Jesus, and we keep pressing on to what He has in store for us. We keep following His moral will for our lives and expecting His will to be accomplished in our lives.
By becoming proactive stewards we can do great things for God, no matter what title appears in front of our name, or what letters appear after.
Proactive stewardship—anticipating, working energetically, progressively, and accountably—is a worthy philosophy of life. Pursue the Lord’s will and work in this way and you will live with focus and get things done.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
All human beings live by values. Mostly we get them, the late Francis A. Schaeffer used to say, “by osmosis.” We absorb them from surrounding culture. We haven’t thought about them; they’re just there.
Psychologists, philosophers, and theologians debate various ideas about how human beings acquire knowledge and values, among them John Locke’s tabula rasa, i.e., “blank slate.” It’s an intriguing idea, but I’ve never believed all children were essentially born with a mind full of nothing and therefore all our knowledge, attitudes, and values develop later via experience and sensation.
I certainly agree our minds and even personalities are formed over time in part by our environment, i.e. Nature (vs Nurture). But I do not believe we start from scratch. Rather I believe God endows each human being at birth with unique personality and talent. Later, through our choices and our life experiences, Nature again, we can build upon, suppress, or redirect our basic personality and talent. But we don’t begin with nothing, like an animal with no more than instincts.
I also believe we craft our personalities, worldviews, and values via Nurture. Made in the image of God we are rational creatures capable of reason and accumulated knowledge. We may be taught—nurtured—and we may learn.
Along the way, we may be taught and we may learn poor or bad values. We make them our own. That’s what Schaeffer meant by osmosis. We embrace values without questioning their moral content.
For example, I’ve known dedicated, knowledgeable, and otherwise spiritually mature Christian people who hold racist points of view. Have they simply never applied—connected the dots—their Christian worldview to their racist viewpoints? Or are they just not knowledgeable enough about biblical theology to sense the spiritual dissonance between claiming to be Christian and to be racist at the same time? It could be either of these possibilities.
This scenario could apply to any number of attitudes, values, or behaviors we've developed: prejudice toward Middle Easterners, a temper or simply ongoing anger, laziness, you name it. We can be different from what we are.
Our task, as believers, is to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). We’re supposed to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). To do this, we must continually run our values through the filter of our Christian worldview. If we do this, that is, compare our values to the principles God's Word provides, with the Holy Spirit’s enablement we will gradually rid bad values, attitudes, or behaviors from our daily life. This is called sanctification, spiritual maturing.
Clearly, it is possible for human beings to learn and adopt new values, attitudes, and behaviors. We cannot blame who we are entirely upon Nature or Nurture. We can change and we are responsible for our own growth.
"You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness," (Ephesians 4:22-24). Which means this: we may not be able to change the world, but we can with the help of the Holy Spirit change ourselves.
This may sound like work, but actually it’s something far more enticing: it’s hope.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
Charlie Sheen’s media blitz is a lesson in what not to do in public relations. In a matter of a week, Sheen compared himself to a warlock, a rock star, and God. He’s called himself “special” in a number of different ways and he presented himself to the American public as apparently what he is, a self-deluded narcissist.
This sounds harsh, but if you kept score across his several high profile morning show and news program interviews it’d be “Arrogance 10, Humility 0.” Sheen is way past confident in himself and his own abilities, all the way to “I’m a winner.”
As the star of CBS’s “Two And A Half Men” Sheen makes $1.8 million per episode and as such is the highest paid actor on television. He’s also reputedly a chronic drug and alcohol abuser, has been in and out of rehab several times, is twice divorced, is the father of five children, and is now engaged in a highly public feud with CBS about the impact of his personal behavior upon their top-rated program. For now, the show has been taken out of production and may end its nearly nine-year run involuntarily.
Sheen’s drug and alcohol problems, the fact he lives with two women he calls “the goddesses,” and his bellicose attitude havemoved him from entertainment news to the front page. If it is true that “any publicity is good, even bad publicity,” than Sheen is in for more high paydays later. If not, he’s in trouble.
Journalists frequently refer to Sheen’s “personal demons.” Since O. J. Simpson, it’s a phrase that’s become the go-to description of a person struggling with emotional stability or inner turmoil. It’s a way for journalists to deal with inherently moral considerations without sounding religious or moralistic, which of course would violate current standards of political correctness.
For some who use the term, calling a person’s attitudinal and behavioral issues “personal demons” also serves nicely to ascribe the ultimate responsibility for the issues to something other than the individual involved, i.e. “He can’t help himself.”
Not being responsible sounds attractive, as in “Wow, you mean I can do all this and not be held accountable?” Or, “I’m a jerk because of something beyond my control? Great.”
But it’s not so great. When you think about it, not being responsible means you’re the victim of fate or forces or something, and you have no say in it. If you have no say in it, if you are truly controlled by something else, you’re not just “not responsible,” you can’t change it. And if there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change you, you’re doomed. Being doomed doesn’t sound attractive to me.
Charlie Sheen, like many people before him and probably many after him, is a product of his own choices. He’s not manipulated by personal demons in the sense of things beyond his influence. He’s driven by his own poor or argumentative attitudes, his own boorish or self-destructive behavior, his own sin—just like the rest of us. His problems seem bigger than those of others because his are on display.
I don’t want to see Charlie Sheen die young. But I think he’s on that track. I don’t think “Two and a Half Men” is worth much—it’s funny, but it’s primarily driven by one plot theme: two brothers trying to get and have sex with women, as much as possible. But otherwise I like some of Sheen’s movies. I’m not trying to throw judgmental rocks at him. But I don’t think it’s compassionate to blame his problems on something he can’t change. It’s more compassionate to call his wrong choices and immoral lifestyle what they are, sin. And then point him toward the God of hope who can forgive, change, and heal.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
John Edwards, former North Carolina Senator and erstwhile presidential candidate, husband of Elizabeth, and man who conducted an affair with a campaign aide is, in my book, the definition of a cad.
I don’t write many pieces like this, but Elizabeth died this week after six years battling breast cancer. She described herself as the “anti-Barbie” for her more realistic figure, stood tall in the face of her husband’s moral and political decline, and gave the nation a new definition of strong female grace.
In 2004, John Edwards was on top of the world. A former and highly successful trial attorney, he’d served a term in the United States Senate, and was picked as John Kerry’s vice presidential running mate in what proved to be an unsuccessful run to the White House. Edwards followed this by becoming a leading Democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Meanwhile, the day following Election Day 2004, Elizabeth discovered she had cancer.
Sometime in the midst of all this John Edwards got involved in an affair with political staff member Richelle Hunter. When this news broke during his candidacy in 2008, he followed a now all-too-familiar pattern: denial, denial, denial, which is to say, lie, lie, lie, then tearful admission that “mistakes were made.” He even later vigorously denied fathering Hunter’s child, only to have it later confirmed. All this took place as Elizabeth fought to survive.
Elizabeth went on to write Saving Graces, a best-selling memoir. But she ultimately lost her fight with the disease.
Elizabeth and John deserved a lot more than they got. She deserved respect and better treatment from a cad of a husband. He, while seeing his political future crash and burn, deserved more recriminations than he received.
We don’t know what words were exchanged between Elizabeth and John privately, so we really don’t know what he may have said to her. We do know that his public apologies have all been forced and shallow.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, pulled no punches in a few interviews, yet never really responded publicly with fiery ire. She’ll be remembered for her courage and her grace. Unless he makes a serious readjustment, how do you suppose John will be remembered?
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.