Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
With Dr Rex Rogers

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 17 April 2011

Good public discourse, open dialogue and discussion in the marketplace of ideas, is a staple of democracy. Without it there is no chance for government of, by, and for the people.

For good public discourse to take place certain requisites or attributes must be put in place within the body politic.

--People must embrace, then instill in culture and government, basic human rights: freedom of worship, freedom of speech, even expression, right to life, law, and order based on a public moral consensus.

--People who believe in objective truth.

--Freedom of expression must be recognized, protected, and preserved in law.

--People must respect others, which is to say, they must listen, which is to say, a certain discourse etiquette must be established.

--Absence of decorum in public discourse is a seed of the destruction of the marketplace of ideas.

--Discourse depends upon not necessarily an educated public, in the sense of formal schooling though this is good, but upon an informed public.

--For discourse to result in general wellbeing, that is, for democracy to work and for it to last, people must cultivate moral virtue, that is, a capacity to recognize good and to choose it—this only comes in acknowledging the place and purpose of religion.

--For discourse to function freely and productively to good ends, people must understand that disagreement can serve the good if it is based upon critiques of ideas and not upon criticism of ones holding the ideas.

--The degree to which disagreements degenerate to people upon people attacks is the degree to which disagreements no longer serve the public good.

Discourse that is little more than shouting matches, i.e. an absence of decorum, is what most radio and television talk shows have become. It is what much of electioneering or political campaigning has become.

Calling leaders in the political opposition derisive names or using cartoons and other materials to demean members of the political opposition in the name of humor does not credibly advance ones ideas. It’s actually a show of weakness. If you can’t win a point in discussion via moral suasion than you attack the other speaker or posture loudly to out shout the other. Weakness.

It seems today that if you disagree with someone you are ipso facto believed to be attacking the person. So it goes in our politically correct culture. Yet meanwhile and ironically, verbal attacks upon people with whom you disagree have become the order of the day. The American body politic desperately needs to rediscover the values and rules of engagement for discourse modeled by the Founding Fathers.

*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; Published: 14 April 2011

It’s become fashionable for sports pundits to call for the public to forgive Tiger Woods. Or to say it’s time to “quit piling on” Tiger Woods. Or to “give Woods a break.”

Sports writers and announcers do this in part because they may be genuinely compassionate. Maybe some want to rehabilitate Woods in the public’s eye because they really don’t think what he did was all that bad anyway and, besides, it’s a free country. Some just want Woods back up to par, pun intended, because they regard him as the greatest talent ever to swing a golf club (who doesn’t?) and don’t much care what else he’s done if they get to see him perform at the highest level of his capability. Some want him back at the top because professional golf makes more money with Woods in contention.

It’s true, Woods didn’t kill anyone a la O.J. Simpson and didn’t rape anyone a la Mike Tyson. As far as we can tell, he didn’t do anything illegal. Immoral? Yes. Arrogant maybe? Probably. Chauvinistic? Definitely. Dumb and dumber? Absolutely. But his errors were ones carrying ripple effects for him and his family, not really for the rest of us. So why is so much of the public yet unwilling to let the man back inside the ropes, so to speak?

I don’t think it has anything to do with an unwillingness to forgive. Nor do I think the public is holding back on Woods because people like piling on or rooting for him to fail. Actually, the American public has historically been quick to restore fallen heroes: think Magic Johnson—even Mike Tyson has experienced something of a re-acceptance. But Woods: I believe fans are watching Woods like they’ve watched Pete Rose, with much the same suspicions.

Pete Rose bet on his own baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds. As a result he was forever banished from admission to the major league baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Some fans want him restored to consideration. Some don’t. The biggest argument against restoring him is Rose himself. First he denied he bet on the games he managed. Then he admitted to betting only on other games. Then finally when it became clear to him things weren’t going to change, he wrote a book admitting he bet on his own games and feebly apologizing. Along with this, since the day he was publicly disgraced he’s been a one-man campaign about how he deserves to be admitted, all the while presenting a less than believable and certainly less than remorseful persona.

That’s Woods, and that’s Woods’s biggest problem—his own persona. And by the way, I don’t think the public’s response to Woods has anything whatsoever to do with racism as some sports writers claim.

Woods is arrogant, standoffish, and surly on his best days. Sure, he can smile when he wants to and he can make a joke with reporters. But this is rare. Last week at The Master’s, he banged his golf clubs on the ground in open disgust, he cursed continually within range of cameras or microphones, and on one occasion the camera zoomed to his face just after a poor shot, catching him quite clearly mouthing a vulgarity. Worse, after a finish on Sunday not to his liking he was abrupt and quickly skipped out on the media.

Phil Mickelson is not an angel, but on a golf course or otherwise in public he does none of this. None. In fact, he goes out of his way to interact with fans, treats sports writers with respect, honestly assesses his game (Woods by his account is always “playing well”), and in general is a likable person who knows whereof his bread is buttered. Fans like him not just because he seems to have the picture perfect family, but because he openly cares for his family, likes people, and shows himself to be friendly.

Woods is the non-Mickelson. Where Mickelson plays with a swashbuckling style that probably looses a few tournaments, Woods is always the technician, greatly skilled but robotic. Where Mickelson is a happy person in the face of life’s challenges, Woods is barely controlled and barely concealed anger—it’s like it’s just under the surface. Mickelson wants to win for the joy of it, for his family, for the fans. Woods wants to win to claim he’s the best.

In the language of the King James Version, “A man that hath friends must show himself friendly.” I don’t know what Woods is like in private, but he is not a friendly person, actually a largely unpleasant persona in public. Fans know this and hold back. Who wants to be friends with someone who doesn’t want you as a friend?

If Woods wants a better future, he’d do well to spend more time working on his attitude and his interpersonal relationships skills than his golf game.

Details: Written by RexR; Published: 14 April 2011

Mike, thanks much for your kind comment. Blessings to you and yours.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 April 2011

The words in the title of this piece seem jarring in close association. The reason is they really don’t fit together, other than that Terry Jones has sensationally forced them into the same articles, comments, and reactions worldwide.

Jones is the pastor of the approximately 30-member Dove World Outreach Center of Gainesville, Florida, who apparently burned a Quran in his effort to “put on trial” a holy book and a religion with which he disagrees. Last fall he threatened to burn a Quran on an “International Burn the Koran Day,” but apparently demurred when General David Patraeus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates implored him not to do so because it might cost American lives. President Obama made similar public comments at the time.

But Jones finally put his plan in action, allegedly burned a Quran, and the result to date has been more than 20 killed in Afghanistan, including United Nations employees. Related protests continue in Pakistan.

So as a Christian what am I to think of this? Here are a few things to consider:

--It’s a free country. We enjoy an incredible gift of freedom of speech (which the US Supreme Court has expanded to freedom of expression) that most of us did nothing to earn. It is our political birthright. But what may be legal is not always moral or ethical.

--As a believer we enjoy the incredible gift of Christian liberty, something we did nothing to earn. It is our spiritual birthright. But 1 Corinthians 10:23 reminds us, “’Everything is permissible’—but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is constructive."

--Scripture tells believers to speak the truth in love. It does not endorse what today we call “hate speech,” acts of violence, or incendiary in-your-face actions against those with whom we may disagree. In fact, Scripture commands us to “turn the other cheek” and to “love your enemies,” whomever we may perceive them to be.

--Jones’s “ministry,” if not a cult, is certainly “cultish.” He emulates the dictatorial pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who also has apparently burned a Quran. They do not lead as shepherds. They rule and demean and pontificate and sensationalize. They have their 15 minutes of fame. I question what rewards they will receive in heaven.

--Burning the Quran accomplishes nothing but inciting to anger those who revere it. Is this a way to express love, to build a relationship based upon trust or mutual respect? If someone knocked on your door and insulted Christ or burned a Bible would you feel inclined to initiate a friendship? Does Jones really believe he is battling for truth? Or is he applying his warped worldview in the name of Christianity, all the while enjoying his time in the media sun?

--Burning the Quran is more than burning a given book. It’s an act of political malice akin to burning any symbol vested with the ideals of a people. Not long ago, some US Congressmen submitted bills intended to make burning US flags illegal. To date these amendments to the US Constitution have not been ratified by a sufficient number of states. Flag desecration is a protected act of “symbolic speech” in the US—while in many other countries such acts against the national symbol are illegal. The point is, while according to rulings by the US Supreme Court desecrating an American flag is protected speech, as is burning a Quran, we still don’t have to like it, embrace it, consider it wise, or report it via news media. Interestingly, national media are beginning to figure that out, dropping most references to Jones and hopefully letting him fade away from lack of attention.

--Is Jones’s faith so small, so lacking in confidence, that he fears placing the teachings of the Bible alongside the teachings of the Quran and allowing people to make their own decisions about truth, love, forgiveness, and hope?

--I feel sorry for Jones and his followers, for they are clearly enveloped in a false understanding of Jesus’s ethic of love and the beauty of the Christian faith. While I condemn the killing of innocents in Afghanistan in reaction to Jones’s Quran burning, I feel badly for the families who lost loved ones as part of the ripple effect of Jones’s actions.

--Jones is no more representative of biblical Christianity or of most believers than are members of the Ku Klux Klan.

--Burning the Quran or any other holy book from any religion is not an act of Christian love or an overture toward spiritual reconciliation for those who embrace those religions. It is an act of fear and prejudice, self-righteousness and ignorance. No true follower of Christ can or should condone such acts.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 13 April 2011

No one knows where the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are “going,” much less what the political and social landscape will look like when they get there. The region is literally changing as we watch. This is both exciting and concerning.

MENA may eventually feature, God forbid, re-closed countries and new autocratic regimes. If so, we’ll need programs like SAT-7’s (in cooperation with Overseas Council and MEATE=Middle East Association for Theological Education) TEACH/LEARN project that works to develop leaders in Church and culture. SAT-7 is a Christian satellite television ministry based in Cyprus broadcasting in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish across MENA and throughout 50 countries in Europe. Its US support office serves an American constituency vitally interested in MENA.

MENA may ultimately feature the newly open, if not democratic, societies the freedom fighters, rebels, and the rest of us are generally hoping for. If so, we’ll need programs like SAT-7’s TEACH/LEARN project because the Church will be able to work more publicly, will flourish, and will need more leaders than ever.

I’ve learned a lot about the Middle East in the past 18 months, but I have much to learn. The latter point can be said for US government or Western leaders in general and for Church leaders. The more we learn about the Middle East the better, for a lot of reasons.

MENA is not a block, not the monolith that evening news tends to unintentionally suggest. The region of 22 countries is home to 500+ million people speaking Arabic, Farsi (Persian), and Turkish. The countries, cultures, and people are similar but vary dramatically in ever way.

MENA people are religious, vigorously so, yet many are simply culturally religious as opposed to persons holding deep-seated informed religious understanding or commitment. They generally do not understand, or at least embrace, Western ideas like separation of Church and State and do not think it wise even when they do grasp the concept. So when they look upon the nominally Christian or Christian-by-heritage West, no matter what country is doing what, it is “Christian” to them. This makes true Christian testimony both more important and more difficult.

MENA will be different tomorrow from what it is today. We should work hard to learn more about and from the people of MENA. Learning doesn’t guarantee peace, but then again, nothing but good comes from greater understanding.