Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 02 June 2025

I would not want to witness the death penalty being administered to a person, but that said, if indeed the person was a murderer, then I still think this is moral justice.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #209 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty – taking a life for a life – has been employed by virtually every civilization since creation.

In the modern era, many countries have ceased implementing capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes because these countries have concluded the state should never take life. Yet, of course, it is interesting to note that many of these countries have also legalized abortion, and some have experimented with euthanasia. But those are issues for another day.

The death penalty is an oft-debated ethical and legal issue, with arguments on both sides touching on justice, deterrence, morality, and religion.

Most recently, capital punishment once again rose to the forefront of international news, at least for a day, when Pope Leo XIV was appointed as successor to the recently deceased Pope Francis.

The late Pope Francis made statements opposing the death penalty, marking a significant development in the Catholic Church's stance. Pope Francis said, “The death penalty is unacceptable, however serious the crime... the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.” And he criticized not just executions but also life imprisonment, calling it a “hidden death penalty.”

Pope Leo has only been in office a short time, but he has publicly reaffirmed that the death penalty is “inadmissible,” emphasizing that it contradicts the Gospel's message of mercy and the inherent dignity of every person. He views capital punishment as incompatible with a truly pro-life ethic, stating that seeking “blood for blood” is not the proper path to justice.

My problem with these calls for abolition of the death penalty is that I believe they contradict biblical theology.

Now lest I be misunderstood, I am not arguing for capital punishment as the result of a summary judgment, kangaroo court, lack of evidence, due process, or conviction, or as a political statement.

Capital punishment is not fun, not something to be celebrated, and not for the squeamish. It is, after all, punishment, death by lethal injection, the electric chair, or firing squad. It isn’t pretty and it isn’t trivial. But it is necessary and appropriate.

Taking human life in revenge is not the province of individuals. Taking human life as a form of justice is the province of government. The death penalty is extreme, but so are the limited number of crimes that demand it.

I have always supported the right of duly appointed governmental authorities to exercise the death penalty. I assume this position, not so much because I believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime (though it might be), but because I believe crimes like murder and rape are an ultimate transgression of the law of God.

In the Old Testament, Genesis 9:6, God said, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.” In the New Testament, Romans 13:3-4, God says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

God vested in governmental authority the right and responsibility to establish order and restrain evil. Nowhere in Scripture does he rescind this mandate.

While it is true governments have done evil and that men and women in authority have at times acted arbitrarily, ignorantly, and cruelly, this does not change God’s design for human government. In most cultures, capital punishment for the most heinous crimes has always been the purview of government to protect individuals and preserve their civilization.

Yet in recent years public support for the death penalty has declined precipitously. As of 2025, capital punishment has been abolished in over 100 countries for all crimes, including almost all of Europe, seven countries in the Americas, and thirteen in Africa and the Asia-Pacific. In part, this is due to new technology and DNA testing that has demonstrated that a few innocent (at least of the crime in question) men have been consigned to death row.

I recognize this. My support for capital punishment does not mean that the criminal justice system through which we arrive at such ultimate sentences should not be evaluated or reformed. DNA testing is a significant advance in forensic science and should be used in every appropriate opportunity. Generous and thorough appeals processes, though often lengthy, should be made available in this most serious of decisions. Clemency, the legal means through which state governors may show mercy to inmates, is and should be exercised when extenuating circumstances warrant unmerited grace.

All these lawful protections—guilt determined by evidence, opportunities to appeal, and potential clemency—were instituted to help assure the American criminal justice system is as fair, conscientious, and ethical as humanly possible. Capital punishment for guilty individuals only results after all these avenues of legal redress have been exhausted.

As of May 2025, 1,626 individuals have been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, following the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia.

Capital punishment in the U.S. is generally reserved for aggravated murder, often with additional circumstances that make the crime especially severe. Each state has its own laws, but common aggravating factors include:

Multiple victims
Murder during another felony (e.g., robbery, rape, kidnapping)
Murder of a child
Murder of a police officer or public official
Torture or extreme brutality
Premeditation and planning
Murder-for-hire

Some political leaders have recently called for harsher penalties, including the death penalty, for child pornography, child trafficking, and sexual abuse of adults. Life imprisonment is at times offered as a substitute for individuals whose crime warranted a death penalty. But does it make any sense that Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Bobby Kennedy, June 5, 1968, is yet in prison in San Diego? Or Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon, Dec. 8, 1980, is yet in prison in Beekman, NY? The average annual cost of maintaining a prisoner on death row is $60,000 to $70,000, about twice the cost of an inmate in a general prison population.

Arguments against capital punishment include wrongful convictions, injustice and bias. Opponents say race, class, or location can influence who gets sentenced to death, Then, cruelty and inhumanity, wherein opponents say it is degrading and violates human rights and the dignity of life, and finally moral objections: people claim killing is inherently wrong, even by the state. Arguments for capital punishment include deterrence, retribution as justice, closure for victims’ families, and prevention of reoffending. Christian perspectives on capital punishment often differ across denominations and individuals. While Christianity emphasizes forgiveness, mercy, and the sanctity of life (e.g., Matthew 5:38-39, “turn the other cheek”; John 8:7, “let him who is without sin…”), still, the Scripture is clear that murder is a violation of the Ten Commandments and other clear statements of Scripture about the value of human life.

All human beings are made in the image of God, so to take life wantonly, without due process of law or a duly appointed government agency, is, for me a debasement not only of human dignity but also of God’s sovereign will. I therefore consider capital punishment a morally appropriate response to particularly heinous crimes such as murder and rape, and I’d add kidnapping and terrorism.

The Bible consistently links murder with judgment and consequences, whether in the Old Testament's legal system or in the spiritual realm. 1 John 3:15 states that anyone who hates their brother or sister is a murderer, highlighting the seriousness of hatred and its consequences.

The point here is not that a murder’s life is of no value. It is that the murderer took human life and thus directly affronted our righteous and sovereign God. While it is sad when a murder’s life is taken by capital punishment, it is nevertheless a community message that reminds all who care to listen that God is Sovereign, Holy, Righteous, Just, Merciful, Loving, and Immutable.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 May 2025

Robots in our homes and lives are closer than most of us realize, so are we ready for machines that imitate human thinking and behaviors?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #208 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Robotics in 2025 is witnessing rapid advancements across various domains, including humanoid robots, soft robotics, and industrial automation. Robotic humanoid development is the field of robotics focused on creating robots that resemble and mimic human form, behavior, and capabilities. These robots are designed to interact naturally with humans and function in environments built for people, such as homes, offices, and factories.

For example, Tesla’s Optimus: Tesla plans to deploy thousands of its humanoid robots, Optimus, in its factories by late 2025, aiming for an annual production of one million units by 2029. Figure AI introduced Helix, its next-generation humanoid robot, and announced the BotQ manufacturing facility, aiming to produce 12,000 humanoids annually.

Soft robotics is a subfield of robotics that focuses on building robots using materials that are flexible, compliant, and often similar to those found in living organisms—such as silicone, rubber, and fabric—rather than rigid materials like metal or hard plastic. MIT’s CSAIL is developing soft robots inspired by animals, such as robotic sea turtles and eels, for applications in marine monitoring and non-invasive surgeries. Researchers are exploring robots that grow like vines or plant roots, allowing them to navigate through constrained spaces, with potential uses in exploration and medical procedures.

Cobots, or collaborative robots, are robots designed to work safely alongside humans in a shared workspace. Unlike traditional industrial robots, which are usually caged off to prevent accidents, cobots are built with safety features that allow them to physically interact with humans without posing harm.

Robots are not just coming. They are here now and soon will be more apparent in the everyday lives of not just Elon Musk but the average citizen. The question is, are we, the smart humans, ready for smart machines that imitate our learning, thinking, and decision-making? How does a Christian worldview suggest we respond?

First, the question of whether robots will ever become sentient touches on deep issues in philosophy, neuroscience, theology, and artificial intelligence. Sentience generally means the capacity to have subjective experiences — to feel, to be aware, or to have consciousness. It’s distinct from intelligence or even human-level cognition. For a robot to be sentient, it would need to experience things, not just process information.

Modern AI can simulate conversation, recognize patterns, and even mimic emotion or intent — but do not have subjective experiences, self-awareness, or feelings. They operate based on algorithms and data, not consciousness. The bottom line is that robots might become more human-like over time, but they won’t become human — biologically, emotionally, or existentially. The difference between imitation and identity is still vast.

Second, robots will never develop a soul —not in any traditional, spiritual, or metaphysical sense as humans understand it. The soul is an immaterial, eternal essence that connects to God. The soul refers to core of consciousness, self-awareness, and moral agency. While robots are sophisticated tools, they don’t have feelings, awareness, or an immaterial essence. Meanwhile, humans are uniquely created in the image of God. Souls are God-given; robots, being man-made, cannot possess one. A robot, built from hardware and software, does not possess consciousness, emotions, or subjective experience — let alone a soul.

Third, the ethics of humanoid robotics is one of the most important and complex areas in the field. As humanoid robots grow more advanced and more human-like, the questions we face become less technical and more philosophical, legal, and social. Humanoid robots look human — and may eventually act human — but:

Do they deserve rights? Not in my book. If a robot behaves like a person (talks, pleads, expresses pain)—remember C-3PO—should we treat it with respect? If a robot harms someone, who’s responsible — the robot, the maker, the user? Most agree that current robots are not sentient and don’t have moral capacity. OK, but who is responsible for robot aberrant behavior or harm?

Humanoid robots often include cameras, microphones, facial recognition, thus location tracking and behavioral data collection. Will your robot assistant record private conversations? How is personal data used, stored, or shared? Can robots be used for constant surveillance in homes, stores, or public spaces?

Humanoid robots can simulate emotions and personalities and possibly now form bonds with users (especially the elderly, children, or lonely people). The dangers here are emotional manipulation, e.g., users thinking the robot “cares,” or people developing unhealthy attachments to machines. Think of the movie, Her (2013), wherein a man falls in love with an AI operating system named Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson.

There is also now a concern for violence, abuse, and what might be called “moral decay.” Studies show people often mistreat robots: hitting, yelling at, or “testing” them. The movie, I, Robot (2004), features a future where robots serve humanity, a detective suspects a robot of murder, and there is widespread exploitation, robot servitude, disregard for their assumed autonomy or emerging self-awareness. Could repeated abuse of human-like machines lead to desensitization and more cruelty toward real humans?

As robots — especially humanoid and emotionally responsive ones — become more realistic, something that’s happening rapidly, their use in human sexuality raises a mix of ethical, psychological, social, spiritual, and legal issues. The movie, Ex Machina (2014), tells the story of a programmer invited to administer a Turing test (can robots think?) to Ava, a humanoid robot with striking human features and advanced intelligence. The film involves seduction, manipulation, and ethics of creating a sentient machine.

Humanoid robots designed for intimacy or companionship (often called sex robots) are already being developed and sold. They are not just sex toys — many include AI, speech, and facial expressions to simulate emotional interaction.

This raises a host of key concerns and questions, first, dehumanization and objectification. Sex robots, especially those modeled as submissive women or children, can reinforce harmful stereotypes. Critics argue they may normalize dominance, control, and violence toward real people, especially women. Some countries have banned or restricted childlike sex dolls. Philosopher Kathleen Richardson leads the Campaign Against Sex Robots, arguing they promote social harm and disconnection.

Some users may form deep emotional bonds with robots and prefer them over real relationships. This could increase social withdrawal, loneliness, or detachment from human empathy. Think of AI companions like Replika, where users already report emotional or romantic feelings for a virtual “person.”

For example, RealDoll X is an AI-enhanced sex doll that talks, reacts, and forms “relationships.” Harmony AI is a customizable personality for romantic or sexual interaction. Robot Companion Apps are text-based companions that flirt, role-play, or simulate relationships. Many experts believe this area must be strictly regulated due to the moral and psychological risks.

At this point, few clear laws exist governing robot “personhood” or consent, ownership of humanoid bodies for sexual use, or privacy and data collection during intimate interactions. What happens when a robot records intimate moments and that data is leaked?

China is the major manufacturer of sex dolls and emerging AI sex robots. Regulations are minimal, though there are bans on certain extreme or “immoral” content.

In the U.S., states like Florida and South Dakota have moved to ban childlike sex dolls, but no federal law governs adult sex robots. Debate centers on freedom of expression vs. public safety and morality. Clearly, the U.S. should establish ethical guidelines (especially in design and marketing) and ban childlike and violent robot models.

Robots are just another technology God has allowed us to develop. But given humanity’s fallen nature, pray we will seek God’s wisdom on how to use robots for good.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 May 2025

Habemus Papam, the world’s Roman Catholic Church has a new pope, Leo XIV, and “just like that,” as Forrest Gump would say, “we have a whole new ballgame,” as the baseball-loving American pope’s White Sox fans might say.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #207 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Habemus Papam, the world’s Roman Catholic Church has a new Pope, Leo XIV. While I am not Catholic, I nevertheless watch this transition with interest because it is not only steeped in history, tradition, and Catholic theology, but because the new pope immediately becomes a leader with global influence. Who is he really? What are his theological, social, economic, and political views, and how will he articulate them?

This occasion was precipitated by the death of Pope Francis, Apr. 21, 2025. “Pope Francis was known for his politically progressive stance on issues like climate change and immigration, while also maintaining traditional Catholic views on matters like abortion and same-sex marriage…Throughout his papacy, Francis was noted for his humility, emphasis on God's mercy, international visibility, commitment to interreligious dialogue, and concern for the poor, migrants, and refugees. Francis believed the Catholic Church should demonstrate more inclusivity to LGBTQ people, and stated that although blessings of same-sex unions are not permitted, individuals in same-sex relationships can be blessed as long as the blessing is not given in a liturgical context.”

“Concerning global governance, Francis was a critic of trickle-down economics, consumerism, and overdevelopment; he made action on climate change a leading focus of his papacy. He viewed capital punishment as inadmissible in all cases, and committed the Catholic Church to its worldwide abolition. Francis criticized the rise of right-wing populism and anti-immigration politics, calling the protection of migrants a "duty of civilization."

In a word, Pope Francis positioned himself and his influence on the Church as a political liberal.

While I can salute Pope Francis’s genuine concern for the marginalized, I have to say respectfully that I disagreed with most of what Pope Francis represented, and at times I longed for what we had with Pope John Paul II, a conservative who aligned with Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher to help bring down the Soviet Empire in their day.

Pope Francis’s legacy upon the Church and the world is, therefore, debatable. In the U.S. Roman Catholic Church, “divisions, which mirror more generalized political polarization in the U.S., are evident in a host of issues: immigration, same-sex couples, climate change and the role of women in the Church, among other issues. The split has grown wider in recent years as a growing segment of conservative Catholics becomes increasingly vocal and assertive. Pope Francis…saw his popularity decline in the U.S. over time as the conservative influence helped shape opinions: in 2024, about 75% of U.S. Catholics viewed Francis favorably, down from about 90% in 2015, according to a Pew Research Poll…In their politics, U.S. Catholics have swung more conservative, with right-wing media and Trump-era culture wars combining as powerful influence within the church. Catholics voted for Trump 59%-39% over Democrat Kamala Harris in the November presidential election, a 12-percentage point swing from 2020.”

“The share of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic has changed little over the last decade, hovering around 20%, according to Pew Research. During that time, the Church has been rocked by sex abuse scandals that have resulted in costly legal settlements and bankruptcies, while dragging on church attendance and donations. A number of U.S. dioceses, including in (Pope) Leo's hometown of Chicago, have been forced to close churches, while others have fallen into disrepair. Despite (Pope) Francis' cost-cutting efforts and financial management, the Vatican faces an $94.22 million budget shortfall…and a much larger funding gap in its pension fund.”

The question now is, will Pope Leo XIV continue and solidify Pope Francis’s ideological program, or will Pope Leo opt for a different path, perhaps one that, if not conservative as such, then is at least more centrist in his views? And will he present his views differently, perhaps choosing to make comments in homilies as opposed to public political pronouncements and criticisms of other leaders? At the moment, we only have clues from Pope Leo’s time as a priest, bishop, and cardinal.

But one word of caution: there are many examples of appointed leaders who believed and acted one way before their appointment but turned out to be quite different in high office. More than one American president has been disappointed by what his Supreme Court appointees became.

“In a 2012 address to bishops, (then Robert) Prevost accused the news media and popular culture for encouraging “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.” Among those “beliefs and practices” he cited were the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children…While bishop of Chiclayo in northwestern Peru, Prevost opposed a government initiative to promote gender ideology teachings in schools. He said, “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.” On social media, Prevost strongly supported the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance. In 2015, Prevost posted a photograph from the March For Life rally in Chiclayo, exhorting his followers: “Let’s defend human life at all times!...

Prevost has expressed opposition to capital punishment, reflecting the Catholic Church’s position and Francis’s commitment to see the practice ended worldwide. In 2016, Prevost reposted a Catholic News Agency article in which citizens of Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, urged Canadians not to support legislation that would allow for assisted suicides. “’Don’t go there’ – Belgians plead with Canada not to pass euthanasia law #Prolife,” read the tweet that Prevost shared. In October 2017, Prevost retweeted a call for new US gun control from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) after a gunman murdered 60 people in Las Vegas. “To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers. None of this ends unless we do something to stop it,” Murphy wrote in the tweet shared by the new pope.”

Meanwhile, it appears “Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV are committed to social justice and environmental stewardship. Pope Francis was vocal about the need for action against climate change and emphasized the Church's role in advocating for the marginalized. Similarly, Pope Leo XIV has signaled alignment with these priorities, advocating for stronger Church action against climate change and emphasizing a reciprocal relationship with the environment.”

Pope Francis made critical remarks about the Trump Administration’s attempt to make the US southern border safe, emphasize legal immigration, and return illegals to their homelands. “Pope Leo…has been openly critical of current immigration policies and has expressed support for social justice movements, including those addressing police brutality.” Hopefully, the new Pope understands the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Given the number of misguided leaders who in recent years declared climate change the number one existential threat – Biden, Kerry, Pope Francis, more – and given Pope Leo’s leaning toward climate change concerns, I was pleased to note that his comments in his first mass highlighted AI as posing "new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor. And he drew parallels between the AI and Industrial Revolutions, saying the Church must lead in confronting AI's threats to workers and human dignity. AI is a big unknown that, like any innovation, offers pros and cons, so I’ll take this from Pope Leo, glad that he did not throw himself on the altar of climate change religion.

I was also pleased to note that Pope Leo said, “It is essential that we too repeat, with Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). It is essential to do this, first of all, in our personal relationship with the Lord, in our commitment to a daily journey of conversion. Then, to do so as a Church, experiencing together our fidelity to the Lord and bringing the Good News to all.” With all this I agree.

But then Pope Leo ended his mass with “May God grant me this grace, today and always, through the loving intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church.” While this is traditional Catholic doctrine, with this I cannot agree, for the Scripture clearly says in 1 Tim. 2:5-6, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” And Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6).

While Mary, the mother of Jesus, not the Church, is respected and honored in the Bible, and there is much to learn from her obedience and humility before God, nowhere in Scripture is she considered divine, nowhere is she called an intercessor.

To be open and dispassionate about this, we will need to give Pope Leo XIV time to speak. I pray he will know the truth in Jesus Christ and make Him known, that the Pope will point to the Gospel, not the Church per se, and that he will focus more on applied theology than ideological or partisan politics.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 12 May 2025

For many of us, if we were asked, hey, do you have a problem with money we’d say, “Sure, I need more of it,” but is money really the answer to all our problems?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #206 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Money is one of those things we seem to associate with the word “more.” It’s like the Country and Western song, “Too Much Fun,” sung by Daryle Singletary. The refrain says,

“Too much fun? What's that mean?
It's like too much money, there's no such thing.
It's like a girl too pretty, with too much class.
Being too lucky, a car too fast.
No matter what they say I've done,
I ain't never had too much fun.”

Yeah, right, no such thing as too much money.

Americans generally wish for, and work for, and too often connive for, more money. Meanwhile, we tend to spend more too. The “majority of Americans say that they spend beyond their means and 66% say that they live paycheck to paycheck.” This is not a formula for long-term well-being. The formula equals not gold at the end of the rainbow but debt. “Dave Ramsey said in his book Complete Guide to Money - Debt is a product—the best-marketed product in history.”

“Almost 80% of the people in the world have some…kind of debt. Personal debt takes the biggest chunk in the cake. Earlier, at least, personal debt used to be for some big expenses only. But now, people have started taking loans for holidays, for partying, for buying flight tickets, for buying regular stuff, for things which can be avoided.”

“Credit cards have also made it easier to get into this debt trap with buy-now-pay-later concept as people think that they can pay later, while in reality, they can’t. But the instant satisfaction of owning a thing is more important than worrying about the future payment. This habit of living beyond their means is the biggest financial mess most of the people are in.”

“Rich people are rich because they save more, invest more. Most people only see how rich people are spending their money on fancy cars, fancy holidays and other stuff. What they don’t see is that this is only a fraction of their income. If they are studied closely, we will find out that most of their income is either saved or invested.”

We live beyond our means in an effort to keep up with the Jones’s, or to pursue a never-attainable happiness, a Shangri-la that does not exist, or to just feel good temporarily—like a short-term buzz from alcohol or some other substance.

Most Americans aren’t typically familiar with the Buddhist concept of Duḥkha, i.e., suffering, pain, unease, or unsatisfactoriness, but we spend money to fill these holes in our heart in a terrible search for solace and fulfillment, in a fruitless effort to live our best life now. But instead of personal utopia, we engage in an obsessive and futile quest for our own El Dorado, only to end up not with gold but a lot of debt.

We marked a “grim milestone, as 2023 was the first time outstanding credit card balances surpassed the $1 trillion mark.” And just over the debt horizon is bankruptcy. “One thinks of the famous quote from (Ernest) Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises (sometimes attributed to Mark Twain or F. Scott Fitzgerald)—How did you go bankrupt?—Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

This quote certainly fits our national government wherein the national debt stands at this moment at $36.8 trillion and climbing. National debt used to be associated with events like wars or economic depressions. “Today, deficits are caused mainly by predictable structural factors: our aging baby-boom generation, rising healthcare costs, higher interest rates, and a tax system that does not bring in enough money to pay for what the government has promised its citizens.” Did you catch that last part – what the government, meaning politicians, has promised citizens?

The United States enjoys the highest productivity and the most prosperity of any nation in history. But still, Americans are less happy than the citizens in other less prosperous countries, and we struggle with the difference between “need” and “want.” Sure, we are generous, perhaps more so than any people in history, but since World War II Americans have donated to nonprofit causes just a consistent (minimal) 2% of their wherewithal. This percentage is a long way from the usual biblical definition of a tithe at 10%, which from a Christian perspective is also minimal.

Scripture includes several principles, propositions, and parables to guide our thinking about money.

The doctrine of stewardship comes first to mind, the idea God gave us time, talent, and treasure and then vested in us the responsibility for using them for his glory and our family’s well-being (Matt. 25:14-30).
God told us to depend upon him for all things, not money, possessions, or status.
We are told that what God gives us is “enough,” and we are warned away from a profligate lifestyle based upon selfish ambition and lust for more. Eccl. 5:10 says, “He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity.”

We’re told we should enjoy the fruits of our labor but not seek to eat, drink, and be merry at the expense of acknowledging every good and perfect gift comes from the Father above.
The Bible contains 500 verses on prayer and faith, but 2,350 verses about money. 15% of the Bible is about money/possessions, that is more than any other single topic including Heaven, Hell, faith, or prayer.
The Bible does not say poverty is a virtue or that we should take vows of poverty.
The Scripture does not claim that the poor are automatically morally superior or closer to God, nor does it condemn wealth, even as the Word warns of certain dangers when wealth becomes an idol. In other words, the Bible is not simplistically pro-poor and anti-wealthy.

“What we do with money, individually and as a society, is a profound moral issue. Jesus made it clear that whatever our station, we are merely stewards, since God owns everything. Thus, we have a responsibility to God to manage our assets well.” In a world driven by consumerism, debt and the pursuit of wealth have become normal—even expected. Yet as believers, we’re called to live differently. True freedom is found in trusting God, not credit or accumulation.

From a Christian perspective, excess debt and the love of money are spiritually damaging and dangerous because they distort priorities, enslave individuals, and erode trust in God.

1. Debt as a Form of Bondage

Proverbs 22:7 says: "The borrower is slave to the lender." This reflects the idea that owing money can compromise a person’s freedom—financially, emotionally, and even spiritually. When Christians are burdened with debt, they may become anxious, less generous, or driven by financial survival instead of God’s calling.

2. Love of Money as Idolatry

1 Timothy 6:10 warns: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil..." The problem isn’t money itself, but the love of it. When wealth becomes a central pursuit, it can replace God as the object of trust and devotion. This is considered idolatry in biblical terms—putting something else in the place of God.

3. Trust in Riches Undermines Faith

Matthew 6:24 says: “You cannot serve both God and money.” If someone is consumed by financial gain or driven to maintain a wealthy lifestyle (often fueled by debt), their allegiance is divided. This weakens their dependence on God’s provision and distorts spiritual priorities.

4. Hindrance to Generosity and Stewardship

Excessive debt restricts the ability to give freely, a key Christian value. Debt can impair a person’s ability to use resources for God’s purposes.

5. Emotional and Spiritual Consequences

Debt and greed often lead to anxiety and worry (Phil. 4:6–7), strained relationships, ethical compromises (dishonesty, manipulation), or loss of joy and peace—hallmarks of a Christ-centered life.

Christ taught contentment with what we have. “Watch out!” Luke 12:15 says, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

DOGE may or may not do everything exactly as we’d wish, but its mandate to reduce government spending beyond our means and cut out waste, fraud, and abuse is good stewardship and moving in the right direction.

In our own lives, are we trusting in God or in money for security? Is debt affecting our peace, generosity, or obedience to God? What steps can we take to realign our heart with God’s priorities?

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 05 May 2025

To hear major media, you’d think DOGE is little more than a fox in the henhouse, but is it? Why does DOGE exist and what really can it accomplish?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #205 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

I’ve talked about debt before but feel compelled to do so again.

Debt is sometimes necessary. It is not a sin per se. But it is dangerous, for sure for individuals or families but also for organizations or countries.

“Debt, once it passes the Rubicon from extreme to just plain madness, destroys nations. Just ask the former Spanish, British or Dutch empires. Or ask the inter-war Germans. Ask the Yugoslavians of the 1990's or ask a historian of Ancient Rome or a merchant in modern Argentina. It's all pretty much the same story, just different a different stage or curtain call.”

The current U.S. National Debt stands at $36.790 trillion. This is as I write. By the time you read this or hear it, it will be racing past $37 trillion, each penny a new record.

“The WSJ recently wrote that "deficits finally matter." Hmmm. They have mattered for a long time.”

And the U.S. is not alone in this. Not at all. “In 2025, total global debt is projected to reach $322.9 trillion. This represents a significant increase compared to previous years.”

“A total of 52 countries—almost 40 per cent of the developing world are in “serious debt trouble.”

“Debt distress now looms over more than half of the 68 low-income countries eligible for the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust – more than double the number in 2015…In 2023, developing nations paid $847 billion in net interest, a 26% increase from 2021…When governments must prioritize debt repayments over public services and investments, people pay the price. Schools are underfunded, hospitals lack supplies and infrastructure crumbles. Yet, because existing debt workout mechanisms are inefficient and costly, most governments avoid default at all costs – even if it means sacrificing development goals and climate action. As a result, countries may not default on their debt, but they default on their development.”

“If debt repayments become impossible, a government typically has to ‘declare default,’ letting its creditors know that further repayments under the original terms are no longer possible. Debt defaults cause substantial and long-lasting economic damage…For ordinary people, a default means higher food costs from inflation, as the government prints money to cover its costs. It means unemployment, as businesses and government agencies cut spending. And it means reductions in essential services such as health care and education. All this increases political pressure on a government to resolve the default as rapidly as possible…Protracted debt restructurings have real impacts on the lives of the people in the country affected. These burdens fall most heavily on the poorest—poor families focus on food and fuel and cut back spending on what they see as non-essentials, such as education and visits to health care clinics. This leads to increased poverty, decreases in national GDP, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, and more human suffering.”

“1) Poorly managed nations get too drunk on debt, and then 2) debase their currency to pay their debt; thereafter, 3) inflation comes, followed by 4) rising rates to fight that inflation, which in turn means 5) higher debt service costs, which means 6) more inflationary currency creation is rolled out to pay those higher rates.”

So, we are in a global debt crisis, and the U.S. is right there in the middle of it. The U.S. is not invulnerable to economic realities, nor is it “too big to fail.” What American political leaders on both sides of the aisle have been doing for decades is simply operating on a perceived unlimited credit card designed to give the people what they want – no matter if it is unhealthy, unaffordable, unwise, unsustainable – simply to keep officials in office.

The Department of Government Efficiency was created by President Trump’s executive order on January 20, 2025, to directly address this issue. DOGE was tasked with reducing federal spending and improving operational efficiency. The initiative sought to achieve savings by eliminating wasteful contracts, reducing agency budgets, and streamlining operations, or by what we’ve heard often, identifying and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

As of April 20, 2025, the DOGE website claims it has, so far, saved $160 billion or $993.79 per taxpayer. Probably the most high-profile action has been eliminating USAID, though many more departments have been shuttered, and as of April 14, 2025, the second Trump administration announced more than 275,000 federal civil service layoffs. These cuts represent about 12% of the 2.4 million civilian federal workers.

Now in a perfect world as they say, this all makes sense. It’s logical, isn’t it? If the U.S. government is woefully bloated, irresponsibly allowing waste, fraud, and abuse, and either way, up past its ears in unsustainable debt, shouldn’t we take action to reduce the financial bleeding? Any reasonable business would do so. If you’re in over your head, you cut costs, and you don’t wait, you act.

This is what DOGE, with the President’s direction, has done. But how have people reacted? Media have cried about every job that’s been cut. Now as I’ve said before, there is no easy way to hear you’ve lost your job. It is a severance, a sometimes necessary one that, frankly, is not the end of the world as we know it.

DOGE is not there to secure, reinforce, protect, or expand government employment. DOGE is not there to preserve everyone’s job who is working for the federal government. DOGE is there to protect the government, or more specifically, to preserve and protect the future of the United States.

Certainly, it is far easier to add jobs than to reduce them. No one likes participating in a reduction in force, but those who sidestep this necessity when the writing is on the wall eliminate not just a job but everyone’s jobs if not the organization itself.

I’m not arguing that every decision DOGE has made or will make is without flaw. DOGE has and will make mistakes, but these errors are missteps, not its mission. Overall, the point is to try to curtail the US multi-trillion national debt. This cannot be done without pain.

But DOGE is not the enemy. Debt is the enemy. Waste is the enemy. Fraud is the enemy. Abuse is the enemy. Corruption is the enemy.

Not doing anything to curtail the debt would be the inept thing to do. Not cutting waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, unnecessary bloated government programs would be the foolish thing to do. Not taking action now, while there’s still time, is to commit the nation to a future of brokenness and default, of “massive economic and social destabilization so that citizens would beg for authoritarian control in exchange for survival.” Not to take action to reduce the size and power of the federal government bureaucracy is to consign the nation to historic inflation, a debilitated middle class, and increase in crime and drug use as desperate people do desperate things.

This is an Orwellian future of permanent dependence on the state that, trust me, we do not want.

DOGE is not the enemy. Our own profligacy is the enemy.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 April 2025

Being caught in a bait and switch is not pleasant, so its disconcerting to think many Americans are unaware that they are being duped by climate change, BLM, Planned Parenthood, and other initiatives or organizations.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #204 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“Bait and switch” is a regularly used stratagem of the American political experience, poised to mislead the uninformed or unaware. It’s happening in the climate change hysteria, it happened with the organization BLM, it’s happened with Planned Parenthood, and a lot more.

“Bait and switch” is a term for a deceptive tactic, usually in sales or marketing, where someone advertises a product or service at a very attractive price (the "bait") to draw people in, but then, once they are interested, tries to sell them something more expensive or different (the "switch").

"Bait and switch" can also describe situations where someone's expectations are intentionally set one way but then changed — like in relationships, politics, or even storytelling. For example: A store advertises a TV for $100, but when you go there, they say that model is "sold out" and pressure you to buy a $500 TV instead. Or someone creates an online dating profile presenting themselves very differently (using flattering or fake pictures and descriptions) to attract attention.

Some people consider “bait and switch” false advertising. The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act empowers the FTC to take action against businesses that advertise a product or service with no real intention of providing it or an intent to push customers toward a different (more expensive) option.

Companies can be hit with huge fines, reputation damage, and forced refunds. For example, in 2016, Volkswagen advertised its diesel cars as "clean" and "environmentally friendly," baiting eco-conscious buyers. But it was later discovered they had installed software to cheat emissions tests — the cars were actually polluting way more than advertised. VW eventually paid billions in fines, buybacks, and compensation.

But in politics, at least recently, it seems like tolerance for misleading narratives is higher or even accepting and intentional. Borrowed from sociology, the old maxim still applies: “things are not always what they seem.”

My fear is that many people do not know what’s under the surface of given political initiatives, so they end up supporting or defending something for apparent values while the initiative proponents move forward with entirely different purposes.

Climate Change is one of the worst wolves in sheep’s clothing being touted by the left, liberal elites, and major media and entertainment. I’ve addressed climate change before in this podcast, or rather what’s now called “climate porn,” irrationality regularly pedaled by major news networks and many of the world’s leading politicians and celebrities.

In those podcasts, Climate Change: The Sky is Falling, Climate Change Now a Culture of Death, and Climate Change Threats to Freedom, I noted that certain political initiatives are embedded in the climate change movement, which feature values that run counter either to a Christian worldview or to traditional American values, among them,

Anti-humanity.
God is irrelevant, unless the earth is the deity.
Anti-truth or genuine science.
Anti-free enterprise or anti-capitalism.
Look to government as the source salvation and utopia.

The irony is in their grab for power climate change activists are now saying, in essence, to save the earth for humanity, we have to get rid of a lot of human beings. This is what I meant when I called climate change a culture of death.

The so-called U.S. “Climate Czar,” John Kerry, “tipped his hand, saying, ‘The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’ Kerry is giving us a peak at the anti-family, anti-human culture of death now motivating climate elites.”

Climate change activists channel the old Malthusian idea “the theory that population growth is potentially exponential…while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline.” Never mind that Malthusianism has long been discredited, climate change activists are now calling for the depopulation of the earth.

What we need to understand is that “climate change is the Left's religion.”

People like paid activist Greta Thunberg, the likes of Bill Gates, Joe Biden, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, King Charles III, the UN General Secretary, and the ever-opportunist Al Gore all promote climate change policies that trade liberty for globalist government.

But if indeed the Sovereign God is in charge, and he is, what should we think about life on planet earth? The shepherd psalmist told us: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging” Ps. 46:2-3.

Under the guise of combating climate change, proponents of globalism seek to impose restrictions on personal behavior, curtail freedom of speech, and expand the reach of government into every facet of our lives. In this brave new world envisioned by globalist ideologues, the rights of the individual are sacrificed on the altar of collective salvation.

BLM, meaning “Black Lives Matter” the organization, is another bait and switch. Now it is important to note here that I am talking about the organization, not the concept cited in the ingenious name of the organization. Who but a hater is going to say they do not think black people’s lives matter? Of course, black people’s lives matter because they are human beings created in the image of God and, like all lives matter, certainly black lives matter too.

But BLM the organization is anti-nuclear family, promotes abortion, is anti-Christian, promotes LGBTQ+, and at bottom propagates a racial view of history and racist attitude toward all who are not black, especially those who are white. And there are several cases alleging fraud in the use of donated funds.

BLM sucked in a lot of unsuspecting people who genuinely care about racial justice or non-discrimination, but this organization is a long way from what Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

BLM is a charade, bilking people in the name of justice while using funds to divide, sow racial animus, and attack the American values that made liberty and justice for all a possibility in the first place.

Planned Parenthood is another bait and switch organization. In the name of healthcare for women, it promotes, indeed it makes tens of millions of dollars, conducting abortions, selling body parts, destroying black culture, and undermining the American family.

Historical data indicates that Planned Parenthood affiliates received approximately $1.54 billion in Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP payments from 2019 through 2021. This suggests that Medicaid reimbursements continue to be a significant source of funding for the organization.

Also, in 2022, non-Hispanic Black women accounted for 39.5% of all reported abortions in the United States. This is notably disproportionate, considering that Black individuals comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population. The abortion rate for Black women was 24.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, the highest among all racial groups.

So, I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, that this organization should receive no government funds whatsoever.

Other bait and switch frauds are at work in our society: until recently, the DEI or “woke” tsunamis inundated schools and much of corporate and government America under the guise of racial social justice. But what we got was more racism and division and a destruction of meritocracy.

Some consider the United Nations a bait and switch, that is a purported organization dedicated to the promotion of cooperation internationally. But what it has been in recent decades is more often anti-Israel, anti-capitalism, anti-American leftist initiatives, which meanwhile is presented to us as the last bastion of hope for peace and prosperity. But in reality, not so much.

“Bait and switch” is a long-standing if not time-honored practice because deception is rooted in the heart of every human being. It’s one reason in economics we’re warned by the old maxim, “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware.

We need to think, to discern, to identify values and initiatives that operate contrary to a healthy, realistic, rational Christian or perhaps conservative worldview.

We need to be like the Old Testament men “Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” 1 Chron 12:32.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Subcategories