Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 13 April 2026

The nation’s Semiquincentennial is approaching.  Will we last till then?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #257 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’d assume most Americans know that this coming July 4, 2026 is the 250^th Anniversary of the nation’s founding, but if you read surveys or watch person-on-the-street interviews conducted by news anchors or comedians you’ll discover that many Americans evidence an appalling lack of understanding about even the most basic facts about American history, like for example, “Who won the Civil War?”

So, I am not surprised to learn that American citizens do not know much about their homeland or citizenry.

A 2023 survey “indicated that over 40% of Americans did not know the specific reason for Independence Day, with 45% incorrectly identifying the year of the signing.” “When asked what July 4 is meant to officially commemorate, only 59% gave the correct answer: ‘The signing of the Declaration of Independence.’”

An April 2026 survey discovered, “Thirty-seven percent of respondents view the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence as ‘a proud national milestone,’ while 24% say it is ‘not something I think much about,’ and 18% describe it as ‘mostly symbolic and ceremonial.’”  “A majority of respondents, 59%, said the founding ideals of the Declaration of Independence still guide the country in meaningful ways, while 41% said those ideals are mostly disconnected from today's reality.” “When asked about progress over the past 250 years, 57% said the United States has achieved the nation's founding ideals either "a great deal" or "a moderate amount," while 33% said "not very much" or "not at all," and 10% were unsure.”

The Pew Research Center, “in a 2025 survey…asked people in 25 nations to say – in their own words – what makes them proud of their country. In several ways, Americans’ answers stand out from those of people in other countries.

Americans are among the most likely to emphasize freedom as a source of pride. They are also more likely than people in many other surveyed nations to offer a negative sentiment when asked what makes them proud.

And Republicans and Democrats tend to highlight different sources of pride.”

“Few Americans (3%) mention U.S. history as something that makes them proud of their country.”

In 2001, Gallup asked Americans, How proud are you to be an American — extremely proud, very proud, moderately proud, only a little proud or not at all proud? 87% responded affirmatively.  In 2025, twenty-four years later, this same question was asked, and only 58% responded affirmatively. In 1976, during the Bicentennial, 94% of Americans said they were proud of their country.”

So, the steady media drumbeat on how bad, sad, and mad America is today, is having its effect, especially among young Americans. Aside from media messaging, why is this?

One reason is something called polarization. Americans are divided, fragmented. Another is the existential nihilism and exhausted fatalism gripping American culture in the early 21st Century. Culturally, we’re not only divided, we’re lost, drifting, searching for meaning everywhere but where it can be found.

As Christian believers, we know how to respond with the truth that meaning entered history in a person, Jesus Christ, who confronted suffering and injustice, experienced death on our behalf, and rose again breaking death’s finality, thus Jesus fulfills all longing as “the way, the truth, and the life.” (Jn. 14:6).

But this simple yet profound truth is largely not welcome at the American cultural table, less so in Europe, certainly not at all in academia, except perhaps for the university revivals we’ve been hearing about.

Americans are struggling with an identity crisis. We don’t know who we are, so many of us are not proud of a heritage they’ve never learned or about which they’ve been misled.

We know from the study of past empires certain centrifugal forces can tear a civilization apart. The Roman Empire unraveled over centuries due to a combination of internal weaknesses and external pressures: corruption and ineffective administration eroded trust and stability, heavy taxation and debt, barbarian invasions, decline in civic pride. There is no guarantee this cannot happen or is not already happening to the U.S.A.

Meanwhile, America’s founding ideals are still there. America coalesced around two critical, fundamental principles: the then-self-evident truth of individual equality and the unalienable right of liberty endowed by the Creator. 

For all the immigration fuss in recent days, America is and has always regarded itself as an idea. Being an American is not exclusively about being “made in America,” i.e., born here . Being American is not about soil or tribe or blood or lineage or ethnicity or nationality or race or religion. American identity is a civic identity rooted in shared founding ideals.

Sometimes it’s called the American Creed, a set of beliefs that emphasize liberty, justice, and the rule of law, insisting that government exists by consent, of, by, and for the people. The American Creed also celebrates opportunity, individual responsibility, and civic virtue. We tend to think about “rights” but we’ve forgotten about “responsibility.”

Unlike many nations with rigid hierarchies, the American Creed holds that political authority is not inherited, not a matter of class or wealth or “privilege,” certainly not about race or sex, but granted through active citizenship.

America has been gifted both faith in freedom and freedom of faith, precious blessings most of mankind has never known.

The United States is far from a perfect union and sometimes we struggle to realize “liberty and justice for all.” But no nation’s history even remotely approaches America’s efforts to believe in, to fight to protect, and to celebrate human freedom.

In his book, Biblical Patriotism, Adam Wyatt said, while “God has created all nations with love and care according to His plan, there is something unique to the American experiment. Even a cursory look at American history shows that God has indeed used this country and blessed it in a way that few countries have had the honor to experience.”

So, we as Americans, as Christians, as conservatives, or frankly however you align your beliefs, if we care about passing on to our children and grandchildren a country and culture that is a land of freedom and opportunity, then we need to stand up, speaking the truth in love, that politics cannot solve our crises. 

As the British author and social commentator G.K. Chesterton noted, we need ordinary men and women who have accepted the message of the Gospel, who embody its incredible transformative power, who then live out or “externalize” their religious beliefs in their everyday life. We need people who believe in truth because God Is There and He Is Not Silent, that he is Truth. We need people who are weary of politicians who mouth platitudes to get elected but then in office go along to get along, never really voting to change anything in the interest of freedom and opportunity. We need people who believe in marriage, family, procreation, an admirable work ethic, and generosity, the building blocks of society.    

We need Christian nonprofit organizations who help the Church help others in both spiritual and humanitarian need—the “truly needy,” as Ronald Reagan called them, people who life has dealt them hard knocks but people who want to contribute to the good of their families and society. We need citizens who affirm right and wrong, law and order, mercy, responsibility and accountability, blind justice.

We need people who commit, with the Holy Spirit’s enablement, to be the light of the world and the salt of the Earth. This is a centripetal force greater than all others.

E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many One, served as a de facto national motto from 1782 until “In God We Trust” was officially adopted in 1956. E Pluribus Unum is a Latin phrase rooted in a Christian conception of society. Significantly, it is not E Pluribus Tantum, Only Many. The “diversity” being marketed today, often religiously absolutized as a value with little or no concern for unity, is a recipe for social disaster.

The USA, God be praised, is still a land where religious liberty is honored, and with it, freedom of speech. It is a place where all people, including Christians, can learn to discern how their faith can contribute to lives and culture.    May this struggle, this Great Experiment, continue.

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. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026    

*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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 06 April 2026

Have you ever noticed the black bubble on the ceilings of retail establishments, malls, sometimes schools and hospitals, certainly casinos? Those are not lights but cameras. Big brother is watching you.                                    

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #256 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.

America is a free, open, pluralistic society wherein citizens possess God-given human rights—life and liberty—and government civil liberties—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial, and perhaps right to privacy, and also civil rights—equal access to education, health, protection against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc., voting rights.

We rightly value our freedoms, including freedom of mobility.  The U.S. Constitution does not specify a right to privacy, but this is one that has been developed over many years and much case law by the Supreme Court of the United States. Of course, it can include things like (3^rd Amendment) no forced quartering of soldiers in your home, (4^th Amendment) protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, or (5^th Amendment) protection against self-incrimination that are mentioned in the Bill of Rights amendments.  In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court said these amendments create “penumbras,” i.e., zones, of privacy, establishing a constitutional right to privacy.

There are many more such protections built into law enforcement and criminal justice procedure, things like needing a warrant to search a home, needing “probable cause,” to arrest someone, or right to an attorney, etc.

Of course, one of the most important principles of all is the legal principle “innocent until proven guilty.” This phrase does not appear explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Like the right to privacy, it’s a principle derived from several constitutional protections: the 5th Amendment guarantees due process of law and protects against self-incrimination, the 6th Amendment guarantees a fair and speedy trial, an impartial jury, and the right to defense, and the14th Amendment extends due process protections to the states. The key Supreme Court case is Coffin v. United States (1895) in which the Court clearly affirmed that presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of American law.

I mention all this because these treasured freedoms, many of which are not available in most countries and in some countries not at all, because they create both protection of independence and privacy and a challenge to instituting and maintaining security.

For example, how does law enforcement, at any level, track and apprehend domestic terrorists? Well, they do so by investigating and interviewing known associates or simply witnesses or neighbors, surveillance, searches, snitches, undercover officers, audio/visual recordings as in “Is he wearing a wire,” and review of online activity and financial or other personal information. 

Now, law enforcement officers are not omniscient, nor clairvoyant, so they don’t know who is innocent or guilty. So, for them to investigate and track a bad guy, they must talk with, perhaps take into custody even if briefly, pressure—threaten—people with legal action against some unrelated issue, and maybe put this person, who is innocent of a crime, at personal risk.

Herein lies the rub:  freedom vs security. If freedom is maximized, law enforcement can be curtailed, not able to learn what is necessary for finding and apprehending truly bad and dangerous actors. If security is maximized, law enforcement may, sometimes intentionally but often unintentionally, treat innocent citizens like criminals.

If you watch crime shows or movies on television, you see this conundrum played out regularly. Programs like the long-running Law and Order and its spinoffs, same for NCIS and its subsequent programs, older programs like Hawaii 5-O or The Closer, Rizzoli and Isles, even Blue Bloods, various detective programs, and newer programs like FBI, CIA, or Chicago PD.

In all these programs, sooner or later and usually quite often, this tension between freedom and security is played out in the plot. Sometimes, it’s the focus of the plot, meaning we watch the fav protagonist wrestle with his or her ethics in just how far are they willing to go, maybe a tad over the line, in jerking around the innocent parties, violating their rights, to catch the bad actor.

For some programs, like Chicago PD, this is a motif of the show, especially with the Intelligence Unit bossman, Sgt. Hank Voight, leading investigations into the city's most formidable offenses—drug trafficking, organized crime, high-profile murders and other large-scale felonies. He often crosses the line, even expecting his young officers to follow him, because his ethics are, shall we say, the ends justify the means. This is one of the reasons I no longer watch this program, at least not often, because for me, it’s too ruthless, too cop-vigilante. And it’s one reason, my wife and I always enjoyed Blue Bloods wherein this kind of thing happens from time to time in terms of realism, but for the most part this show’s motif is the Reagan family’s commitment to the law and integrity. In this sense alone, Blue Bloods and Chicago PD are dramatically different.

FBI is a good law enforcement drama with most of the action taking place in New York City. Several times, which is to say several episodes, have focused on Muslims, as innocent bystanders or victims, as domestic terrorists, as misunderstood and bullied people in the neighborhood, as FBI agents. At times, in my book the show can get a bit Woke preachy, lecturing me the viewer on how I should think better of Muslim citizens when they know nothing about my view of such folks. But I get what the show is doing and find the plots and action plausible and interesting, so I keep watching.

Just last evening we watched an FBI episode from four years ago in which one of the FBI agents, who in the storyline is a Middle Eastern American born and raised in the city, served his country in Afghanistan, and is now a respected agent, is put in the middle of freedom vs security. In this plot, two Muslim men turn out to indeed be domestic terrorists looking to blow up targets in the city, but the local mosque Imam—a friend of the Muslim FBI agent who has in the past worshipped at this mosque—does not know this and thinks the FBI focus on them is about discrimination and profiling. Meanwhile, another FBI agent pressures the Imam to the point of physical altercation, accuses him of lying, and threatens his and the mosque’s well-being with no legal basis for doing so—only this is leveraged to learn what the agent wants to learn. Then the Imam blames his friend Muslim FBI agent who is standing by, just doing his job, and trying to maintain some decorum.

So, the much of this episode’s story is about the angst and soul-searching the young American Muslim FBI agent experiences in the process of doing his work.

He knows there is risk and a need to take action in the interest of security.

He knows some local Muslims may have knowledge, but he holds back in the interest of protecting their freedoms, assuming innocence. Later in the program, he is called into his lead agent’s office and must answer for why he did what he did or did not do, what took him so long, and why was he—in the lead agent’s view—“overly concerned” with the freedom of a person of interest when such severe security concerns existed?

I’ve watched another FBI episode where again they plot turned on this Muslim agent’s conundrum as he is put in the middle of freedom vs security. In this instance some local Muslim people, who were all innocent in this case yet were “pinched” as they say in law enforcement, leveraged to get to the bad guys.

Almost two years ago, I produced two podcasts dealing with Digital Identification.  I called them “Digital Identification in a Brave New World,” and “Digital Identification in the End Times.” I noted that we now live in a mass surveillance digital world. Likely, there is not a week goes by that you and I are not recorded somehow someway in what we view, read, purchase online, perhaps where we go.

Today, a track-and-trace society has begun rapidly developing on at least five levels:

1-Mass surveillance with CCTV cameras now located in public spaces in virtually every American city, making possible along with computers, a mass surveillance society.

2-Geo-location technology capable of tracking where we are if not what we are doing at any given moment.

3-Biometric technology, including fingerprints, facial recognition, etc.

4-Digital identification becoming the fundamental means of commerce and communication.

5-Digital banking and digital currency.

Living in a mass surveillance, track-and-trace society built on digital identification creates a persistent tension between freedom and security in a pluralistic democracy. On one hand, such systems promise efficiency, crime prevention, and public safety by allowing governments to monitor threats, manage public health, and streamline services. On the other hand, constant data collection can erode personal autonomy, chill free expression, and discourage dissent, as individuals may feel they are always being watched. In a free and open society that depends on diversity of thought and behavior, this can subtly reshape how people act, speak, and associate. The risk is not only misuse of data, but also normalization of surveillance as a condition of participation in civic life. Balancing these competing values becomes difficult: too much emphasis on security can undermine liberty, while too little may weaken collective safety, leaving societies navigating an uneasy and ongoing tradeoff.

Security suggests we want to live risk-free. But ironically, security risks our freedom.

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. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 30 March 2026

Are you tired of being bombarded by ads, TV programs, professional sports messaging, sports show highlight segments, and athletic competition ad infinitum, ad nauseum pitching the normality of sexual confusion, in particular transgenderism?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #255 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.

Mar. 26, 2026, “the International Olympic Committee (IOC) finally issued a ruling it has been contemplating for months: Men can no longer beat up on women at the Olympics.”

IOC president, Kristy Coventry, a two-time Olympic gold medalist in swimming, said, “At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat, so, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”

“One thing we will be waiting and seeing about is whether this policy will be applied retroactively. Will men who claimed to be women be stripped of their medals? Will they get an asterisk next to the records of their achievements?”

Wow.  Yes, finally. 

The Olympics first formally allowing transgender athletes to compete traces back to a policy shift in the early 2000s, when the IOC created eligibility rules permitting participation under specific medical and legal conditions. Laurel Hubbard became the first openly transgender woman, i.e. a man, to compete at an Olympic Games in weightlifting at Tokyo 2020, held in 2021.

Beginning with the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, the IOC new policy restricts—I’d say “protects”—women’s events to biological females, determined through a one‑time SRY gene test. The IOC cites scientific review and the need for uniform standards across sports as the basis for this change.

But there’s more to it than science. The science, common sense, morality, biology, and history have been there all along.

What’s really going on is that the IOC is bowing to the enormous shift back to sanity that is underway in Western culture, back to 2+2=4, back to basic birds and the bees intel known to humanity dating to Adam and Eve. The IOC also saw the financial writing on the wall. They did not want to lose sponsors who are fed up with being asked to support illogical and inane and unfair competition their customers found offensive.

The IOC posted an article on its website, entitled, “International Olympic Committee announces new Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport.” Notice the wording. “Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category.”

Meanwhile, leave it to CNN to once again demonstrate how to use a media method called “framing,” i.e., slanting a story according to a desired narrative. Rather than saying “protecting women,” their headline said, “Transgender women athletes banned from Olympics by new IOC policy on female eligibility.” Virtually all other media followed suit:  The Guardian, ESPN, NPR, LA Times, USA Today, the NY Times said “bars.” FoxNews.com entitled its article, “IOC announces new policy to ensure only females compete in women's competitions.”

No one was “banned.” Male athletes posing as women can still compete as males if they qualify. One X user posted, “No one is prevented from competing. No one is excluded. There is a sex category for everyone. Everyone can compete, where eligible. You need to be good, and to qualify.”

Interestingly, 1976 Olympic Decathlon Gold Medalist Bruce Jenner, now living a sad life as Caitlyn Jenner, cheered the IOC ban on biological men from women's Olympic events. 

While the idea and a few participants and activists have touted the transgender issue since the 1950s, the 2010s are the decade when transgender identity became a national cultural issue, and then in the 2020s solidifying it as one of the most contested topics in American public life.

After the Supreme Court of the United States declared same-sex marriage legal in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015, the focus shifted from LGB to LGBT with the T taking center stage. For more than a decade, American culture has been treated to a tsunami of propaganda masquerading as science and compassion, demanding what intolerant activists called “tolerance,” and calling people “bigots” for simply expressing prudence, rational thinking, and horse sense. But no, if you were anti-trans you were somehow not with it.

In his book, 1984, George Orwell said, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Yes, don’t believe your lyin’ eyes.

The Bible has something to say about reasoning in a reasonable world. In the language of the old King James Version of the Bible in 2 Pet. 3:5, people are described as “willingly ignorant.” In other versions like NIV, it’s “deliberately forgetful” or in the ESV, “deliberately overlook.”

In 2 Thess. 2:11, in the language of the old KJV, it notes how people give themselves over to “strong delusion.” In the NIV it’s called “powerful delusion.”

Paul is describing people who reject the truth and embrace lawlessness. Because they refuse truth, God allows them to experience the consequences of their choice—being swept up in deception.

In other scriptural passages, we learn ideas, including wrong or evil ones, have consequences. “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28). “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;” (Hosea 4:6). Those who “hated knowledge” reap the consequences (Proverbs 1:29–31). These passages echo the same moral logic: rejecting truth leads to confusion, distortion, and judgment.

Hopefully, this policy change by the IOC—which Jenner described as top of the mountain and what they do has a domino effect on down—hopefully, this means other sports associations will also return to rationality and sanity.

Meanwhile, we should not use terms like “Trans women” because these individuals are men. And reject the media vocabulary labeling people “biological” men or women. There is no other kind of men and women.

We should keep men out of women’s prisons and locker rooms. It’s a related but different subject, but the transgender ideology is costing the criminal justice arena millions of dollars that would not need to be spent if men were put in men’s prisons.

Another part of the propaganda is what we see in television and cinema. Yes, it’s fun to watch our favorite female protagonist on police shows like NCIS or FBI or Magnum PI, etc., fight, knock down, beat up or otherwise subdue a bad guy.

And no doubt there are women in law enforcement, military, and security who have learned to handle themselves in a way that protects themselves and their partners. But is it really realistic to believe 115-pound women can at any time physically overpower 190-pound male assailants?

On a similar note, “the fact that most men would win most fist fights most of the time against most women is why (a given female conservative pundit) considers anti-gun views to be anti-women and anti-disabled. If you ban guns, then people will only be able to use their physical strength to defend themselves. Even a knife or other melee weapon requires strength to be used effectively. And to ask women and disabled people to rely on their physical strength means that they will be disproportionately at a disadvantage. Now, you need some strength to operate a gun, and some people will be too profoundly disabled to operate one safely, so a gun doesn’t completely level the playing field…” but for many, it could be a life-saving tool.

This is just one ripple effect of the nonbinary ideology that for a time has deluded American culture. It also makes a direct impact on everything it touches. For the LGB—lesbian, gay, bisexual—these folks are attracted sexually to others of the same sex, but still, they remain women or men, so there is no need for special restrooms, yada yada.

But for the T in LGBT—transgender—this person psychologically and emotionally and spiritually believes he is a she or she is a he, so they present a category that disrupts all of civilized society. They say they require and they demand special treatment, separateness, “other,” which translates to new family, social, commercial, educational, athletic, governmental, and health costs.

But no, as a civilization perhaps in the name of liberty we allow, but we are not required to endorse, promote, or in totalitarian fashion demand adherence to the abnormal represented by a miniscule percentage of the population.

I find it sad. I watched Bruce Jenner become the world’s greatest athlete in 1976.  What happened to him? Did he die? So, I am not gloating about the IOC ruling, but I am certainly glad for it.

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. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 March 2026

In our increasingly polarized political landscape, meaning divided with little hope of consensus, is it obvious to you that one end of the political spectrum does not espouse Christian viewpoints?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #254 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.

In January 1993, when I was privileged to serve as Cornerstone University’s president and with the encouragement of the WCSG radio Vice President for Broadcasting, my good friend the late Lee Geysbeek, I launched a 2-minute radio commentary. We called it “Making a Difference.” That program ran weekly, sometimes daily, through June 2008.

The idea was to comment on all manner of subjects, applying, the best I could, a biblically Christian worldview. Early on, I thought long and hard whether I wanted to be openly partisan and decided that while I’d speak from my Christian and conservative values, I’d not position myself as Republican, let alone any other party. I did this because I believed the political parties should be critiqued, that no party or “Ism” for that matter, including “conservativism,” should escape the review of a biblically Christian worldview. I wanted to integrate my faith with life and culture.

Now this means that if I wanted to represent myself as a person basing analysis of issues and events upon a Christian faith perspective, I needed to know whereof I spoke. I am not a theologian, but I thought I could develop, like the Men of Issachar referenced in the Old Testament, an “understanding of the times, to know what Israel (or in my case the U.S.) ought to do,” (1 Chron. 12:32). So that is what I did in more than 550 “Making a Difference” pieces, and that is what I’m still trying to do in what to-date is more than 250 “Discerning What Is Best” podcasts.

I’ve shared this history because I want to shift gears, at least in this podcast, and talk about political parties, political philosophy, or what I called an “Ism.” I’m sure there are listeners who will remember a time, not that long ago, when people could say, and I was one of them, that Christians could affiliate with either political party, Republican or Democrat. But even back when, I always thought what mattered more was whether people positioned themselves as conservative or liberal, for this was where their real values emerged.

I have friends and family members who affiliate with the Democrat party, and many more who affiliate with the Republican party. I want to respect them all, even as I may disagree with positions a given party takes. But here again, I must be careful, for both parties from time to time assume political positions that do not deserve support. Neither party is always consistent, much less holy.

This is why I still fall back on my view that what matters more than party affiliation is ideology, the “Ism.” Do you feel most comfortable with conservativism, liberalism, or in this new century, leftism?

When I was in high school and college in the 1960s–1970s, political developments like the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War protests, feminism and student activism pushed radical critiques of capitalism, war, and American institutions.

This is the genesis of the modern American Left, influencing culture, academia, and activism—though not yet fully controlling government.

In the 1980s–2000s, conservatives enjoyed a resurgence under Ronald Reagan. However, leftist ideas persisted in universities, media, and advocacy groups.

Now, from the 2010s to the present, the Left is surging. After the 2008 financial crisis, dissatisfaction with inequality grew. Politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and now NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani brought explicitly leftist ideas, including Democratic Socialism, into mainstream debate.

Movements like Occupy Wall Street increased pressure on traditional liberals. This period marks the strongest mainstream political influence of the Left in modern U.S. history, especially within the Democratic Party.

Though there is overlap and media use the terms interchangeably, the Left is not the same as Liberals. The Left is far more pernicious.

Liberals want to reform and improve the existing system (capitalism + democracy). The Left often wants to transform or replace major parts of the system (especially capitalism).

Liberals support capitalism with regulation. They believe markets work but need safeguards (e.g., minimum wage, antitrust laws). The Left is much more critical of capitalism and support alternatives like socialism.

Liberals believe government should fix problems (healthcare, education, inequality) and they prefer incremental policy changes. The Left believes government should play a much larger role in sweeping changes (e.g., universal systems, wealth redistribution).

Liberals focus on reducing inequality (tax credits, social programs) and accept some level of wealth disparity, while the Left focuses on something they call “equity,” meaning fairness in their terms.

Where the divide is even more pronounced today is on cultural issues. It’s not conservatives, but most liberals and all the Left affirm these views:

- “Trans for everyone, including kids who are too young to spell ID.

- Pornographic material in your kid’s school library.

- Trillions in ‘reparations’ for people who were never slaves from people who never owned slaves.

- An open border for all to enter the U.S. and receive benefits that you paid for…

- More DEI in the military, college, and the workplace.”

Faith in general seems to be something the Left is more at war with than nearly any other entity…the single biggest difference between modern progressive leftism and common-sense centrism (i.e., the old Liberals) and center right folks is the acknowledgement of God. That he has a purpose for humanity and that our lives are best lived when we acknowledge him and his plan. The Left believes that God does not exist, or that if he does, he is relatively unburdened by our plight and is unbothered to intervene.

This difference is how we arrive today wherein one political party believes it’s fine for boys to be in your daughter’s locker room, and the rest of the nation believes it’s dangerous.

What else do conservatives believe? That killing an unborn child is murder. That taking all of one’s earnings through taxes is theft. That our morality is not created in a vacuum.

Who consistently supports Hamas and now Iran? The Left.

Who proclaims some version of LGBTQ+ and then says they support Islam where their version of sexuality is violently condemned? The Left.

Who claims to be pro-women all the while nonsensically supporting radical Islam? The Left.

Antisemitism is showing its ugly face on the Left, but sadly, also periodically among the liberals and even so-called conservatives.

“Believing in Darwin, leftists do not believe in human equality; they believe that some humans have ‘evolved’ to a superior, higher status than others. Hence, their racism…Socialism, with its government economic control, is the Left’s economic system. Capitalism, with its freedom and uncontrollable markets, is rejected. Since the Left has no absolute morality except what will lead them to power, anything goes—lying, stealing, murder—it’s all in their history. Thus…nothing is forbidden if it leads to dominance.”

“The Left has been waging the most successful war against free speech in American history. As a result, almost half of America's young people say they believe in free speech but not in ‘hate speech,’ which, of course, means they do not believe in free speech.”

“The Left has essentially destroyed mainstream journalism. Mainstream media no longer hold truth as an ideal…They continue to promote the lie that having to present an ID when voting is ‘racist.’"

America-bashing has become the favorite pastime of the Left. So-called Progressives excoriate America as a nation founded by white men for white men.

They even reject the Declaration of Independence, labeling it a racist document.

This only scratches the surface of how radically different, morally relativistic, given to disorder and revolution, anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American the Left now is. As they like to call themselves, these “Progressives” are in near control of the Democrat party and sometimes influence establishment Republicans. Their worldview is anti-Christian.

I still don’t want to position my commentary as partisan, but it’s harder to near impossible now not to lean right instead of left.

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. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 16 March 2026

Have you ever known a person so disagreeable, so problematic, so toxic you just walked away, never—you hope—to deal with them again? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #253 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.

If you live long enough, sooner or later—actually, probably sooner—you will meet someone so disreputable that you just give up on them? You conclude there is no possible future in which things work out and you at least can get along with this person, and they bring considerable angst to your life, so you decide to disengage, to walk away forever.

I realize this kind of scenario may occur in any number of ways. I’ve thankfully never been involved in the dissolution of a marriage. So, I do not know what it’s like, except via friends’ comments or watching on television, but I’m reasonably certain relationships can deteriorate to the point where one spouse considers the other obnoxious, evil, maybe dangerous, so it seems the best or only decision is to get away.

I know families, friends, work associates, acquaintances, all manner of human interactions can become so pernicious, so noxious that the only way to avoid ongoing agitation or worse is to sever all communications and contact.  So, metaphorically or physically, you give up on this person ever changing, ever asking for forgiveness, ever working and playing well with others, and you walk away.

As memory serves, I think I have only met and knew well one or two people like this in my now three score and ten plus years. One was a work colleague, a person I discovered worked with questionable if not objectionable ethics, a person who was selfish, demanding, nasty, and intimidating to anyone who fell for his schtick.

At first, I pushed back, which was probably a mistake, because he just amped up his repugnant nature and behavior. Later, I learned to stay out of the way as best I could, and meanwhile I made the decision to move on asap, which the Lord graciously granted me.

This is a person so bad—I know this is a relative term, because this guy wasn’t immoral and didn’t murder people—but he was a disgusting individual, nevertheless. So, after I moved on, I moved on, I must confess I did not care if I ever saw this person again. Didn’t want to see him, ever. But hey, it’s not that big a town, so I knew that sometime, somewhere I bump into him, and of course I did, at least twice. Thankfully, long before this I’d prayed, asking the Lord to grant me grace and propriety when someday I’d see this guy. Praise God, when I finally saw him out and about, we said a polite “Hello,” gave a nod, and got on with our business elsewhere.

I confess this story to no honor on my part. Certainly, I was not faultless in the relationship of sorts I had with this guy. But I am glad I learned I could move on, glad God gave me the opportunity to walk away, and glad when I saw this fellow one day, it really didn’t matter much.

Now again, I know this simple tale and modus operandi won’t work in all situations for all people, and again, like for example divorced “Exes” who still must interact regarding children. I know you can’t walk away, but I do think there are ways we can enjoy the Lord’s gentleness, goodness, and generosity toward others who may lack courtesy, civility, and self-control.

Jesus is remembered for compassion and pursuit of sinners, but the Gospels also show something equally important: Jesus sometimes deliberately stopped pursuing people and walked away. This helps us understand that love does not always mean continued relational investment.

1. Jesus walked away when people rejected his teaching.

After the Bread of Life discourse, many followers abandoned him after difficult teaching: “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him...” (John 6:66). Jesus did not soften the message, chase them, or renegotiate truth. Instead, he turned to the Twelve and asked: “Do you want to go away as well?” Jesus allowed people to leave rather than dilute truth to preserve relationship.

2. Jesus walked away from hostile crowds.

“So, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple,” (John 8:59). Also, he escaped arrest and withdrew beyond the Jordan.

He did not remain to endlessly argue with those determined to harm him. So, we learn that withdrawal from escalating hostility can be wise, not faithless.

3. Jesus left towns that refused him.

A Samaritan village rejected him, “But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:53). The disciples wanted judgment, but Jesus simply moved on. Likewise, he instructed disciples to shake dust off their feet (Matt. 10). It is better to redirect our life and ministry than prolong conflict.

4. Jesus refused to entrust himself to certain people.

“But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people,” (Jn. 2:24). People admired Him superficially, yet he withheld relational trust. Love does not require emotional or relational access. Boundaries can be Christlike.

5. Jesus ended conversations with hardened opponents.

With certain religious leaders, discussion reached an endpoint. Repeated confrontations with Pharisees culminate in Gospel of Matt 23, where Jesus pronounces woes and then departs the temple (24:1). Dialogue ceased; separation followed. When hearts are closed, continued debate may no longer serve truth.

6. Jesus did not pursue Herod.

When brought before Herod Antipas: “So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer,” (Luke 23:9). Jesus offered silence, not engagement. Not every person must receive an explanation or relational effort.

7. Jesus let the rich young ruler walk away.

After the man refused costly obedience: “When the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions,” (Matt. 19:22). Mark adds: “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” Yet Jesus did not run after him lowering the demand. Point is, we may deeply love someone and still allow them to leave.

8. Jesus ultimately left Jerusalem to its choice.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate,” (Matt. 23:37-38).

Jesus never forced anyone to follow or choose him. You may not recognize it in these accounts, but what you are seeing is what today we call religious liberty.

Freedom of belief, worship, and religion is a biblically Christian idea. The First Amendment of the US Constitution has its roots in biblical Christianity.

Jesus walked away when truth was persistently rejected, motives were manipulative or hostile, safety or mission required withdrawal, relationship lacked genuine openness, continued engagement enabled hardness. Jesus pursued the willing.

He released the unwilling. Walking away in Scripture is not hatred — it is recognizing moral freedom and relational limits.

Here are the main biblical categories where God permits — or even instructs — stepping away from someone or ending relational pursuit.

1. When someone persistently rejects truth or peace.

2. When peace is continually refused.

3. When someone is divisive or chronically disruptive.

5. When influence corrupts your spiritual life.

6. When reconciliation is repeatedly rejected.

Scripture holds two truths simultaneously: Keep forgiving – seek reconciliation – love enemies, but also: Do not enable sin – do not chase endless hostility - do not sacrifice spiritual health.

Determining whether or when to give up on someone—to walk away—is a matter of your Christian maturity and spiritual discernment. There are many stories wherein faithful – never, never, never give up – grandmothers or aunts prayed fervently for wayward young relatives for years.  Or the parable in Scripture about the Prodigal Son wherein his father never gave up, and when his son finally returned seeking forgiveness and restoration, the father eagerly responded in grace and joy.

So, whether or when you give up or walk away is between you and the Lord. But there is guidance in the Word. And by the way, when it is necessary to walk away from a person, remember he or she is still not alone. God knows exactly who they are, where they are, and what they need.

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. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*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.