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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 09 March 2026

Is it ever justified, that is morally right, to use violence?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #252 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.

Violence is part of living in a spiritually fallen world. Sin exists, and since human beings give themselves over to various sins, violence in the pursuit of sinful interests also exists.

Scripture informs us God established government and lawful authorities to restrain evil. “For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).

So then, is all violence equivalent, always wrong or bad? What about violence in pursuit of the good?

For example, is the use of violence, say a gun, by a law enforcement officer no different from the use of gun violence by a perpetrator conducting a home invasion?

Is violence in self-defense, resulting in the death of the attacker, no different than violence in murder?

Most would probably distinguish these forms of violence. Historically, the law has done so, which is why there is something called first-degree murder—intent to kill, premeditation, sometimes deliberation, second-degree murder—intentional but not premeditated or extreme recklessness, and something called voluntary manslaughter—unlawful killing without the malice or intent, and involuntary manslaughter—recklessness or criminal negligence. Distinctions are made in terms of intent, premeditation, malice, level of recklessness, provocation, and circumstances. Point being: not all violence is the same, or necessarily wrong or bad.

What about violence on the international or geopolitical level?

Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist group Hamas brutally surprise-attacked, killed, and kidnapped civilians and soldiers in 21 Israeli communities in a day now known as “10/7” and in a manner so heinous the incident is considered the “deadliest for the Jews since the Holocaust.” Seeking return of 251 hostages, Israel’s military response to 10/7 was launched Oct. 27, 2023, resulted in prolonged bombing, urban warfare, and deaths of Hamas operatives and civilians.

When Israel defended itself, many international observers called for an “immediate ceasefire,” argued “violence breeds violence,” and assigned a moral equivalency to what Israel was doing 10/27 with Hamas’s earlier violence 10/7. Israel was criticized worldwide for disproportionality, perceived genocidal killing of civilians, and violations of humanitarian concern.

“When President Barack Obama said after Hamas’ attack upon Israel that both this attack and the Israeli occupation were unjustified, he was condemned by many – including attorney Alan Dershowitz – as refusing to condemn and counter the atrocities of Oct. 7.” In other words, Obama implied moral equivalency, i.e., actions or violence employed by Israel are no different than actions or violence deployed by Hamas.

“Morally equivalent” is a term referencing given arguments or actions that treat morally different actors or situations as if they are equally right or wrong.

More examples. Some American religious leaders have condemned recent U.S. military actions against Iran by framing those actions as morally comparable to the violence endured by civilians and combatants in the region, emphasizing shared human dignity over geopolitical justifications. Some of these arguments place higher moral accountability upon one actor, i.e., U.S., than others, i.e., Iran’s autocratic regime.

What seems to be missing in these comments by religious leaders is a biblical theology of sin, a biblical view of use of violence in a fallen world, or a call for justice based upon righteousness rather than peace at any cost.

Speaking Sunday, March 1, to thousands gathered in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square, Pope Leo said, “I address to the parties involved a heartfelt appeal to assume the moral responsibility of halting the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss…Stability and peace are not built with mutual threats nor with weapons that sow destruction, pain and death, but only through a dialogue that is reasonable, authentic and responsible.”

The U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, condemned the escalating conflict in a statement to the press, calling for “an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation.”

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released a statement asserting that “bombs do not create democracy, and airstrikes do not build just societies,” urging an immediate cessation of military escalation and a return to sustained diplomacy grounded in international law.

Similarly, Pax Christi International issued a declaration condemning recent U.S. and Israeli military strikes in Iran. Pax Christi framed these actions as part of a broader “cycle of violence,” stressing that “foreign military intervention only deepens human suffering” and calling on the international community to “uphold international law” and return to dialogue — placing the moral weight of U.S. decisions on the same scale as the human toll of the conflict.

Statements collected by faith networks like Sojourners…stated that a U.S.–Iran war would be “morally and religiously indefensible” and would repeat past cycles of destructive conflict that inflicted immense human cost on Middle Eastern populations. They urged policymakers to return to the Iran nuclear deal and pursue negotiations, presenting diplomatic engagement as the morally superior alternative to military intervention.

Stanley Hauerwas argues “The church cannot bless war. A Christianity that affirms the state’s wars is not Christianity. It is idolatry…When we honor soldiers for taking life and expect silence for the toll it takes, we reinforce the lie that violence can be holy and has no individual or corporate spiritual costs. We sin against the Gospel.”

Catholic clergy urged prayers and peace after U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran, insisting that “the dignity of human life must always come first” and warning that any action imperiling civilians carries grave moral weight—implicitly equating collective human suffering from all sides of the conflict.

Some religious leaders in the U.S. and globally frame violence as a tragic cycle à la “violence breeds violence”—blaming all actors—rather than identifying initiating actions, which tends to morally level state military action and non-state militant activity under a general “violence is bad” framing.

Others point to diplomatic engagement and negotiation rather than military escalation as morally responsible. Critics of these positions sometimes argue that such stances improperly equate what they see as military actions taken for defensive/security reasons, and diplomatic or negotiation efforts that might, which in their view fail to adequately address deep issues like human rights abuses, regional aggression, or support for non-state militant groups.

When religious leaders urge restraint upon the U.S. government but do not condemn Iranian leadership they appear to apply moral pressure asymmetrically.

They publicly constrain democratic governments while not equally addressing authoritarian leadership—creating perceived imbalance. This again is a form of false moral equivalence—treating aggressors and victims, or perpetrators and defenders, as if they are morally on equal footing.

But it’s possible to desire peace, to pursue peace, to dislike using violence, while recognizing that human beings are sinful, not trustworthy, capable of all manner of duplicitous statements and behavior, and even disguise evil intent. Yet at times, like Hamas, like Iran’s other terrorist proxies, and like Iran itself, the evil actor acts evilly, barring the way to peace.

On a local level, sad though it is, sometimes the law enforcement officer’s gun is the only thing that will end the violence of a public-school shooter. So, violence does not always breed violence, and not all violence is wrong or bad.

Ceasefires are not, ipso facto, wrong or ineffectual, but they may be. When threatened or harmed states defend themselves with a military response, then people, perhaps with a good heart, call for these states to implement an immediate ceasefire, they are assuming evil actors are working with a morality similar to their own. This assumption is, sadly, often not the case, particularly with religious extremists or simply human beings given to perversity.

While I do not want nor do I promote violence, and I am not trivializing the suffering consequent to violence, nor do I want innocent people to be threatened, including not only Americans but Iranian and Israeli citizens as well. I do not want the US government to be forced to use its military, but I am grateful that it has, as in WWII, and it can, and if required it will, to defend liberty and make peace possible.

And yes, local law enforcement and state leaders can do wrong or make missteps.

So, every law enforcement action or US military action internationally must be held to a high standard of morality. But not all violence is morally equivalent to other violence.

Violence is a consequence of living in a fallen world. The Bible is replete with examples of necessary, right and righteous violence. Even as Scripture commands us to love our enemies, still, violence may be essential and morally appropriate for self-defense against armed attack, in defense of another state under attack, for stopping mass atrocities, and to preserve and to protect liberty and justice for all.

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.