Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 May 2026

Multiculturalism has been political elites’ religion du jour for fifty years, so it’s been around long enough for us to know it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #262 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.

A philosophy called “multiculturalism” has been one of the major philosophical frameworks shaping debates about immigration in both United States and Europe, especially since the mid-20th century. Supporters and critics often disagree not only about immigration levels, but also about national identity, integration, religion, social cohesion, and liberal democracy itself.

After WWII, with a reaction against what was perceived as the excesses of nationalism resulting in massive destruction and death, Europeans searched for a new philosophic approach to governance that they hoped would reduce if not eliminate the possibility of ever again seeing the continent in flames. Multiculturalism gained acceptance in academia, government, and civil rights discourse because it seemed to offer a new tolerance, a new way to allow for commerce without conflict.

Multiculturalism can refer to both a social reality (many cultures living together) and a philosophy or political theory about how diverse societies should function. So, some see it as a move from cultural assimilation (“everyone becomes culturally the same”), and some see it as a move toward cultural pluralism (“different cultures can coexist publicly”), with both approaches rejecting nationalism.

In the 1970s and 1980s, multiculturalism was adopted by several European governments as a framework for integrating immigrants while allowing them to retain distinct cultural and religious identities. Policymakers in countries such as Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Sweden promoted the idea that diverse communities could coexist under a shared legal and economic system without requiring full cultural assimilation. At first, it was an economic argument, considered practical in the face of declining populations.

Population, i.e., fertility replacement rates, in Western countries, and indeed most countries of the world has been declining. Family size is not simply about biology. This trend is not just happenstance, nor is it that people in the West have forgotten how to make babies. It’s happening because of changing values and moral choices: rejection of “be fruitful and multiply,” childbearing no longer viewed as a vocation or blessing, but as a burden or lifestyle option, loss of God-centered purpose, and life oriented toward self-fulfillment rather than stewardship and legacy. Biblical language “children are a heritage from the Lord” (Ps. 127) is replaced by cost-benefit thinking. Children are seen as obstacles to freedom rather than signs of hope and continuity.

Fear and anxiety regarding future global crises are replacing trust in providence with a consequent loss of hope in the future. When societies become dominated by fear, comfort-seeking, or radical individualism, they often lose the willingness to sacrifice for the next generation. Population decline is not merely a demographic trend but a reflection of deeper spiritual, cultural, and moral realities.

As labor shortages grew and humanitarian commitments expanded—particularly after decolonization and later during refugee crises—multiculturalism was frequently cited as a moral and logical rationale for relatively high levels of immigration. The approach emphasized tolerance, anti-discrimination protections, and public recognition of minority identities as compatible with liberal democratic values. It also evidenced a rather astounding naiveté about religion and religious worldview.

Multicultural mass immigration emphasized something called cultural relativism, the idea that no cultures are better than others, that a given culture’s practices and mores are defensible and cannot be judged by others or by some non-existent (proponents assumed declining influence of religion) higher standard.

Political leaders failed to foresee the sheer numbers or scale of new immigrants that would flood their countries and did not understand nor account for the impact of Islam and its worldview, which is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian worldview and natural law theories upon which modern Western Europe was founded and which still, even if diminished, motivate their cultures.

Cultural relativism easily gives way to moral relativism wherein truth, right and wrong, and thus law and order collapse. When leftist, woke ideas about diversity and inclusion are added to this equation, you get moral and social chaos.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel’s stance on multiculturalism evolved noticeably over her tenure, reflecting both shifts in policy experience and public sentiment. In the early 2000s, Merkel, along with much of Germany’s political establishment, endorsed multiculturalism as a framework for integrating immigrants. She and other leaders emphasized that Germany was becoming more culturally diverse and that immigrants should be able to maintain their cultural and (Islamic) religious identities while participating in German society. This naive pipedream aligned with the broader European trend at the time, which promoted tolerance, anti-discrimination measures, and recognition of minority communities as compatible with liberal democratic values.

With respect to immigration, the question became: Should immigrants mainly assimilate into a dominant national culture, or should societies adapt to enduring cultural diversity? During the multicultural era, diversity, borrowed from woke DEI or Diversity, Equity, Inclusion emphasis, emerged as the end-all, be-all with vacuous phrases like “Diversity is our strength” or “Equity over equality.”

But as it turns out, what multicultural policies (without the benefit of prioritizing unity) encourage is communities remaining socially separated rather than integrated. Multicultural policies yield ethnic enclaves, language isolation, and limited interaction between groups, and worst of all, it provides a Petrie dish for religious radicalization. Leaders such as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former UK Prime Minister David Cameron now declare that state multiculturalism has not succeeded in promoting integration and indeed the policy, in Merkel’s words, “utterly failed.”

What they did not foresee is that millions would come, millions would not assimilate, and millions would bring with them religious values and cultural practices markedly different and often opposed to Europe’s historic Western values.

Fast forward to the 2020s and Europe is now awash in serious demographic, social, and political problems, many of them stemming from the fragmented societies they allowed, nurtured, then could not stop. Under President Joe Biden, the USA pursued a similar path, cloaked in the new religion of multiculturalism and “No one is illegal” mantras. Mr. Biden opened the southern US border and welcomed immigrants from all over the world, largely unvetted and unmanaged, with no plan for how to house, employ, feed, or provide education and healthcare for these masses. Again, the idea of multiculturalism is that somehow all these new immigrants representing varying cultures and religions would provide economic and political power with no side-effects. But, like Europe has learned, we now know this is a hugely misguided generational error.

In terms of newly arrived immigrants, multiculturalism means they need not learn English because, of course, their language is just as good. They need not assimilate, for this would be a violation of multiculturalism. Immigrants need not adapt or adopt any American cultural practice for this would threaten the sanctity of their heritage culture, so they might best live in parallel communities, cultural ghettos, some “not American” space. American citizens cannot adopt any of immigrants’ cultural practices, for this would amount to another new sin, “cultural appropriation,” the idea a given culture somehow owns a practice for time and eternity, so for example, if my family celebrates Cinco de mayo by wearing Mexican sombreros, we’ve somehow deeply offended all Mexicans.

The late, great Harvard University professor Samuel P. Huntington argued large-scale immigration combined with multicultural ideology could weaken traditional American cultural cohesion. His 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, outlined some of his insights and concerns, and for this he was strongly criticized. Those on the left thought, how dare Huntington question their love of multiculturalism? But time will tell, and we now know Huntington was correct. Multiculturalism weakens and provides the ground for destroying nation-states.

Multiculturalism that simply seeks to respect and learn from different cultures can be interesting and useful. But as a political policy, it rarely if ever stays at that level. Perhaps inevitably, it morphs into cultural relativism, which is the idea that a culture’s values and behaviors are all morally justifiable, worthy of praise, no matter what a culture propagates. To call out these values and behaviors is, in terms of cultural relativism, racism, the ultimate insult and today’s original sin.

So, the next time you hear multiculturalism or cultural relativism or moral relativism, speak the truth in love and challenge these damaging ideas. Don’t let them ruin the future society in which your children will live.

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.

*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: 11 May 2026

Sadly, antisemitism is now a near-weekly occurrence in American society, but it strikes at the heart of the American ethos.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #261 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.

There are many social and political developments in America, my country, that I find astounding. They are so beyond the pale I never thought I’d see them in the land built upon self-evident truths, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. I never thought I’d see things I’ve seen in just the last ten years, no, not in my country. But here they are:

Abortion is number one. That dates to 1973. If slavery was the tragic human scourge of the 19^th century, then abortion is the tragic human scourge of the 20^th and early 21^st I don’t want to offend those who rightly consider human slavery the ultimate human sin, and certainly thousands of victims suffered and died under the system, but under abortion, every human victim dies.
Sexual perversion, a list that keeps getting longer in the name of sexual liberation and freedom of human expression. In Canada recently, a member of parliament listed a new 16-character acronym of the hour. No more, LGBTQ+ but MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. She actually stated this from memory on video. It means Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual+. I’m not sure if she was trying to go viral or is deluded enough to affirm this acronym, but this illustrates the run-amok nature of the any-sexual-proclivity-is-OK crowd. The same trend is running in America. Once biological binary is tossed there’s no end of self-seeking.
Antisemitism – after the Allies defeated Nazi Germany, found the prison camps, and liberated roughly 200,000–250,000 Jews from Nazi camps.

These were survivors found in concentration camps, labor camps, and some subcamps as Allied armies advanced. About 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. General Ike Eisenhower foresaw a day when the horrors of the Holocaust might be denied. He invited the media to document the scene and compelled Germans living in the surrounding towns and any soldier not fighting at the front to witness the atrocities for themselves.

April 15, 1945, Eisenhower said, “The things I saw beggar description.... I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”

Yet with this history, antisemitism is propagated by American citizens in American cities. One of my earlier podcasts, “Antisemitism Is Evil,” says it all in the title.

“Post-Holocaust, it’s very hard in the West…to say, “Let’s go kill the Jews.” So, people do all kinds of strange dances where they claim to be anti-Zionist but not antisemitic. But their ending point is always the same: we hate the Jews but try to say so artfully by couching it in Zionism, Israel, etc.”

“Estimates place the number of Jews in the world at around 15.6 million, with nearly half living in Israel. So, of the 8 million Jews living outside of the Holy Land, is life dangerous? There is no question that in the West (as opposed to, say, China), there is a significant increase in the reporting of antisemitic events, from the minor to the fatal.”

At one time, Jews were exterminated because they are “not white.” Now, in major American universities, professors are teaching that Jews are “white,” and not just white but the epitome of colonialism, occupation, apartheid, and now genocide. This is coming from intellectuals then down into society and the street. Students are literally being misled, mis-taught, and misinformed in the interest of hate. Qatar is pumping billions of dollars into American higher education funding the future antisemitic, anti-Israel American citizens.

Islamists, under different names, now working in Western societies all believe in the overthrow of Western democracies, they all believe in the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, and they all believe in the destruction of Western countries. Some say through political means and entryism and some through violence.

Europe is in serious trouble, at the moment ahead of the USA in its abandonment of democratic principles like freedom of speech and human rights, if not an embrace than at least a fear and hands-off attitude toward mass migrant Muslims now living in parallel societies, not assimilating, and set on the Islamization of Europe. With this comes increasing antisemitism.

“We have graduates in Europe and North America coming out of the best universities supporting and praising and walking in the streets supporting Hamas…Hamas is headquartered in Qatar.”

“Sophisticated second-generation people now supporting Hamas who are now the Mayor of New York City, once the great Jewish city and Jews sitting around the Shabbat table in New York and asking the question, ‘Where do we go?’”

“But as Elie Wiesel always taught us, ‘Antisemitism may begin with the Jewish people, but it never ends with the Jewish people.” “And this unleashing of Jew-hatred, which is now normalized and morally required, again, because it runs deep in European society, it will not end with the Jews.”

“Antisemitism in America has reached record highs, with over 9,300 reported incidents in the last year, representing a 350% increase over five years. Fueled by tensions from the Israel-Hamas war, online hate speech, and ideological extremism, 70% of U.S. adults acknowledge it as a problem. Nearly half of young American Jews report experiencing personal attacks, leading to widespread behavioral changes, such as hiding Jewish identity. 91% of American Jews say they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the United States due to violent attacks in the past year including the burning of a Jewish governor’s home, the firebombing of Jews in Boulder, CO, and the murders at the Capital Jewish Museum.”

Christians must own a sad history of at times perpetuating what has been called the “oldest hatred.”

“Anti-Semitism is not disliking a person who happens to be Jewish. It is disliking a person because they are Jewish. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) defines anti-Semitism as ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.’”

“According to the IHRA, anti-Semitism often takes the form of ‘mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.’ Particularly among evangelicals, anti-Semitism falls into one of three categories: political/economic, social, or theological.”

1-Political/economic – “They view the relative financial success and influence of the American Jewish community, particularly, as sinister—evidence, even, of a conspiracy to control the country and the world.”

2-Social – “is based on personal encounters with Jewish people.” We experience something negative and then generalized to the entire ethnic group.

3-Theological – “One of the most pernicious anti-Semitic theologies is that of Supersessionism, popularly termed Replacement Theology… Supersessionism… is the view that the New Testament church is the new and/or true Israel that has forever superseded the nation Israel as the people of God. The result is that the church has become the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally promised to national Israel in the OT. This rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel with a unique identity, role, and purpose that is distinct in any way from the Christian church.”

“Another example of theological anti-Semitism within evangelicalism is the view that the Jewish people are uniquely responsible for the death of Jesus. The answer to evangelical anti-Semitism is the same as any other sin. It requires that we acknowledge it as sin, confess it to the Lord, and through the grace of God, allow Him to work in our hearts to root it out and to heal.”

Why should Christians care about antisemitism?

Human dignity and equality, which teaches that all people are made in God’s image, Gen. 1:27. “Antisemitism, which involves prejudice, discrimination, and hostility towards Jewish people, undermines this core biblical principle.”
Shared spiritual heritage – “The Old Testament, integral to the Christian faith, is also the Hebrew Bible, containing the laws, prophecies, and teachings that form the foundation of both religions.”
Countering hatred and violence – “Antisemitism comes from such hatred and leads to violence, especially given the historical persecution Jews have faced. The Bible teaches love, compassion, and justice, calling believers against all forms of hatred.”
Christian witness to love all people – Jesus commands his followers to love one another, Jn 13:34-35.

Antisemitism in American society grieves me. It’s morally wrong and it defies the ideals upon which this country was founded as a “nation of immigrants” welcome to all who embrace the ideals and commit themselves to good citizenship.

I pray in America’s 250^th year we can all proclaim and live out 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.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 04 May 2026

If you do not know about persecuted Christians worldwide, you need to take time to research, understand, and respond.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #260 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.

Nigeria is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for Christians, number 7 on Open Doors World Watch List, which is an “annual ranking of the 50 countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution.”

With 250.2 million people, Nigeria is the most populus nation in Africa.

According to Open Doors, “Nigeria has been the most violent place in the world for followers of Jesus for several years. In northern Nigeria, 12 states have implemented Islamic law, creating a system where Christians live as second-class citizens, and conversion from Islam can be severely punished.”

“Christians – especially converts from Islam – living in states governed by Islamic law are also at great risk. Anyone suspected of blasphemy or insulting the Prophet Muhammad can be violently opposed and even killed in vigilante mob attacks.”

“Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) operate in the northeast, targeting Christians, burning churches, and forcing conversions. Fulani Militants, radicalized herdsmen, attack farming communities in the Middle Belt, displacing millions of Christians and destroying farms.”

“As of 2025, just under 53,000 Muslims and Christians had been killed in targeted political violence since 2009.”

Nigeria – extremism, radical Islamism, relentless violence. “Many Christians living in the south—particularly in places like Lagos, the most populous city in sub-Saharan Africa—don't face daily violence for their faith in Jesus.

But with increasing frequency, violence has begun to spill into some southern, Christian-majority states…Many victims have (said) that when Fulani militants attack, they don't just shout "Allahu Akbar" ("God is most great")—they also yell, "We will destroy all Christians."

“If you are a Christian, you are 6.5 times more likely to be killed than a Muslim and 5.1 times more likely to be abducted. This does not make the suffering of a Muslim less tragic; it just makes it less likely.”

“In any given year, the number of Christians killed by extremist groups is rarely less than 4,000—often more than in the rest of the world combined.”

Islamist terrorists, Boko Haram, violently opposes female education and in 2014 kidnapped 276 schoolgirls. 82 remain in captivity twelve years later.

“In 2025, the conflict garnered international attention with United States president Donald Trump vowing military action in Nigeria if the attacks against Christians did not subside.”

“On October 31, President Donald Trump designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC). The designation comes despite the insistence of some government apologists that no such pattern of anti-Christian violence (which might rightly be called genocide) exists.”

Nigeria’s political leaders are on record saying the targeting of Christians is a hoax and “profiling.” They say the violence is not so much religious as fights for power over land and resources or tribal ethnicities. The government says it has limited arms and ammunitions, not sufficient to police the entire nation. Likely, all these variables are at play, but clearly, Christians are dying in record numbers and local survivors are saying terrorist militias who catch them ask, “Are you a Christian or a Muslim? If you say you are a Christian, they shoot you.”

“Many Christians encounter severe challenges for their faith today… In parts of the Middle East, Christians face severe threats. Many endure violence, forced displacement, and loss of homes due to religious conflict…In North Korea, believers experience life-threatening conditions under strict government control.

Practicing faith can lead to imprisonment or worse, showing extreme risks associated with persistence in belief. Despite economic progress, in China, governmental control hampers religious expression. Christians there often face arrest for unregulated worship, illustrating a stark clash between faith and the state. African regions experience both violent and structural persecution.”

“Persecution, in its biblical sense, signifies the suffering faced by believers due to their faith. It encompasses various forms of hostility and oppression. The objective is often to deter or extinguish faith altogether…Opponents of the faith use threats, violence, and exclusion.

We could “understand these types and characteristics of persecution:

Physical: Violence and martyrdom.
Social: Ostracism and rejection.
Legal: Prosecution under unfair laws.
Verbal: Insults and slander.
Economic: Loss of livelihood.
Psychological: Intimidation and threats.”

Scripture provides considerable instruction and solace regarding persecution.

Matthew 5:10, states, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This verse highlights the spiritual honor associated with persecution. John 15:20 reminds believers of Jesus’ words: “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” In Matthew 10:22, Jesus warns, “and you will be hated by all for my name's sake.” Another guiding verse is Luke 6:28, which advises, “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” And then the promise of Rom. 8:35, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?”

In the West, specifically Canada and the United States, I don’t use the term “persecution” because what’s happening here thankfully does not compare with what’s taking place in Nigeria. I use the term, “harassment.”

Certainly, harassment of Christians is increasing in a variety of forms, some overt and physically threatening, a lot subtle and gradual suppression of influence.

“Restrictions on the public expression of faith, are increasing in Canada.” This includes “religiously motivated hate crimes.”

“Between 2021 and 2024, at least 44 churches in Canada were burned to the ground, with 24 confirmed as arson.” “Rigid interpretation and application of the principle of secularism have led to the suppression of religious expression in public.” “In December 2024, Premier Francois Legault of Quebec announced a proposal to ban praying in public, saying; ‘Seeing people praying in the streets, in public parks, is not something we want in Quebec.’”

“Alberta’s Child and Family Services barred a Christian couple from adopting a child because their religious views about sexuality…were incompatible with ‘the official position of the Alberta government.” Many more such illustrations could be listed, for Canada seems bent upon embracing a leftist, secularist system that outdoes the failing nations of Europe. Canada is monthly a paler reflection of the free country it once was.

In the USA, “hostility against Christian churches…has surged, with incidents increasing from 50 in 2018 to over 400 in 2024, according to Family Research Council (FRC) reports. These incidents, including vandalism, arson, and bomb threats, escalated significantly after 2022, with high concentrations in states like California.”

An estimated “more than 70 million Christians have been martyred over the last two millennia, more than half of which died in the 20^th century under fascist and communist regimes.” Persecution of Christians worldwide today is at an all-time high, with over 360 million Christians (1 in 7 worldwide) experiencing high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith. Nearly 5,000 Christians are killed annually for their faith.

There is nothing to say increased harassment or persecution cannot happen in the United States, and in fact what happens in Europe, usually travels across the pond.

How the Body of Christ responds to harassment and persecution will be challenges the Church faces in the coming days. We should not fear, but we should become informed, and be wise, watch, pray, then remain steadfast. And we must lean on fellow believers for encouragement, unity, and strength.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 April 2026

Ever notice how public officials justify their decisions, the rationale they use that may or may not be true or make sense?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #259 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.

Many times, I have witnessed people, who say they are Christians, change their views on a subject based not on their biblical theological understanding but upon their relationships. And I’m talking about profound moral questions, not just the best weather to catch trout or their choice of hamburgers over fettuccini.

Years ago, when gay rights first became a public topic, I remember reading a prominent Grand Rapids newspaper columnist, someone I read regularly. He was speaking positively about a gay rights event scheduled in a New England city. This surprised me because I knew this man, knew his Christian faith, and thought I knew, up till then, his belief that homosexuality was an immoral choice contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Suddenly he “comes out,” so to speak, affirming what back then we called the Gay Rights Movement and, to the point, the moral acceptability of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

But I kept reading his column. About three-fourths of the way through the text he mentions that his daughter is now living as a lesbian. Oh, now I get it. He changed his view on this sexuality issue not because his theology led him to do so but because he loved his daughter.

Along about that time, again several years ago, a particular Senator from Ohio and his wife, who had previously positioned themselves morally and politically as not affirming or supporting same-sex sexuality, rather precipitously spoke to media saying they had changed their view and that now they wished to affirm and support the Gay Rights movement, that “love is love,” and that they no longer believed same-sex attraction and expression were wrong.

What caused them to suddenly change a long-standing, publicly expressed view? Well, later in the press conference they begin talking about how their young adult son had recently revealed to them that he was gay and that they wished to support their son.

So, I don’t know these people’s religious convictions, but I do know they developed their position on what we now call LGBTQ+ based on the fact they love their son.

In 1992 toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s presidency, his wife, Barbara Pierce Bush, spoke to the Republican National Convention, using the phrase "However you define family, that's what we mean by family values.” At the time, this was widely interpreted as a peek inside hers or the family’s views, open to Gay Rights in a manner that had not been made public until then.

In September 2013, former President George H. W. and his wife made headlines when they served as official witnesses at the same-sex wedding of friends in Kennebunk, Maine. Later, while George W. Bush opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, other family members, including his wife Laura and their daughter Barbara, have publicly expressed support for marriage equality.

Al Gore famously switched from a longtime prolife to a prochoice position during his run for the presidency. Earlier in his life and career, Gore and his then-wife Tipper claimed to be “born again” Christians who affirmed biblically conservative theology. Somewhere this changed, for later in his career, including after he became a global spokesman for climate change, because of “his writings about the spiritual roots of the world's environmental problems in his book, Earth in the Balance, he was accused of New Age pantheism.

In 2004, candidate Barack Obama stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, but then in 2012 during his presidency he publicly reversed his stance to support same-sex marriage.

Now again, I do not know what these people’s theological beliefs were during their public lives or later, but it is interesting to note how changes on this moral issue are made apparently based upon relationships or politics.

Let’s pause here for some reflection. I am not saying a political leader, or anyone for that matter, should never change his or her mind. Presidential candidate John Kerry made what was called “flip-flopping” an art form. Everyone changes his or her mind along the way, and sometimes it’s a good thing, like Abraham Lincoln starting out moderately opposed to slavery and eventually becoming the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

Donald Trump's views on abortion have moved from a self-described "very pro-choice" stance in 1999 to becoming a vocal opponent of abortion rights during his campaigns and subsequent presidency.

So, this is not about changing minds. This is about the rationale people cite for changing their minds and the number of times I have personally read or witnessed individuals who changed their views on deeply moral topics, not because they developed a new understanding of biblical theology, but because they love a relative or friend.

Years ago, in my other life as a university president, I’ve related before about a group called “Soul Force” who visted Christian college campuses and sought to take over chapels and classes to promote their pro-LGBTQ point of view.

When this group came to Cornerstone University, they did get on campus and into chapel, but I dismissed the students. We also prohibited the group from entering certain facilities. We did not attack or demean them. I simply said, “No thank you,” and got reported in the press that way.

After this couple of days were over and the group had moved on, the president’s office began receiving mail. I am not exaggerating or misleading – 95% of the mail agreed with our position of not engaging with this group’s views or their methods on LGBTQ. Among the 5% who disagreed, I noticed an interesting pattern. Almost every one of those letters and notes eventually referenced a daughter, a son, an uncle, a friend who had begun to live the gay lifestyle. In other words, the people did not like the position I took opposed to Soul Force’s intentions and message because the people writing knew someone personally who they cared about and who now had embraced a same-sex sexuality.

I understand this inclination. I understand and I am not making fun of or taking potshots at these folks who genuinely care about someone and thus they have adopted an issue position that they think affirms or protects the other person.

Perhaps there are times when this decision-making approach is defensible?

Soldiers or commanders have sometimes disobeyed or softened orders when they believed strict compliance would harm civilians with whom they had personal contact. Humanitarian workers in conflict zones describe decisions as being driven sometimes by individual relationships with local families or children, even when those decisions conflict with official policy or neutrality rules. White Americans who participated in the U.S. Civil Rights movement were at times initially motivated less by ideology and more by personal relationships—neighbors, colleagues, or friends who were Black and experiencing injustice. Their involvement often began with “I know this person; what’s happening to them is wrong.” What about people changing their views on criminal justice after a sibling or friend is incarcerated?

Philosophers sometimes describe this as “particularist” moral reasoning or ethics grounded in care and relationships rather than universal rules.

But from a Christian perspective, this creates a conundrum we really need to think carefully about. Otherwise, we can end up making decisions that feel good but are not morally or spiritually correct, defensible, or wise.

Many Christians would say moral truth is grounded in God’s revealed will (Scripture), not shifting emotions. Feelings and relationships can be good but fallible, because humans are “fallen” or prone to bias. So, when there’s a conflict, the believer is called to align with biblical teaching rather than personal preference.

Most Christian thinkers would reject the idea that decisions are made without feelings or relationships. Instead, they’d say feelings are not the final authority. But feelings are part of being human and part of moral perception. The goal is not to eliminate them, but to discern them in light of Scripture.

In Christian moral reasoning, the ideal isn’t Bible vs. relationships as two competing forces. It’s more: “How do I remain faithful to God’s truth while loving people the way God commands—even when that is emotionally difficult?”

My illustrations regarding this decisional debate cited several family sexual orientation incidents, but the dilemma can be applied to any and everything. Point though, is not sexual orientation but whether and how we know and then apply our understanding of biblical theology. That’s what matters.

Certainly, we live in a time when biblical doctrine exercises less influence on citizen behavior and the body politic. But word to the wise: “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:17).

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 20 April 2026

Does anyone believe that ignoring a ticking time bomb is a good strategy? Apparently, that’s the view of most of the Washington, DC establishment regarding the US national debt.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #258 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.

The U.S.A. is responsible for a national debt now surpassing $39 trillion and growing.

President Donald J. Trump has spoken often about lowering the national debt and reducing the size of the federal government, and he has launched administrative initiatives to do both. Remember the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump Administration initiative? DOGE was officially established by an executive order, January 20, 2025. Cutting excess regulations and spending within the federal government is its primary objective.

“Proponents of DOGE have described it as a project to make the government smaller and more efficient by cutting government spending and downsizing the federal workforce. Critics have described DOGE as a project to make the federal government conform to the Trump administration's political ideology…About 300,000 United States federal civil service layoffs have been announced by the second Trump administration, almost all of them attributed to the Department of Government Efficiency.”

DOGE claims it has thus far saved the American taxpayer some $215 billion or $1,335.40 per taxpayer.

Then there’s that pesky fraud thing. According to the “Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government ‘loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud in improper payments.’.. Medicare and Medicaid account for more than half (53 percent) of the fraudulent losses.” Now to say the least, an almost $300 billion range is a rather broadly defined estimate.

Yet for all the Trump Administration’s efforts, in 2017 when Trump Administration 1 took office, the national debt was $19.9 trillion and when he departed office in 2021, the national debt was $27.75 trillion, an increase of $7.85 trillion. When Mr. Trump took office for Trump Administration 2 in 2025, the national debt was $37.1 trillion, and it now stands at $39.9 trillion, an increase of $2.8 trillion.

So for whatever work the Trump Administration has accomplished vis-à-vis debt, “the federal government is a vast money transfer machine. It spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars each year on subsidy programs—from the massive Medicare to hundreds of more obscure programs that most people have never heard of. There are more than 1,800 federal subsidy programs…The Government Accountability Office estimates that there are about $17 billion of improper Medicare payments each year, including fraudulent and erroneous overpayments to health care providers…Abuses do not just stem from occasional overbillings by doctors, but involves organized looting of health care programs by criminals…The GAO puts the cost of improper Medicaid payments at $33 billion, or about 10.5 percent of the program’s total spending.”

“All kinds of people are using the federal budget as a cookie jar to garner benefits to which they are not entitled. Families seek improper benefits through subsidies such as the school lunch program. Hospitals rip off taxpayers by double billing Medicare and Medicaid. Criminals loot subsidy programs such as food stamps.

Owners of nonprofit groups that are supposed to aid the needy line their own pockets with taxpayer funds…Fraud and abuse generate a catch-22 for policymakers who support spending programs. On the one hand, fraud is clearly a waste of money and should be stopped. On the other hand, minimizing fraud requires extensive bureaucratic rules and heavy enforcement, which reduces program efficiency.”

The total national debt has grown by $86,271.01 per second for the past year.

Point of interest: “the United States has been completely debt-free exactly once in its history — in January 1835 under President Andrew Jackson. Jackson was fiercely opposed to federal borrowing and made eliminating the national debt a central mission of his presidency. Jackson vetoed spending bills, refused to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, and aggressively sold federal lands to raise revenue. By January 1835, he had paid off the entire balance of approximately $33 million — making the U.S. the only major nation in history to achieve zero federal debt. The debt-free period lasted only about one year. The Panic of 1837, triggered by speculative lending and Jackson's own banking policies, plunged the country into a severe recession.

The government was forced to borrow again, and the national debt has grown continuously ever since.”

There are many reasons national debt and annual budget deficits are bad for the country. Among them,

Interest costs are growing rapidly.
Key investments in our future are at a risk.
Rising debt means fewer economic opportunities for Americans.
Less flexibility to respond to crises.

The good news is there are many solutions for resolving the debt problem. The bad news is all the proposed solutions involve getting politicians to agree and to act.

“As of April 2026, interest payments on the national debt account for approximately 17% of total federal spending for the fiscal year. These costs reached $623 billion by March 2026, with interest expenses becoming one of the fastest-growing major components of the federal budget.”

To state the obvious, this is unsustainable. We either deal with this now or we will reap the negative results later. There is no happy ending of the story that begins with us kicking the can down the road.

And here is another scary note. The recent interaction of the U.S.A. and NATO regarding the Iran war should tell us something. If America’s finances collapse under the weight of overwhelming, unsustainable debt, no one will come to our aid. No one will bail us out. Yes, it is true that when Greece got upside down financially in 2010, eventually a few European Union countries provided aid packages and today Greece has finally gotten back to some economic equilibrium.

If the U.S. goes under financially, it’s another story, partly due to size and money, but also due, among our allies, likely disinterest in helping us. Again, look what happened when we called for support against the terrorist regime in Iran.

Unsustainable debt has historically been one of the key factors bringing down empires and great countries—Ottoman, Russian, and Spanish Empires all buckled to massive financial strain. Sooner than any of the political leaders of empire thought, the empire declined and disappeared. It’s not melodramatic or ahistorical to say the USA is not invulnerable.

Today, we are blessed with better food, health, and medical resources. We are blessed with longer lifespans. So, we are living longer than FDR and company foresaw when they set up the Social Security program in the late 1930s and longer with more people than LBJ and company foresaw when they set up Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. These three so-called entitlement programs are predicted to fail financially in 2032-2033. But our politicians are whistling in the graveyard.

Another thing: debt is not just a financial issue. It is a moral one. Debt means loss of freedom and autonomy.

From a Christian perspective,

Debt must be repaid.
Debt should not be incurred in a manner that presumptuously passes the problem to the next generation.
Failure to repay is considered stealing.
Debt symbolizes a lack of contentment.
Interest on debt is a waste of resources.
Ignoring debt is dangerous.
Debt could block us from receiving God’s intended blessings.
We are to leave something for our children.

The U.S. national debt is in one sense not yours or mine to control, but in another sense, it may be, for we are still a government of, by, and for the people. We can let our representatives know that in our view, debt matters, and we’d rather not wait for a crisis like a stock market crash, depression, insolvency, bankruptcy, foreclosures, fiscal collapse, or financial ruin.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

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

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.

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

Subcategories