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.
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.