Individual Responsibility

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 12 January 2026

America was birthed by people seeking liberty, i.e., “Let me alone,” but does it seem to you that today citizens more often seek security, i.e., “Take care of me”?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #244 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.

Governments often try to respond to problems that are real and harmful, but whose root causes lie largely in individual choices, moral formation, habits, family structure, or culture rather than in policy design.

Here are some examples of prominent personal and social problems government ultimately cannot “solve”—

Substance Abuse & Addiction

Government gives us regulation, criminalization, treatment funding. But government falls short because addiction involves personal decisions, trauma, habits, and moral agency.

Family Breakdown (Divorce, Absent Fathers, Instability)

Government social “solutions” include welfare programs, child support enforcement, marriage incentives. But government programs fall short because stable families depend on commitment, fidelity, and self-sacrifice.

Crime

Government attempts to stop crime include policing, sentencing reform, criminal justice system, rehabilitation programs. But these programs typically fall short because, while laws and police restrain behavior, they cannot make people virtuous or law-abiding at heart.

Poverty

Government attempts to improve people’s economic lives include income transfers, unemployment and housing programs, food assistance. But such programs fall short due to people’s repeated choices—dropping out, chronic dependency, refusing work. Government might temporarily relieve immediate need, but it cannot instill work ethic, personal responsibility, discipline, initiative, or long-term planning.

Educational Failure

Government attempts include massive funding increases, standardized testing, curriculum reform, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. But government has fallen short because learning requires effort, parental involvement, and self-control, none of which government can create or even teach.

Mental Health

Government attempts to improve mental health by expanded counseling, medication access, awareness campaigns. But such programs typically fall short because despair often involves worldview and moral direction. Government cannot give meaning, purpose, or hope.

Sexual Behavior Consequences

Government is all over this one with innumerable programs, especially via public education, in which societal sex challenges are addressed through sex education, contraception access, abortion policy. But government always fails in this because policy cannot remove moral causality or eliminate responsibility and consequences.

Obesity & Lifestyle

From time to time, government via both political parties works hard on national fitness by offering dietary guidelines, bans, public health campaigns. But government cannot make people eat well or exercise.

Debt and Finances

Government attempts include regulation, bailouts, financial education. But government even falls short on finances because overspending and risk-taking are personal habits. Government can help to prevent fraud but cannot enforce self-control or wisdom.

10. Moral and Civic Decline

Finally, government makes a few attempts to address moral decline via civics education, public messaging, regulation of speech or behavior. But government falls short because virtue cannot be legislated.

Government can restrain evil, relieve suffering, protect the vulnerable like children, and set conditions for flourishing, but it cannot replace personal responsibility, moral formation and virtue, family, faith, or culture. Or to put it more sharply: the state is good at managing systems; it is bad at changing hearts.

Government under FDR began expanding to meet personal and social needs in response to the Great Depression, followed by the demands of WWII. After the war, there was some reduction in central government, but not much, and then another wave of expansion began under LBJ’s “Great Society” in the 1960s.

Despite President Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union comment, “the era of big government is over,” big government never really ended. No matter the political party in power, all levels of American government have continued to expand, and another wave of expansive government overreach took place in response to COVID-19 during the Biden Administration.

This trend toward ever bigger government responded to a huge cultural shift wherein Americans expressed a desire for government intervention. Government, not the family, not the church nor pastor, not the local community, emerged as the source of hope and progress.

And this trend toward trusting government to solve our problems followed another powerful cultural shift in which issues once understood as matters of character, morality, or choice were “medicalized” and morphed into mental-health categories. Behaviors once understood in moral terms (virtue vs. vice, self-control vs. indulgence, responsibility vs. irresponsibility) began to be described as diagnosable conditions or disorders. Moral agency was gradually replaced with therapeutic explanation, reducing accountability, leaving us with “if everything is a condition, nothing is a choice.”

Medicalization of attitudes and behaviors reframes culpability as pathology rather than decision. Bad choices become symptoms, not actions requiring repentance, discipline, or reform. Consequences are softened or removed, weakening incentive to change. “Experts” replace moral authorities, i.e., pastors, parents, elders. Government and institutions intervene through counseling mandates or pharmaceutical treatment.

Moral language: sin, vice, temptation, repentance, discipline, has given way to therapeutic language: condition, disorder, coping, management, triggers.

Therapeutic language is value-neutral, avoiding judgment. Explanation becomes justification. Trauma, upbringing, or neurochemistry are treated as determinative, not influential. Agency is minimized in favor of external causes. Therapeutic language explains behavior without evaluating it, and it often redefines wrongdoing as identity, i.e., “to explain everything is to excuse everything.”

Behavior is regulated indirectly through diagnosis rather than law. These trends have enlarged bureaucratic power, encouraged dependence on professionals, and undermined family and community correction.

My problems or your problems, my poor choices or your poor choices are not my fault or responsibility or your fault or responsibility but a nebulous “our” fault and thus no one’s responsibility. No longer is it “the devil made me do it” but “society made me do it.”

Modern culture increasingly treats sin as sickness, vice as diagnosis, and responsibility as pathology. We trade moral clarity and personal agency for therapeutic explanation and bureaucratic control, which is to say, “Big government will save us.” This is one source of American young people’s current infatuation with so-called democratic socialism.

In his influential 1976 book, How Should We Then Live?, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer said of American culture: “As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be left alone…wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity…a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.”

A Christian worldview reminds us, humans are free, rational, morally responsible agents. Scripture says, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's” (Ps. 103:2-5).

Government cannot do any of this.

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: 23 July 2021

How many of us want to be judged by things we said 20+ years ago, or during our teens or even college years? Some of those things may have been disgusting or reprehensible, unwise or immoral. I’m not suggesting otherwise.

I’m just wondering where, if at all, forgiveness or grace or allowance for growth, change, and maturity fits in our current woke cancel culture.

The Olympics Opening Ceremony director was just fired days before showtime for egregious performance jokes he made in 1998. Newly famous college athletes get hammered for offensive texts they posted as 14-year-olds. Actresses get blasted for having participated in a coming-of-age tradition that allowed racist practices 75 years ago, a good 60 years before the actress was involved and more that 10 years since the event publicly apologized and renounced its past. Comedians apologize for jokes they made years earlier in their careers when such jokes were considered edgy but acceptable.

I’m not talking about capital crimes. What is the statute of limitations on what someone later considers offensive speech or boorish behavior?

During his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush was pressured for the DUI he’d gotten as a young man. He said, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” Smart move. Who hasn’t been irresponsible, particularly when we were young?

During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama was accused of and admitted to smoking then-illegal marijuana in high school. He called this poor decision “youthful indiscretions.” Smart move. Who doesn’t have a few of these?

Our current culture’s social media-empowered drive for purity is highly arbitrary and wholly without mercy, which is to say it has nothing in common with “religion that is pure and undefiled.”

*This 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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 October 2020

Celebrities, politicians, and media use euphemisms as handy deflections to questions they don’t want to answer or don’t know how to answer or don’t want to answer in historically understood moral categories. These euphemisms pass for excuses or even erudition, but they don’t really offer anything substantive and can be misleading or downright wrong.

Consider these:

I was lucky.

This comment is regularly made by entertainment stars on late night TV talk shows or by sports figures when they are asked about their success. In an effort to sound, or maybe to give them the benefit of the doubt to actually be, humble, the accomplished star does not say, I am great (unless they are Muhammad Ali); I am enormously talented; I worked hard and by hook and crook clawed my way to the top; I am blessed – especially not this one because this implies there is a God who distributes talent and grace and admitting this in public media isn’t politically correct.

Problem is, taken at face value, this means that the star is saying I did nothing, I have no talent, did not work hard, and am not responsible for anything I’ve accomplished. Pretty bleak view of themselves, humanity, and existence. It’s all dumb, blind fate.

I just want her/him to be happy.

This comment usually comes when a former spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend has left the person behind. Or it comes when parents hear of their son or daughter’s decision to pursue some odd sexual expression.

Problem is, does the person’s happiness trump all other considerations?

I’m not really religious but I’m a very spiritual person.

The celebrity making this statement may be honest or may just be dodging the deeper meaning of a question, but either way, the idea is that it’s not really socially kosher anymore to be overtly religious, but it’s apparently OK to be “spiritual.”

Problem is, spiritual can mean anything and nothing.

He’s/She’s dealing with his/her demons.

This is a frequent media comment when some celebrity or politician has gone off the deep end but the media doesn’t want or know how to talk about the person’s choices in moral terms. Certainly, sin is not in the mix, so a reference is made to demons.

Problem is, demons can mean anything and in particular can mean that whatever is going awry in the person’s life, it’s not her or his fault. It’s the demons. So, this is a great way to duck accountability and blame something, anything but one’s own moral choices.

Mistakes were made.

This is the time-honored non-apology-apology. It’s a way of saying something so it sounds like you took responsibility but in actuality you did not take responsibility. Corporate CEOs say this when their company is struggling with a bad product; celebrities and especially politicians say this when they want to sort-of-own-but-not-own bad press.

Problem is, who made the mistakes? The person saying this rarely says I made mistakes. And if what happened was actually a mistake, then it perhaps was without intent or culpability, so you blame frail humanity. This may be accurate. Humans are frail and we make mistakes. But usually, this comment isn’t referencing actual mistakes. It is referencing premeditated choices. Someone acted and knew what and why they were doing what they were doing. This is not a mistake. It is willful forethought with intent.

Just have faith.

This comment is a favorite of celebrities on late night TV. It’s an all-purpose way of providing some kind of optimism and sometimes the full phrase is “Just have faith in yourself.”

Problem is, faith in what? Faith is as good as what it trusts. Faith in yourself may be good pop-psychology and perhaps helpful self-confidence, but as a religious or moral philosophy capable of dealing with life’s greatest challenges, it’s a non-starter.

I have to follow my heart.

This celebrity comment is sometimes presented as “You can’t help who you love,” which usually references some sexually progressive idea, i.e., I am pansexual, or I cheated on my wife because, well, I had to.

Problem is, once again, this comment seeks to side-step individual responsibility because it is saying that somehow the person is doing what they are doing and can’t help doing so.

Euphemisms may not all be bad or wrong. Saying someone “passed away” rather than he or she “died” is often used to soften the sad news. But euphemisms that obscure and deflect accountability ultimately do not serve the speaker well, let alone anyone else.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 01 August 2012

I've met a few people in my life who've claimed, cluelessly I think, that like Popeye, "I yam what I yam." Sounds cool, but it's baloney, especially if it's a masquerade for faults that could be addressed. No one is changeless but God, who by the way doesn't need to change. But we, human beings, are a work-in-progress. We often need to change, to grow, to become, and the good news is: we can.

Here's more on the issue:

This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 06 March 2012

Betrayal is something that's part of life for some people in a world gone awry. For others, betrayal is not so common, but it can rear its ugly head.

I think I've experienced betrayal, albeit in the scheme of things not nearly as threateningly or severely as others. But at whatever level of intensity, betrayal is usually shocking. We don't expect it, especially from people close to us, and it hurts or angers or embitters.

So how should we respond if we feel betrayed? And how do we avoid betraying others? Here's my perspective:

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 January 2012

Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno died at 85 years of age, January 22, 2012. Despite his long and enormously successful life his demise leaves us with a sense of something unfinished.

After 46 seasons as head coach at one university and 409 NCAA Division I football victories, the most on record, you wouldn’t think people would think “What if?” But they do.

Paterno’s last season in fall 2011 was marred by horrible allegations of sexual abuse against boys perpetrated over several years by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky. Paterno was accused of acting legally but minimally (after he’d heard about the allegation from an assistant coach who says he witnessed an incident of Sandusky’s abuse of a 10 year old boy in a PSU football locker room shower). Paterno is accused of not doing enough morally and of being ultimately responsible. So November 9, 2011, Paterno was summarily fired as head football coach.

No matter how you slice this story it is sad, egregiously so. It is heart wrenching for the number of youthful victims of perverted sex. It is sad for their families then and now. It’s sad for a university that, though clearly culpable through the inactions and misdirection of its administrators—or perhaps also for allowing a culture of invincibility to develop around a sport—is still largely peopled by individuals whose interest is in learning and in the other good things that come from a school with this level of quality. There’s more than enough blame and collateral damage to go around.

It’s sad for Joe Paterno and his family. Sure, there are those who say they don’t care, that Paterno deserves all he got and more, and that nothing compares to the hurts of the real victims. Who can disagree at least with the last point?

But if Paterno, based on what we know now, is responsible for leadership. “The buck stops here,” Harry Truman said, than how does this play out? Do we dismiss as meaningless Paterno’s life of consistent integrity and investment in young men? If Paterno were a participant in the abuse, I’d say “Yes.” But given that he was not, that he reported what he’d heard to his superiors, and that he trusted them to do their jobs, I’d say “No.” It’s not justifiable to denigrate Paterno or his accomplishments beyond the right/wrong of his sins of omission in this case.

I’m not saying this because I’m a football fan or a Paterno fan, per se. I’m saying this because I think accountability and certainly retribution should fit the indiscretion or failure. Paterno failed for not getting it, for not going ballistic on Sandusky or PSU administrators, for not calling the police.

But he did not, as far as we know at this time, commit a crime, hurt children, or act dishonorably, even when the PSU Board made Paterno the scapegoat and gutlessly and tactlessly fired him by phone.

I am glad the A.D., a V.P., and the President were all fired. They deserved it because they did not act on information given to them. They may have covered up. Paterno did neither. And I’d say that if the buck stops at the top, some of the Board leadership should also go. They handled the crisis poorly at best.

So for all Paterno’s legitimate football achievements, for all his admirable coaching impact upon a long list of known and little known people, for all that’s amazing and good in his story, his death leaves business unfinished. He departs with questions hovering in the air. He leaves us wondering what he would have said and what he yet could have contributed to the trial that is to come for Jerry Sandusky.

Paterno goes to his reward with us wishing he’d been able to stay around a little longer and help us make sense of a tragedy. It’s not about his legacy, as he would have said, but about finding truth and justice that can begin to make us whole again.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.