Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 09 April 2025

Have you ever pondered the kind of music you hear in your church, why it is used and are there other kinds of music that could or should be used?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #200 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.

As noted in the podcast, Music in Church History, music, singing, and instrumentation have varied and been debated since the days of the Early Church.

Church leaders and worshipers struggled to determine which, if any, music, singing, and instruments, were suitable for church worship, glorified God, holy or unholy in the sense of what emotions, spiritual expressions, thoughts and physical response they promoted.

In the decades and centuries following Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven, and the establishment of the Church, no instruments were permitted in church worship, and singing was limited to voices chanting Scripture in unison.

With the passage of centuries, call and response, multiple voice harmony, vernacular languages, and instrumentation were added.

More recently, we’ve experienced the so-called “Worship Wars” wherein churches divided between those who favored “traditional” hymns, most written in the last 300 years, and “contemporary Christian music,” most written since I was in high school in the late 1960s.

My service in the past 40+ years has taken me into many churches, and I grew up the son of a church pianist/organist who is still playing for our home church. Some churches position their music as strictly "contemporary," which may be OK but could deny the fellowship the opportunity for edification and enjoyment drawn from the rich, diverse, and beautiful music developed throughout the history of the Christian Church. In fact, this can perpetuate a certain ignorance among young believers regarding the musical heritage of the Church.

On the other hand, some churches still position their music as strictly non- contemporary or "traditional," usually meaning what’s called “the great hymns of the faith,” which may be OK as far as it goes but can also limit worship expression or signal lack of dynamism in the worship experience.

And this approach often fails to tap the incredible wealth of developing music in the Church universal yet today. Christian church music is not static. It is not standing still. New forms, songs, and musical expressions are being written let’s say every month.

While the so-called “Worship Wars” debating traditional and contemporary styles still persist, still other churches schedule what’s called “blended services” that combine elements of both traditional and contemporary styles. The goal is to bridge the gap between different generations or preferences within a congregation and create a unified worship experience.

In music, you’ll hear hymns played on piano, maybe even an organ, alongside contemporary worship songs led by a praise band with guitars, drums, and keyboards.
The liturgy may retain some traditional liturgical elements (like the Lord’s Prayer, responsive readings, or creeds) while also incorporating casual, modern elements like multimedia presentations or informal prayers.
Preaching styles tend to vary too, featuring a mix of expository or liturgical preaching with a more conversational, story-driven approach common in contemporary services.
Even the informal dress code may be blended, a mix of attire—some folks in suits, others in jeans—reflecting the cultural blend.

Why Churches Do Blended Services?

To honor tradition while also appealing to younger or newer generations.
To unite congregations with diverse preferences, especially in churches that have limited resources for separate services.

Is there a biblical formula, one way we must sing, use instruments, make music unto the Lord? I’d say, no, because the Word of God does not specify one kind of singing or praise, type of instrument, or form of music. But the Word most certainly says to offer praise to God with music:

“Oh, sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises! Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody! With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord” Ps 98:1,4-6.

Years ago I wrote a book entitled, Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture” (2003) – also available as an ebook, Living for God in Changing Times.

Christian liberty is summarized in 1 Cor. 6:12, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything.” And again in 1 Cor. 10:23, “All things are lawful, but not all things build up.”

In my book, I asserted that Christian liberty might be the least understood and least practiced doctrine in the Bible. I cannot prove this, but what I meant was, God gives us biblical absolutes by which we are to live our lives, and we ignore these at our own peril, like do not kill, do not commit adultery. But the Lord does not address every eventuality that can occur in our lives, because the Bible is written for all times, countries, and cultures, so he gives us principles to apply so that we can discern and make decisions that glorify God.

Music is one of those non-absolute concepts. God never said, here is the one and only holy music or instrument. Rather, he created us in his image, gave us reason and imagination, then he allowed us—actually, he commanded us—to develop culture, i.e., our way of life, again, hopefully in a manner that glorifies him.

Now, it’s sadly true, many people use their God-given gifts to develop all manner of evil things, including in and through music, but this does not make music evil.

In churches, God allows us to apply our Christian liberty in our preferences and convictions relating to music. There is nothing wrong with preferences – meaning what we like simply because we like it, and nothing wrong with convictions – meaning what we embrace because we believe Scripture directs or commands it.

There is nothing wrong with given churches holding to their music preferences or even that church developing certain music convictions. They must realize, however, that if some people do not agree, they may move on, and if done in a good spirit, there is nothing wrong with this choice either.

However, churches divide over controversy, the get in trouble, and fight among themselves when various churchgoers or leaders elevate a given style of music to a kind of holy list – in other words, this is it, any other kind of music is bad, wrong, of the Devil.

And since we are human beings, we tend to transpose that belief about a concept like music choice onto the other person – that is, we don’t simply not like that other kind of music, we don’t like that other person. This devolution into internecine culture wars has split churches, even denominations. When this happens, the church is right where the Devil, the father of deception and division, wants it to be, embroiled in a morass of conflict destroying its testimony and effectiveness in the world.

Christians would do well to recognize and apply the following principles:

God gave us music and the ability to make music, but he did not say make only this kind of music.
Christians do not answer to each other but are accountable to God for our choices.
It’s OK to hold music preferences, even convictions, and it’s OK to be different from others, but we are called upon by God to exercise our liberty in love for God and respect for others.
Music is a fine art, a preference, a universal language, a means of communication and of worshipping God, and a mirror to the soul.

Because philosophic values, time, place, culture, event, and individual mood can all cause variations in it, music is highly idiosyncratic. Our attitude toward and opinion of certain kinds of music or specific music expressions, like all the arts, must be spiritually discerned on the basis of biblical principle and Christian liberty.

Music not only can but should be discussed and debated in the church, but music should not divide the church. Informed discussion and even debate is a product of the Cultural Mandate. Division is a product of sin and a tool of Satan.

We must avoid “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” Matt 23:24.

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. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

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 or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 07 April 2025

Has it occurred to you that the music you hear today in church is not the music that churchgoers heard a millennium ago, or a century ago, or maybe a few decades ago when you were a kid?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #199 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.

"Music, like all artistic expression, is a gift of God to mankind.”

Throughout Scripture there are hundreds of references to music, instruments, praise, singing, dance, or a joyful noise.

Some specific examples include: "Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with timbrel and dancing, praise him with the strings and pipe, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!" Ps 150:3-6

"Speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord." Eph 5:19

"Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts." Col 3:16

"The trumpeters and musicians joined in unison to give praise and thanks to the Lord. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the Lord and sang: 'He is good; his love endures forever.' Then the temple of the Lord was filled with the cloud of God’s glory." 2 Chron 5:13-14

“Like any of God's gifts, music can be used for good or used for bad; it can be used in holy ways or in unholy ways; it can be a power for virtue or for vice.”

God's people in both the Old and New Testaments played musical instruments and sang in a variety of ways so that God would be praise.

Types of music, types of instruments and whether or how they are used, and the themes or focus of music in the church has varied throughout the history of the Church. And various Christian tug-o-wars if not outright battles over music have occurred throughout the history of the Church.

“Early centuries church music was quite simple, probably following some of the practices of the Jewish synagogues. Psalms were mainly sung; perhaps a few early Christian hymns and ‘spiritual songs’ outlining the basic beliefs about Jesus were added later.”

How the applications of music in the Church have progressed throughout the history of the Church is fascinating, and as I said, almost always with disagreement or controversy.

During the Early Church centuries, acapella, and “plain chanting,” were prominent. Christians sang during worship services but used no instruments. Most church fathers saw the use of instruments in worship as a ‘childish’ weakness and saw it as less glorifying to God that words of praise.

From the 1^st to 4^th Centuries, antiphonic hymns with its call-and-response technique, began to be used. Often the verses were Psalm singing or short, sung sentences such as ‘Lord, have mercy’ and ‘We lift up our hearts.’” Such call and response continues today in various church liturgies.

During the 5^th – 9^th Centuries, the Gregorian Chant became popular. This is a form of monophonic sound, meaning a single melodic line sang without accompaniment. These tranquil yet profound melodies designed to enhance the spiritual experience.

As Protestantism emerged during the Reformation, congregational singing became more important as a means of expressing faith together. Exclusive use of Latin gave way to the vernacular languages in part due to the work of the Reformers who wanted to be not-Catholic if not anti-Catholic in their practices.

By the 9^th to 12^th Centuries, polyphonic music made its way into the Church. This is two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody that we would recognize today. Harmony emerged, layers of complexity with multiple voices singing together.

Organs were, like all instruments, initially banned, then gradually they were introduced and integrated, eventually becoming synonymous with church and sacred music. Some of the greatest church music ever written and presented was played on enormous, rich, and complex pipe organs in European cathedrals.

In America, for a time organs dominated the church music scene, but the instruments were heavier, more expensive, and in some sense more challenging to learn to play than pianos. And ironically, as organs faded from church, for a time, their music found new expression in roller skating rinks, or even in rock and roll.

Today, organs have all but disappeared from church worship services. And the number of people who can actually play an organ has dwindled to a handful. In fact, if you really want to hear big-sound organs, you’ll need to go to a major league baseball park or perhaps a hockey arena.

Great Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) saw the church separate from society, so he wanted congregational singing limited to words of Scripture.

Great Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) saw the church as part of society, so he rejected formalism, urged use of vernacular, melodies, chorales of the people.

Protestant denominations, by definition being different and new and other compared to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, tended to embrace distinct musical styles, often reflective of their doctrinal emphasis and cultural context.

To get a feel for how people in the Middle Ages struggled with the place and appropriateness of music and musical instruments in the church, consider this dictum from Pope Benedict XIV (d. 1758), who declared that "ecclesiastical music must be composed in a style which differs from that of the theatre. The solo, the duet, the trio, are forbidden. While the organ was "acceptable" and stringed instruments "tolerated," the "forbidden instruments included timpani, trumpets, oboes, flutes, mandolins" and "in general, all instruments which are theatrical in character."

This illustrates how seriously the Church took the issue of music and worship and how it struggled with what God would consider worshipful and what God would bless.

What we know as the hymn movement flourished in the 16^th-19^th Centuries with composers like Isaac Watts (“When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”) and Charles Wesley (“O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing”) shaping Protestant worship.

The Second Great Awakening – 18^th-19^th C – gave rise of Gospel music, with its simple, emotional melodies aimed at evangelism, e.g., Fanny Crosby, “Blessed Assurance.” This vigorous and healthy spiritual movement continued to influence church music throughout the 19th Century, adding revival songs to church repertoires.

By the 20th-21st Centuries, praise bands, contemporary worship, and diverse musical styles made their presence known in the church – even country, pop, rock and roll, jazz, and hip hop – setting up what’s come to be called the “Worship Wars,” conflict in the church between so-called traditional and so-called contemporary worship preferences.

Disputes centered around use of Contemporary Christian Music, featuring lyrics not necessarily featuring Scripture and energetic music styles involving a lot of physical movement whether or not dance was involved, as opposed to, for example, classic hymns. Interpretive dance arrived in churches too.

In the midst of this, churchgoers debated whether guitars, keyboards, and drums should be used in church, and should special lighting effects and other theatrical or “stage effects” be used? One of my sons as a teenager played drums in church and came home to say, “Dad, when I’m up there playing drums, the old people frown at me.” I joked with him that the Plexiglas sound barriers around a drum set was actually protective bullet proof glass.

But seriously, remember the pope worrying about similar things back in the 1700s We’re still fussing about music in the church.

Today, it seems that most churches, even denominations, develop a list of favorite worship songs they use in their services. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this because the choices are generally rooted in that church or denomination’s doctrine, traditions, preferences, and perhaps ethnic, national, or linguistic heritage and culture.

But I’ve also wondered whether some intentional exposure to church music developed at other times in church history might broaden our appreciation for the diversity and quality of music in the history of Christianity and may even deepen our understanding of the richness of this history.

Maybe we could meditate on these thoughts for a while:

The Bible does not dictate one type of music, instrument, or mode of singing.
It is OK to have preferences, just not elevate your preference to holy.
We should learn to appreciate different types of Christian music.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 31 March 2025

Have you ever prayed in public or ducked low to avoid being asked to pray in public?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #198 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.

Those who’ve attended church and church gatherings most of their lives will recognize this common experience: sitting in a small group about to pray, the facilitator says, “We’ll ask a few people to pray as they feel led, and I will close.” Then, silence, as no one prays.

The silence can be painfully long.

Adults, longtime believers, populate the group; still, no one prays. Maybe the group is in part comprised of leaders in the church, yet no one prays. People begin to squirm, cringing in their seats. Maybe someone peeks, thinking, somebody, please, please pray and deliver us from this dreadfully awkward tension? Still, no one prays. Discomfort continues to grow as everyone waits for someone else to lead the prayer.

Have you experienced this socially unpleasant situation? Are you the person who perhaps is reluctant to pray in public?

Are you afraid to pray in public? Are you embarrassed at praying out loud?

The Scripture provides us with a few examples of individuals who were reluctant to speak and at times to pray publicly. In Exodus, when God called Moses through the burning bush to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses was hesitant and expressed self-doubt. He even doubted his ability to lead and speak to Pharaoh, saying, "I am not eloquent" (Exodus 4:10). While Moses did not refuse to pray, his reluctance to lead in public can be seen as an indirect hesitation to take on a public role of intercession or prayer.

Gideon is another example of a man who hesitated to pursue the opportunities God presented him. When God called him to save Israel from the Midianites, he expressed fear and insecurity. In Judges 6:36-40, Gideon asked God for signs, even laying out a fleece to test God's will. While Gideon’s reluctance was more about taking action, it also reflects a hesitance to openly engage in God's work in a public, bold way.

Though Elijah was bold in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal, his prayers were sometimes expressed privately and with humility. In 1 Kings 19:4, Elijah fled into the wilderness after Jezebel threatened his life. He prayed privately, saying, “I have had enough, Lord. Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” He did not pray in front of others in this moment of despair. His reluctance to pray in public here reflects a vulnerability and a retreat from public engagement in prayer.

Each of these men were later used mightily by the Lord, but their public service began with reluctance, hesitation, anxiety, maybe even fear. Yet God enabled them to overcome their own sense of personal shortcomings.

So, then what about those who may be reluctant or afraid to pray publicly? This is far more common that you might think. People are often reluctant to pray publicly for a variety of personal, social, and spiritual reasons. Public prayer can feel intimidating because it involves openly expressing one's faith, thoughts, and emotions in front of others.

In fact, it is related to peoples’ general fear of speaking in front of groups, something clinically termed Glossophobia, “the fear of public speaking.” No similar term has thus far been developed for “the fear of public praying.” About 77% of adults in the U.S. experience “glossophobia” — the fear of public speaking. It's one of the most common social fears. What’s called “stage fright” is a similar social fear.

But why are people afraid? People fear judgment or criticism, maybe saying the “wrong” think or not being eloquent enough. Some people apparently feel inadequate, believing their prayers are not as “good” or worthy as those with more experience. Some think of Jesus’ reminder and fear they might inadvertently come across as showy and hypocritical. Others are perhaps spiritually insecure, doubting their own relationship with God and whether their prayers are effective. Still others simply yield to social anxiety, general discomfort with speaking in front of a group, fearing they will make a mistake or stumble over words.

Meanwhile, the Bible records several examples of public prayer:

Solomon's Prayer at Temple Dedication, 1 K 8:22-53; 2 Chron 6:12-42
Elijah on Mount Carmel, 1 K 18:36-39
Jehoshaphat's Prayer for Deliverance, 2 Chron 20:5-12
Ezra's Prayer of Confession, Ezra 9:5-15
Nehemiah's Prayer of Confession and Petition, Neh. 9:1-38
Daniel's Prayer for the Nation, Dan 9:3-19
Jesus' Prayer before Raising Lazarus, Jn 11:41-42
Early Church Praying Together, Acts 4:24-31

Now what lessons can we learn from these biblical examples of public prayer?

Motive Matters: Prayer should seek God's presence and glory, not public admiration.
Humility is essential: Self-righteousness, judgmental attitudes, self-promotion, boasting corrupt purpose of prayer, whereas repentance is always appropriate.
Sincerity is valued more than Show: Genuine connection with and devotion to God, worship prioritized over performance or manipulation.
We learn we must avoid hypocrisy or formulaic, thoughtless repetition.
We note that we must never pray publicly in a manner that pressures others or that uses public prayer to push an agenda or manipulate others.

Public prayer reinforces the Christian Church. Public corporate prayer unites believers in communal faith and supplication, Acts 2:42. Intercessory Prayer, when believers pray together for others, reflects biblical teachings on bearing one another’s burdens, James 5:16. Praying publicly, e.g., meals, before an event, can be a way to encourage fellow believers and acknowledge dependence on God, 1 Thess 5:16-18.

So, after all this, what if you are still reluctant, hesitant, or afraid to pray publicly?

Well, you could consider these remedies:

Focus on God, not people: remember that prayer is communication with God, not a performance for others.
Pray from the heart: authentic, simple prayers are valued by God more than eloquent words, Matt 6:7-8.
Look for community support: participating in group prayer with trusted friends or mentors can build confidence.
Practice in private, which strengthens confidence in public prayer.

Everyone gets better with practice. And I confess that it helps to have role models. That’s where the community support comes in.

My wife and I were blessed with Christian parents who were active in the local church. I can remember my father and grandfather praying publicly on many occasions. My wife’s mother was active in local garden clubs, often speaking and presenting, and then my wife and her three older sisters grew up learning, planning, and presenting in Bible clubs and other church activities. They were all speaking and praying up front from the time they were kids.

I began taking my turn up front as a teenager, encouraged by a mother who said, that I should step up, and a father who was a deacon, SS teacher, and every other role, speaking regularly to small groups at church – this from a man who grew up a farmer, became a factory worker and a barber, then served the Lord in every capacity when the church doors opened.

My Dad cut his teeth on the King James Version of the Bible, so when he prayed, he used lots of “thees” and “thous.” His son—me—liked to tease him about this, but he was sincere, spoke to the Lord not me, and prayed fervently.

You don’t have to use the “King’s English,” as in the King James language. Nor do you have to be long-winded. Abraham Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” contained 272 words and took about 2 minutes to deliver, yet it is regarded as one of the greatest speeches in American history. God isn’t awarding points for eloquence or hot air.

Just pray. Pray in private first. Tell God your desire to grow more confident in praying publicly—to honor him not to self-promote—and ask the Lord to help you learn how to pray.

We need more men and women who pray, who lead, who serve, who live out their faith as unto the Lord in the presence of the younger generation.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 March 2025

What are we to think of AI and its many uses in this brave new world?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #197 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.

Artificial Intelligence or AI is now a near ubiquitous fact of postmodern life. Innumerable corporations and entertainment media are using various forms of generative or predictive AI and we-the-consumer are largely none-the-wiser.

I’ve addressed AI three times before in this podcast: Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence, Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Two, and Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Three.

In those takes, I explored the origins of this new technology, projected and actual new uses, threats to personal freedom and the body politic, and finally way-out science fiction masquerading as technological wisdom predicting AI will at some point outpace and overcome the human race.

On one level, AI does not mean much. It’s for sure not the biggest issue we face in the 2020s, but then again it has its own pros and cons now affecting our lives.

Awareness helps us to avoid being taken “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” Col. 2:8.

For example, “Yuval Noah Harari, the uber-Leftist, incredibly influential senior advisor to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, has called for scriptures to be ‘rewritten’ by artificial intelligence (AI) to produce a globalized ‘new Bible.’

AI can create unified ‘religions that are actually correct.’ Harari believes AI can be harnessed to reshape spirituality into the WEF’s globalized utopia of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivism.’ Wonderful, right?”

“But no, that isn’t what the WEF really desires. The WEF—the ultimate exemplar of Leftism on earth today—craves total global power. They want to control you, me, and everybody else.THEY will define what ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivism’ mean, THEY will determine what goes into the ‘new Bible,’ THEY will stipulate what “unified religions that are actually correct” consist of. They want to be God, the new God, the only God, the one that tells you what you must believe and think. And what they demand that you believe, and think will produce the earthly Utopia THEY will dominate.”

TikTok accounts, like //www.tiktok.com/@mycriminalstory?refer=creator_embed>">@mycriminalstory, is just one of the many that post AI generated videos, wherein victims, and, in some cases, perpetrators, of unspeakable crimes tell their side of the story. Permission has not generally been sought or received from victims’ families, so in a sense they are victimized again, and there is little to no truth in these depictions, only graphic, gruesome, gut-wrenching stories designed to attract voyeurs who like this kind of debauchery.

“Artificial Intelligence has already created problems. In the music realm, creators have used the technology to use artists' voices to create music they never recorded themselves…Another complicated side of AI is that its code essentially steals artistic style from the internet which can't be proven legally because of its nature but may have unknown ramifications on the price of art created by actual artists.”

Similar concerns have been voiced, even via lawsuits against ChatGPT by best-selling authors like John Grisham and others. They do not want their intellectual property, which is to say their written content, to be co-opted by what they call “systematic theft on a mass scale.” Such “author objections to AI have helped lead Amazon.com, the country’s largest book retailer, to change its policies on e-books. The online giant is now asking writers who want to publish through its Kindle Direct Program to notify Amazon in advance that they are including AI-generated material. Amazon is also limiting authors to three new self-published books on Kindle Direct per day, an effort to restrict the proliferation of AI texts.” As is often the case regarding what we consider progress, the law has not caught up with the pace of technological change.

Another AI challenge: Largely in response to AI-generated images of Taylor Swift circulated on X, “falsely portrayed in a sexual manner” new X (formerly called Twitter) owner Elon Musk said, “Posting non-consensual nudity (NCN) images is strictly prohibited on X and we have a zero-tolerance policy towards such content.”

Then there’s what’s called “deepfake” videos. Deepfakes is the name given to videos that have the “capability to make people look and sound like other people.

A ‘deepfake’ is fabricated hyper-realistic digital media, including video, image, and audio content. Not only has this technology created confusion, skepticism, and the spread of misinformation, deepfakes also pose a threat to privacy and security. With the ability to convincingly impersonate anyone, cybercriminals can orchestrate phishing scams or identity theft operations with alarming precision. In a recent incident, cybercriminals posed as a company’s chief financial officer and other colleagues in a Zoom meeting. The elaborate scam led to the loss of $25 million.”

You can imagine the threat to what’s now called a person’s “name, image, likeness,” the vast increase in cyber criminals’ ability to scam and walk away with people’s assets, the danger this type of technology could inject in national and international politics, or how this increasingly hyper-realistic technology can raise the stakes in cyber-porn, offering fake, indecent images not just of porn stars but of you or me or political leaders or celebrities.

WNBA star “Angel Reese recently had to slam whoever plastered AI-generated NSFW images of her on the internet…(She was) portrayed to be committing sexual acts in photos that were AI generated. However, the (former) LSU forward has debunked any authenticity to the ‘crazy and weird’ salacious photos of her circulating online. Seasoned comedian and TV host (Steve Harvey) was portrayed to be partying hard and also leading a rock band.”

“Out of all deepfake videos on the internet, a 2023 report found that 98% of them are pornographic, and 99% of those targeted in the videos are women.”

Whatever new technology is available, you can bank on it that sin and Satan will find a way to corrupt it, to use it for advancing the kingdom of darkness and not that of light.

Here’s another shake-your-head AI development. “An artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot now offers ‘a divine connection in your pocket’ by allowing users to ‘text with Jesus.”

“Yet, texting with Jesus is not a good thing for at least a couple of reasons. First… AI Jesus is less concerned with fulfilling the Law and the Prophets than providing answers palatable to the itching ears of 21^st century users…AI Jesus has less to do with the answers the platform is likely to provide and more to do with the way texting with Jesus trivializes the Bible and, by extension, Christ.”

“While some may look at this app as a means to find comfort or spiritual growth, others will likely see it as an abomination signaling the apocalypse.”

This said, should Christians avoid AI or does this mean they have even more reason to dive in and assure spiritual light is shining in this new industry? I’d opt for the latter. Get engaged. Be informed. Influence the course of events rather than cowering somewhere watching them go by.

In this piece I’ve listed a few dangers or problems with AI. There are many more.

But there are also positives with this new technology. Medical diagnoses can sometimes be made faster than ever before, video production in studios now can be accomplished with new efficiencies, AI can be a source of ideas, analysis of data for all manner of reasons is now possible to an extent and at a speed not possible before, facial recognition, spam filtering, recommendation systems, autonomous vehicles, chatbots, fraud detection, social media personalization, gaming, manufacturing robots, self-driving cars. automated financial investing, virtual travel booking agent, virtual assistance—Apple’s Siri uses AI, and much more.

AI is at its most basic, just software, computer programs written by human beings to accomplish ever more complex and, admittedly, amazing things. In a short time, AI has become incredibly complex, innumerable applications, as we noted, some good, some not so good. Because AI is the product of human ambition, it will always feature some bias, some evidence of our fallen sinful natures, even as the image of God within us allows us to develop something new and lofty in its potential.

We do ourselves and the Church a disservice if we become the resistance and in Luddite fashion reject or stay aloof from any and all AI simply because it is being used by some for sinful purposes.

We are better off, and I would argue more aligned with what God expects of us if we apply our discernment skills, our Christian critical thinking, to AI just like everything else.

Determine what we should use, how, and why. Help others identify AI potholes and pitfalls and how to avoid them. Harness the blessing of this new technology for the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ throughout the earth.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 17 March 2025

Have you ever been in debt and tried to climb out of it? It’s not for sissies.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #196 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.

Not long ago, indeed in my lifetime, debt, especially what was called profligate living beyond one's means, was considered morally questionable or at least unwise. Families diligently attempted to avoid bad debt and to get out of debt. Amazingly, there was a time when even politicians worked to balance budgets.

Now, it seems, American culture not only tolerates but embraces debt. We think we are entitled to live our vision of the good life, or what we think society “owes” us. We want our cake and eat it too. We want, regardless of the cost to ourselves, our nation’s wellbeing, or our progeny.

We did not invent this suspect moral philosophy. It goes back to ancient civilizations. Yet as we’ve embraced the idea that one never has to pay the piper, we’ve conveniently forgotten that one of the reasons many of those ancient civilizations are “no more” is not a lack of natural resources nor absence of ingenuity, but their unwillingness to acknowledge basic economics. Many old empires crumbled under the weight of their own debt.

Interestingly, scripture never says debt is a sin, but it does strongly state that debt is dangerous: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). Scripture also states that one is responsible for one’s debts: “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another” (Rom. 13:8). “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously” (Ps 37:21).

I first spoke about debt in this podcast August 2022. At that time the U.S. National Debt had just surpassed $30 trillion for the first time ever. Now, the U.S. National Debt stands at $36.5 trillion. If you want to scare yourself, go to usdebtclock.org and look at the National Debt Clock. The debt does not really “stand.” It moves faster than you can count. In late 2025, the U.S. National Debt will reach 100% of the American GDP or Gross Domestic Product. Every day, the U.S. spends $2.6 billion in interest alone. "This amounts to over $106K per person in America."

We know what causes this debt: aging population, rising healthcare costs, higher interest rates, a tax system that does not bring in enough money to pay for what government promises citizens. But even more, its government spending wantonly on programs and initiatives offering little-to-no return on investment and not in the national interest. It is government largesse granted by both sides of the partisan aisle.

Recently, in a White House conversation with leaders of the Trump Administration, Elon Musk said, “Just the interest on the national debt now exceeds the Defense Department spending. We spend a lot on the Defense Department, but we're spending like $1 trillion on interest. If this continues, the country will go, become de facto bankrupt." What he is saying, and he is correct, is this trend is not sustainable.

“On November 12, (2024, President) Donald Trump announced…the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly created entity focused on reducing government expenditures, slashing regulations and enacting cost-cutting initiatives throughout the federal government.” DOGE has been working rapidly ever since, and as I write, has identified $105 billion in waste, fraud, or abuse, cutting programs and shutting down entire departments like USAID.

This kind of work—budget reduction, cost cutting, restructuring or re-engineering—is rare to the point of near-non-existent in government. Consequently, when you add political partisanship to the mix, this Trump Administration effort to put the U.S. on healthy financial footing has triggered scores of Chicken Littles running around saying, “The sky is falling.” And, it has made Elon Musk the new Hitlerian man to hate and at whom to level death threats, and a man accused of stealing, lying, and helping Trump destroy democracy.

Cal Thomas said it well: “Our problem is that too many Americans have become over-reliant on government to take care of them, while ignoring the old Puritan ethic of self-reliance. Politicians have been fine with this because it contributes to their careers and power. That attitude has contributed to our $36 trillion national debt and inflation, which the administration, with the help of Elon Musk and his DOGE squad, are trying to reduce.”

In business, there’s a job called “turnaround specialist.” This person, usually with a financial background, and usually not staying long in any one location or corporation, markets him or herself as the one who, when a company finds itself upside down and sinking fast financially, a corporate board appoints at the top with complete authority, charging the turnaround specialist with righting the corporate ship, with – hear this – saving the company. The turnaround specialist is not there to save jobs, not there to preserve traditions or honor the departed. The turnaround specialist is there to do what must be done inside the corporation to – hopefully – make it possible for the business to survive into the future.

This is not fun for the people who work there, in part because, generally speaking, 75% of an organization’s costs involve personnel, so if the turnaround specialist is going to make a dent in costs and debt, personnel jobs must be eliminated.

Years ago, when we lived near New York City and I was a newly appointed Vice President of Academic Affairs at a small college north of the city, I read about the renowned and redoubtable Macy’s department store, founded in 1858. Amazingly, this company known for its flagship store at Herald Square and for supporting the Thanksgiving Day Parade down Broadway, was on the rocks financially. Macy’s “filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 27, 1992, after which point its banks brought in a new management team, which shut several underperforming stores, jettisoned two-thirds of the luxury I. Magnin chain, and reduced Macy's to two divisions, Macy's East and Macy's West.”

That new management team included a “turnaround specialist.” I remember walking into our NY kitchen and saying to my wife, Sarah, “How would you like to be this guy’s wife?” People were booing, sneering, and whistling at the turnaround specialists’ spouse at the supermarket, and I believe there was even a case of slashed tires. In other words, while the specialist was very well paid, the public and many employees hated that guy. He did his job, rescued Macy’s, which thrives today, and then presumably he “got out of Dodge.”

When I served as president at Cornerstone University, we experienced a year like this in which, due to a drop in enrollment, we had to lay off several staff members. It was the hardest thing I was ever involved in as an administrative leader.

Be sure of this: it is not easy or pleasant to hear we have lost our job, and it is not easy or pleasant to inform someone they have lost their job. And unlike the turnaround specialist at a large corporation like Macy’s or DOGE in a massive U.S. government, I knew the people involved. It hurt. But to save the institution what we did had to be done. I remember the university Board saying to me later, “You’re young enough you’ll likely have to go through this again in your career.”

I thought, “Thanks a lot,” but I also discovered that four or five trustees had gone through layoffs in their company, two others had gone through this twice in their careers, and one, three times.

Recently, on a Fox news Bret Baier “Special Report” panel, panelist Jessica Tarlov challenged another panelist with “Well, how many people do you want to lay off?” She was trying to say that already, enough is enough, and the prospect of more federal employees being laid off was too great a hurt for her to imagine. She saw the exercise and she evaluated DOGE in terms of how many jobs would be saved. But this is not why DOGE exists.

Now again, it’s not easy or pleasant to lay people off. No one wants to do this, even turnaround specialists. But the goal here is not jobs, but how many dollars must be cut to reach a level of financial expenditure that gets the U.S. government budget to a sustainable level, where we know we’ve righted the ship?

Losing a job is not fun. But it is not the end of the world. Losing a job is not capital punishment. A lot of us have experienced this somewhere along the way. And many who lose their federal jobs are being given significant severance, and they will find other jobs.

It’s much easier to spend money, to add to a budget deficit and a national debt, than it is to reduce spending and create a balanced budget and a workable national debt. Cutting will be unpleasant, but the goal is worth it.

It’s not unlike dieting. It’s easier to eat what we want and gain weight than it is to deny our desires and lose weight.

The national debt looms. It’s like a ticking time bomb just as dangerous as nukes. Do we have the moral fortitude to dismantle it for the good of our grandchildren?

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 10 March 2025

Have you found yourself in discussions with co-workers, suddenly to realize they hold values antithetical to your Christian faith, and sadly, are now rejecting not just your values but you?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #195 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.

One of the more helpful books I’ve read in the last few years is Christians in a Cancel Culture: Speaking with Truth and Grace in a Hostile World (2021) by Joe Dallas. In some ways, the title is confusing. Sure, Dallas talks about what’s come to be known as “cancel culture,” but mostly the book addresses controversial issues and how to respond to them.

So, you probably think, Oh, politics again, and of course Dallas can’t speak to social controversies without noting recent political developments. But this book is not about politics.

The author says this book was written to answer the question, “How do we stand?” when charged with homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and judgmentalism, or being unloving, anti-women, anti-gay, or anti-progress.

So, this book is not so much about politics as relationships, how to acquire, maintain, develop, encourage, and winsomely, lovingly speak into relationships with people who either represent, i.e., meaning “identify” with one of these categories, or fiercely defend the morality or rights of others representing these categories.

The author says, “gone are the days of Bible-believing Christians living an unchallenged faith, because the land we once viewed as a comfortable home is becoming foreign territory, barely recognizable to those of us who remember other times.”

One of Dallas’s greatest concerns, with which I whole-heartedly agree, is the Christian community or specifically the Church’s temptation to minimize the importance of doctrines that are critical to the faith but offensive to the world. Sometimes, humanly, our desire to get along is greater than our desire to obey.

“Hence we cave, not only by refusing clarity when it’s called for, but by accepting the world’s counsel on which sins we may openly classify and which practitioners of sin we must openly pacify.”

But Dallas succinctly reminds us: “Truth first; niceness second.” “To preach the gospel we have to speak the truth about man’s sinful nature and his need for salvation” “To make disciples we have to instruct them in sound doctrine”

Cancel culture zealots value purity above all else; if you hold values they deem unacceptable you will be rejected with hostility, because you are a threat.

But Christians must not do as surrounding culture, i.e., Lev 18:3, Ps 1:1, Jn 15:18, Mark 8:38. We are to love others, respect them, but never let them tell us what to believe or practice or say. They are loved but they are not the Lord.

Cancel culture is here so we must be prepared: Ready always to give an answer 1 Pet. 3:15. Speak the truth in love Eph. 4:15. Be salt and light Matt. 5:13-16. Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves Matt. 10:16. Act as ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 5:20. Contend earnestly for the faith Jude 3.

Illustrations abound of family loved ones rejecting other family members, including parents because the others and parents hold the so-called “wrong” or “judgmental” views that, though based on Scripture and have always been what they believed, now are considered unacceptable. So, the prodigal rejects their own family as the enemy.

This is very difficult to handle emotionally. It can create ongoing division, hurt, and awkward family outings, and too, sadness over the prodigal’s lost opportunities to engage, be blessed, and experience an abundant Christian life.

I’ve seen this many times. A family holds biblical views of, for example, homosexuality, considering the practice immoral.Then, soon after a loved one “comes out” as gay, other family members change their views to “affirming” and “accepting.” They allow relationships to trump theology.

But, for all the pressure to accommodate, we are not to give in to cancel culture but walk circumspectly not as fools but as wise Eph 5:15-16.

However, we should be ready for the fact that “whenever truth is told, someone is inconvenienced.” And as Christians who believe the Bible, we must understand that we will experience reproach because we share Jesus’ truth. But with an eternal perspective on reproach and reward we can accept whatever comes with speaking the truth.

This is our culture today: “Belief in the exclusivity of Jesus is viewed as discriminatory, Belief in hell is viewed as archaic, Belief in man’s sinfulness is viewed as self-loathing and judgmental, Belief in normalcy of male/female sexual union is viewed as homophobic, Belief in the immutable nature of our assigned sex is viewed as transphobic, and Belief in the value of the unborn is viewed as misogynistic.”

“Today, human feelings being hurt are interpreted as human rights being trampled.”

“Holding to truth can put you in a very lonely place.” “Family members who know better accuse you of harming them by simply continuing to be who we’ve always been.” “We can know we’re right, but that doesn’t eliminate the hurt we feel over the rejection or the anger we feel over the injustice…Fidelity to truth brings peace, but it won’t eliminate pain.”

The first five chapters of this book looks at cancel culture trends. It’s an excellent review with considerable insight and recommendations on “How to stand” in this culture.

But what I really appreciate about this book and why I said it’s about relationships, is that each of the next five chapters, examining abortion, homosexuality, race, transgenderism and Progressive Christianity, conclude with three sections: Keep In Mind, Keep It Biblical, Keep It Going.

These three sections contain statements we are likely to hear if we discuss any of these topics with people who disagree with our Christian values. For example, “Gay Christians exist and should be recognized as brothers and sisters in Christ,” or “I’ve always felt I was in the wrong body,” or “Your resistance to admitting our white privilege is evidence of white fragility,” or “Same-sex marriage is as good as straight marriage,” or “Plenty of women who’ve had abortions say they’re glad they did and that their lives took a much better course as a result” or “Telling people they are sinful is emotionally damaging to them.”

In response to these questions, and many others, Dallas provides 3-5 real-world, biblical, informed, compassionate answers. In other words, he provides us with ways to engage others who disagree, often vigorously, with our values, stating truth but stating it in a manner that does not attack, accuse, demean, or disrespect the other person made in the image of God. This is where he maximizes our chances for relationship.

Dallas is also concerned with what might be called doctrinal drift within the evangelical church. He cites Alisa Childers article listing signs your church might be heading toward Progressive Christianity: 1-lowered view of the Bible, 2-feelings emphasized over facts, 3-essential Christian doctrines open to reinterpretation, 4-historical terms redefined, 5-heart of the gospel message shifting from sin and redemption to social justice.

If your church is flirting with any of these trends, you need to engage the pastor in discussion. If he will not acknowledge these trends, defends or promotes them, and will not change, then you have a difficult choice to make. You likely need to change churches, and while this is not easy to do, it is a must if you wish to continue to know the truth and make it known.

“God is not mocked. We are still more than conquerors. The truth cannot be canceled by even the most aggressive culture. Our foundation is still the solid rock. Some of us may be silenced. But the Word will not, and He will not.”

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

Subcategories