Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
With Dr Rex Rogers

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 November 2010

If you noticed that I had a visible tattoo, would it make any difference in your opinion of me? Apparently for some it would—to the point they either acquire or avoid tattoos pretty much for the same reason—they believe tattoos change what people think about them.

Tattoos are now visible in whatever direction you look. They’ve gone mainstream. Seemingly everyone, at least under 30 years of age, is tattooed and the resurgent popularity of body art doesn’t seem to have reached its peak.

Today, religious people, including Christians, get tattoos as a way of conveying their faith, including all manner of religious symbolism, crosses being the obvious favorite but also doves, angels, biblical references, and more.

This is a different world from my youth when tattoos could only be found on three kinds of individuals: 1) a few armed forces veterans sporting small, arm tattoos, 2) bikers and other assorted bad guys, 3) or tattooed ladies at the carnival. Today you can see tattoos on most of the prison population, the young lady serving you an omelette, innumerable college students, and not a few young pastors.

But when I was a kid, religious leaders, if not adult culture in general, tended to frown upon the practice of getting tattoos. So I wonder why it’s OK now to wear tattoos when it wasn’t OK in my youth? And I wonder, how do we decide to tattoo or not to tattoo?

When Christians ask these questions the first verse cited is in the Old Testament book of Leviticus: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (19:28). Some people quote this verse as the letter of the law, thus the end of the argument. No tattoos, ever.

But this isn’t a valid interpretation. This verse commanded the Israelites to avoid certain funeral practices wherein bodies were marked in some pagan hope of attaining a good afterlife. This verse doesn’t really address present-day tattooing, and as part of the Israelite’s ceremonial law it does not apply to us today. So we look to the New Testament, only to discover it says nothing about whether or not a person should get a tattoo.

The fact is, God didn’t give us a “black or white” yes-no answer on tattoos. He left it in the so-called “gray area” in between, so we have to figure out what to do and “be fully convinced in (our) own minds” (Romans 14:5). In other words, God gave us enough other commands and principles in Scripture for us to be able to decide this “matter of conscience” for ourselves. This is called Christian liberty.

Since clearly God wants us to maintain a lifestyle that honors him, we should make decisions or discern what is best (Philippians 1:9-10). If we discern properly we’ll live according to God’s command: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).

So let’s summarize:

--God doesn’t answer all our lifestyle questions and he grants us Christian liberty to discern what is best.

--He expects us to choose in a manner that glorifies him.

--Tattoos are not proscribed in Scripture.

--So each person must decide whether, why, when, how, where, what to tattoo or not to tattoo.

So, to tattoo or not to tattoo? While we’ve discovered God didn’t give us rules we should remember he did give us principles to help us answer this question, one of which is that not everything we can do we should do: “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive” (I Corinthians 10:23).

So to discern whether to tattoo or not to tattoo we should ask ourselves and perhaps our confidants these questions:

--Do I want this body art for my entire life? (Some say 90% of people who get tattoos later regret it; 5% regret it immediately.)

--What will this tattoo say about me, what I believe? (Like Christian body art sends a message other symbols send different messages.)

--Is the place and procedure I’m considering medically safe?

--Why am I getting a tattoo? (Peer pressure? Rebellion? To look better? To look tough? Other?)

--What will my tattoo look like in 20 or 30 years?

--Will the tattoo really look as cool or beautiful as I think, or will it look silly, cheap, sad, revolting, or worse?

--If I get a tattoo what might it’s existence prevent me from doing or experiencing later? (Job or profession? Relationship?)

--Why shouldn’t I get a temporary rather than permanent tattoo? (If you asked me, and you really could not be dissuaded from getting a tattoo—my preference—I’d argue for this short-term experimental option.)

For the record, I’m not against all tattoos. I’ve seen a few small ones, like butterflies or flowers that I thought were attractive. But by far, most of what I have seen suggest to me the person is trying to reach for something—barbed wire on men’s biceps, odd designs on women’s lower backs that can’t be seen other than with low-rise jeans. Not attractive. Certainly I feel for people whose bodies are plastered with tattoos. It's their free choice, but I believe they've made an unwise one.

If you already have a tattoo and want to get rid of it removal is now possible-if-painful and expensive. Laser and other methods are available.

To hear a lot of people tell it, tattoos are often acquired impulsively—in the early years this is part of their public braggadocio. But tattoos last a lifetime and impulsiveness isn’t a good decision-making attribute no matter who you are or who you aspire to be.

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

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 November 2010

It’s Black Friday again, the day when Americans (Canadians, and I guess others coming along like the British and Australians) seem to go shopping-silly in a mad frenzy to buy Christmas presents before all-the-good-stuff is gone.

Against my better judgment I ventured out, but only because my number one wife’s car needed a blown tire replaced so she’d once again have a spare. I survived two hours “out among ‘em,” got the tire, and came home asap.

Black Friday is the Friday after Thanksgiving, generally considered the busiest shopping day of the year. Last year and this, in the midst and, one hopes, the nadir of a recession, people chased off to the mall as early as they could. Our oldest son in Florida works in management with Target Stores, Inc. He worked all day and evening on Thanksgiving, then went into the store at 3:00 am this morning to be ready for his store’s 4:00 am opening. Several other discount stores did the same. Sure am glad to know I could have shopped at 4:01 am.

Black Friday is now joined by its youthful cousin Cyber Monday. This is next Monday. The term and apparently the practice have been around since 2005. Cyber Monday is ostensibly the day online retailers experience their biggest, busiest shopping day. People surf the Internet, pick and click, PayPal, and Confirm. It gives new meaning to “Shop Till You Drop.”

I have no problem with people shopping. Unlike how a majority of men feel about shopping if folklore and anecdote are guides, I like to shop. At least I like to go malls and walk retail space looking at the sights. I don’t buy much, if anything, but especially at Christmas time I like to experience the Christmas lights and wonder.

When I go shopping with Sarah she usually works maybe 3 stores, thoroughly and purposefully, while I case the entire mall. This has been our pattern since our dating years. Even B.C.P., Before Cell Phones, she knew where to find me. When she’s ready to do something else she looks for the Barnes and Noble or other bookstore, knowing I’ll be in one of the aisles or sitting in the bookstore coffee shop (Starbucks at B&N) enjoying a java and reading whatever I’ve gleaned—great way to wrap a shop-walk workout.

Yet I get weary when media outlets offer running reports on how worried retailers are and how far we’re likely to be behind financial projections in the year’s final quarter. This is not this year’s report. The moaning and groaning sound the same every year no matter what the economy is doing, because we’re always spending less than retailers wish we’d spend in their stores.

This is understandable, but what concerns me more is when media equate our happiness and even our general wellbeing with how much we spend. Spend more and be happier is the underlying mantra of economic news reports.

This spending equals happiness philosophy is more bothersome when it’s attached to Christmas. The spirit of the season, a truly special time of year affecting people of no-faith as much as people of faith, is co-opted, transposed, and reissued. Spending rather than the babe in the manger becomes our savior. If we’d just spend more in the Christmas season it will all be a better season.

I don’t think I overstate this feeling, nor do I think I’m turning into Ebenezer Scrooge. Far from it. I’ve already said I like the time of year and shopping, and I like to spend money on nice things for loved ones as much as anyone.

What I’m saying is that how much we have to spend has nothing to do with our happiness and certainly not our wellbeing. Discerning this truth is one of the great messages of Christmas.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 November 2010

I believe in strong leadership—but always with two corollaries, accountable leadership and strong leadership at all levels.

Accountable Leadership - All leaders should be accountable to someone or to some appropriate group. Even the President of the United States is accountable to the American electorate.

Unaccountable leaders too often fall victim to their own humanity. They can be captured by arrogance, which eventually, almost inevitably, leads to upheaval in their professional and perhaps personal lives.

On the other hand, good, effective leaders don’t mind being accountable to people with the right values. Being comfortable with accountability is a sign of competence and maturity in a leader.

Strong leaders need help. None of us is as smart as all of us. No leader can do it all and will fail if he or she tries. Weak leaders don’t understand this. But it’s always a precursor to trouble when leaders surround themselves with Yes-Men or Women whose loyalty supersedes their conscience, ethics, and compassion, thus their ability to truly help the leader and the organization. Strong leaders need to appoint people around them who are people with character.

Strong leaders who’re confident in their talent and assignment aren’t "threatened." Strong board members or directors, for example, do not bother them. Strong leaders don’t want directors who check their brains and their backbones at the boardroom door. Strong leaders with the right values and perspective want strong leaders around them, including people to whom they report, people who may be hard to please but for the right reasons like excellence, fidelity to the organizational mission, integrity.

Accountability is something God built into the fabric of human life, for he knew that sin would otherwise destroy us. I’ve always admired Charles Colson, whose organization, Prison Fellowship, exists because of him. He was not just appointed as an executive but was the founder of this organization. Yet he wisely created a board and voluntarily submitted himself to this board, allowing the board to establish policy and act as advisor. Such humility (Colson learned his humility the hard way after Watergate) protects both the leader and the organization.

Strong Leadership At All Levels - I also believe organizations are best served when strong leaders exist at all levels of the organization. Why? Because the stronger the links of the chain the stronger the chain. If leaders make things happen it’s logical to conclude that leaders working in a coordinated effort at all levels of the organization can make even more things happen.

Strong leaders at all levels also help balance the organization. Strong leaders at the top and in the leadership team strengthen the organization.

The fact that strong leaders exist on a board and strong leaders exist within the personnel hierarchy of an organization allows the person in the top executive position to be a strong leader. If strong leaders exist on the board, the top executive enjoys the liberty of accountability. If strong leaders exist within the organization, the top executive may exercise strong leadership without overpowering his or her co-workers.

Strong leaders don’t have to be narcissistic autocrats. Such people craft their own downfall.

Strong leaders who know and trust God, who gave them their talent in the first place, can get things done. They’re strong in leadership not for self-aggrandizement but to serve the Lord and others.

Excerpted from “Be One of God’s Unlikely Leaders—Live With Focus, Get Things Done,” my book in development.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 November 2010

I work with SAT-7, a Cyprus-based Christian satellite television ministry broadcasting in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish to 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and 50 countries in Europe too. It’s a distinctive ministry methodology, using satellite broadcasts to beam uncensored Christian programming into a few open but many closed or largely closed countries in the region.

In particular, I serve with SAT-7 USA, the Easton, Maryland based American development arm of SAT-7. SAT-7 USA is what we call a support office. Others include SAT-7 Europe, SAT-7 UK, and SAT-7 Canada.

Christian satellite television is not your grandfather’s approach to missions. It’s been around for about 15 years, but it’s still viable. On the bleeding edge satellite television is converging with smart phones, social media, and other similar technologies, so who knows what the future holds? Still, satellite television in the Middle East is predicted to be viable for some years to come in a region of the world where more than 50% of the people are illiterate and the Internet has yet to make the infrastructure inroads it has in Asia.

While SAT-7 represents a creative and effective ministry paradigm, we still need in-country on ground missionaries, and God bless them for their work. But in many places in the Middle East and North Africa people involved in Christian work cannot safely carry out their assignments. In some countries like Saudi Arabia churches are banned. In some countries like Iran, churches exist but typically as secret house churches. Believers meet in small groups, are led by whoever is available, and sing in whispers.

These circumstances represent more reasons why I believe SAT-7’s capacity to edify the region’s Church and evangelize the lost via satellite television is such an incredible technological gift for such a time as this. It’s spiritually effective: we know this from the innumerable audience comments we receive testifying to changed lives. And it’s financially efficient: we’re able to reach viewers for about $1 per viewer per year. Incredible.

Allow me to speak personally for a moment. I recognize that even if God allowed me to live until I’m considered elderly, I’ve already lived most of my life on earth. Only God knows how long I will live. I don’t. But I do know that I want to finish well. I want to use my time for the Lord.

I want to be engaged in a ministry that brings the message of Christ to people in a way that changes their lives. I want to give money to a ministry that has integrity, exercises good stewardship, and aspires to do more for the Lord. I want to support and pray for a ministry that is at the center of global significance.

This is SAT-7. It’s getting the job done despite political, social, ideological, religious, and cultural obstacles. It works.

So with Thanksgiving tomorrow, I am glad and thankful God has placed me where he has. To serve him in support of such a spiritually strategic ministry is a privilege.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 November 2010

I wrote recently that I considered TSA’s new enhanced body pats and the new Advanced Imaging Technology full body scanners over the top. I still think so, but I cannot support National Opt-Out Day, tomorrow November 24, primarily because I think it’s pointed in the wrong direction.

Full body scanners and the naked x-ray images they produce are, in my estimation, invasive and an unnecessary security measure. They’re unnecessary in that there are other ways, several of them, that TSA can employ to accomplish legitimate security checks. My point is: we’ve settled. Better technological tools are available to us.

But in the meantime, if I have to choose between going through a scanner I consider a virtual strip search or being patted down, which is to say groped, by some agent, which is to say some male person, I’ll opt for the scanner. I won’t opt-out of a scanner for a physical procedure I consider an even greater personal affront.

That’s what I mean by the wrong direction. National Opt-Out Day would make more sense to me if it called for opting out of enhanced pat downs. But then again, I resonate with people’s outrage about scanners too.

Still, I would not recommend people opt-out tomorrow or any other day from going through a scanner. Being seen by a stranger is better in my book than being touched by one.

Several things bother me about all this, including:

--the way TSA and the Department of Homeland Security have basically said, “This is it. Take it or be labeled uncooperative, not be allowed to fly, and be fined,”

--the lack of communication before this was leveled on the American public,

--the other options that have been set aside,

--the complete lack of moral or ethical discussion about these systems,

--the failure of TSA and Homeland Security to convince us this sort of Draconian measure will actually deter terrorism.

Again, in discussing these things I’m not contending there’s no terrorist threat nor am I attacking individual TSA agents who’re doing their job as they're told to do them.

I’m questioning TSA and Homeland Security’s policies and procedures. In a free society that once prided itself in its innovative spirit, both the policies and the procedures need reworked.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 November 2010

The title of this blog may seem utterly obvious, but people still miss it. The recent firing of Dallas Cowboys Coach Wade Phillips and Minnesota Vikings Coach Brad Childress are cases in point.

Both men are, by all accounts, decent people and knowledgeable football professionals. But both let their teams get away from them. It didn’t take a genius or a leadership expert to see this. All one needed to do was watch their last three games before the firings. Problems were obvious: players not engaged, dissension on the sidelines, dissension in the locker rooms, dissension in the press room, players quitting on plays, and a look on both coaches’ faces like they didn’t quite know what hit them. It was sad.

Phillips got in over his head and didn’t lead because he couldn’t lead. Childress was a different story. He brought Bret Favre back and then handed the team to him.

Bret Favre, who’s enjoyed a remarkable 20 year All-Pro career, has repeatedly tainted his own legacy in the past two years: whining about and sniping at Green Bay when that team demonstrated enough leadership to know when it was time to move on, fussing with coaches and players on the New York Jets, allegedly sending salacious text messages to a woman working with the Jets, and tearing up the Vikings team whenever things didn’t go his way. Childress should have sat Favre down, sent him packing, or at a minimum had a “Come to Jesus” meeting with him. Apparently he did none of this. In other words, he didn’t lead.

So owners like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the Vikings’ Zygi Wilf had no choice and opted for the best choice when they needed to take dramatic steps to change the direction of their team—they fired the coach. This gets everyone’s attention, quiets a few who wanted this result, and gives hope to others who want to win. It gives the owners a chance to put a leader into the leadership position, even if on an interim basis.

Leaders who don’t lead always get themselves and their organizations in trouble. And we saw that again in the Phillips and Childress stories. Leadership begins with leaders.

Start
Prev
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Next
End

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Subcategories