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: 09 November 2010

The Republican Party euphoria following the comeuppance it gave the Democrat Party in last week’s national elections is understandable. Everyone likes to win and winning big is even more fun.

But a week later, wiser, cooler, more far-seeing heads should prevail. Yet there’s little evidence this is taking place and only minimal evidence it might.

Both Republicans and Democrats need only return to 1994 for worthwhile lessons of what to do and not to do in the wake of lopsided partisan victory versus the party of the incumbent President. That was the year of Newt Gingrich’s “Revolution.”

The problem was, while the Revolution seemed to some like a great leap forward for the republic it soon deteriorated into partisan pugnaciousness. A few months later, President Clinton got the upper hand over Gingrich and the Republicans in the infamous government shutdown showdown. Worse, even though President Clinton later nearly lost his presidency in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, Republican leaders fared little better because of their own inordinate number of ethics and sex scandals.

Republicans need to learn from the foibles of Gingrich era partisanship. Democrats need to learn from the foibles of Clinton era hubris. Partisanship and hubris, it seems, too often go hand in hand and get the better of politicians, personally and politically. John Boehner and Barack Obama take note.

It’s a bit much to quote oneself, but I’ll risk it here because it fits so well. At the beginning of the Gingrich era in a column published January 8, 1995 in the “Grand Rapids Press” I said:

“Newly elected Republicans will make a major mistake if they think that Americans became tired of Democrats. They did not. Americans became tired of political tribalism masquerading as congressional law making. They became tired of business as usual. Americans want statesmanship. The jury is out on whether the Republicans have the character to provide it.”

I think the same is true today. I’m glad for gains by conservatives more than I’m glad for Republican gains. But either way, I’m not ready to celebrate just because more people with my view of government seem to have control of the teeter totter. I wish them well and I hope they have the character the moment calls for. I’m looking for leaders capable of statesmanship.

*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: 05 November 2010

More than 7.5 million opposite-sex couples are living together in the United States, an increase of 13% from 2009 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Theoretically, the economy is the primary factor in this increase. This idea suggests the job market has made meeting living expenses more difficult so pooling unmarried couples’ expenses makes financial sense.

Cohabitation is much higher in the South (38 percent) than the West (23.2 percent), Midwest (15.8 percent), or Northeast (15.8 percent). Education as well as income comes into play, as do local cultural values.

Cohabitation, the act of living together without benefit of marriage, is not something Christians can embrace, even in the face of economic pressures.

Churches understandably haven’t been pleased. Some mega-churches, like Trinity Fellowship Church, Amarillo, Texas organized an event called “The Big Summer Wedding” for cohabiting couples. Some 32 couples were married in this event.

Cohabitation has grown in recent years among older retired adults in their 60s or 70s. The argument is made at times that it’s about keeping family finances cleanly divided for the children’s sake. Or the argument is made that “We’re older so it doesn’t matter that we’re living together”—in other words, sex is something for the young so the older aren’t acting in an immoral fashion. But of course older adults still engage in sexual activity and whether or not they do, Scripture still speaks clearly about male-female relationships.

Cohabitation is not the financial common sense it may seem. It can be demonstrated that by circumventing or delaying marriage cohabiting couples pay a greater price in the long run in the loss of marriage-related tax benefits, insurance coverage, or estate planning advantages. This is aside from any moral considerations.

Cohabitation may sound harmless but it’s a dead-end street, even if it takes place in a seniors retirement and healthcare home. Because people are older or even elderly doesn’t remove moral considerations in their relationships. There’s nothing in Scripture that suggests this.

The other disadvantage of cohabitation, and a significant one, is that it’s a terrible model for young people. In other words, if older adults can cohabit what’s the big deal about young adults cohabiting? Increasing numbers of unmarried couples is already a major social phenomenon with growing impact upon family health in Western countries. Encouraging it isn’t going to help the next generation because it magnifies the number of households in which children are maturing without benefit of family stability. Youth need examples of adult long-term commitment.

Cohabitation is not historically new, but it’s not any more valid or wise than it’s ever been.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 04 November 2010

My wife and I aren't much for buying souvenirs, but we've purchased a few nice items here and there that we still own and still like. I have a set of carved elephants I bought in Thailand. They rank at the top of my list, probably because I like animals more than because they’re souvenirs. But then again, they’re well made, and it’s interesting to glance at them in my office and know some person in Thailand crafted them from a block of wood.

In one view, souvenirs aren’t worth much. In fact, I’ll offer a definition of a souvenir: “An item that makes you smile when you see it on the tourist shop shelf and makes you frown with befuddlement when you see it at home."

But in another view, they’re treasured remembrances of good experiences long ago and maybe in far away places. Nothing wrong with that.

So whatever happened to souvenirs? We’ve been privileged to travel to a few places and almost without exception the “souvenirs” one finds are items made somewhere else.

Why would I want to buy a souvenir in Thailand if the souvenir was made in Taiwan (or wherever) and can be found in every tourist shop this side of the equator? And probably points south too.

I was out and about in Cyprus today and found souvenirs made of everything-non-Cyprus and made everywhere-but-Cyprus. But this is not a Cypriot issue. I’ve seen this in the Bangkok, the Holy Land, Manila, Paris, Berlin, a host of Caribbean island ports, and more. I’ve seen this in virtually every tourist trap in the United States too.

Here’s what passes for souvenirs: trinkets, cheap, non-locally made, same ol same ol, plastic or soap stone, baseball caps and t-shirts (Do we really need more? Is “I’ve Been To Paphos” a good buy?), factory made, items that have nothing to do with the locale or culture, gag gifts. Gag gifts? Yes.

My favorite store name in Cyprus is “Romantic Supermarket and Suvenirs.” I’m not into their “suvenirs,” but they do have some romantic cashews and chocolate candy bars that are pretty good.

Of course, in some if not most destinations you can find shops that offer higher-end, which is to say expensive, souvenirs. But even in these shops many of the items and much of the art comes from non-local craftsmen or artists.

If I’m going to buy a souvenir I’d like it to be something that actually originated in country and represents the local culture. Folk art is great, but again, it’s hard to find, at least without going out of the way to non-tourist areas, something you cannot always do.

Well, so much for this ode to souvenirs with character. Original souvenirs, we hardly knew ye.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 November 2010

I’m spending the week in Cyprus working with SAT-7 staff and board members and interacting at least here and there with Cypriots. The SAT-7 staff and board are an international group—Lebanese, Egyptian, Danish, English, Irish, American, Swedish, Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and more. They speak a list of languages, Arabic mostly and English always as a second language, so they’re a smart assembly of people.

All the staff and board members, like me, bring their cultural backgrounds to the table. We can’t help it. Our culture is part of who we are and part of what makes us individually intrinsically interesting.

My interest in culture, which simply means “way of life,” began in high school and went into orbit in college. Culture encompasses anthropology and social science, which typically includes language, religion, politics, and economics. (Though one scholar, Henry Van Til, argued religion comes first and defined culture as “religion externalized.”) Culture is about human beings, their ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, and most importantly, worldview.

Culture shows up in how we eat, what we wear, how we marry and bury, what music we like, and how we rear our children. It’s a filter and an amplifier through which we view the world and life and everything within it.

Culture is powerful, sometimes it seems near overwhelmingly so. Though I concede it's an incredibly powerful influence, I do not believe in “cultural determinism.” This is the idea that where we live or how we’re raised dictates all that we are thereafter. My theology doesn’t let me go there. For Christians, for example, God places us “In the World,” but commands us to be “Not of the World” even as we go “Into the World.”(John 17). The idea and reality of the Christian faith belies the idea of cultural determinism, or for that matter, economic or any other determinism.

True Christian faith, empowered by the Holy Spirit, enables anyone to change, to become something different than they were before. This doesn’t mean all cultural practices are bad or wrong or must change with Christian faith. It simply means that some things must change and can change with God’s intervention. Theologians call it conversion, being “born again,” along with the sanctification (Romans 12:2) process that should follow thereafter.

So culture is, and when you travel, culture is fun. I enjoy hearing accents, seeing different dress, eating food I don’t recognize, not being able to get ice in my drinks, trying to understand why my approach to resolving an issue is so perplexing to my friends, or vice versa, hearing-but-not-understanding—and that’s in English, watching how spouses relate to one another, seeing wedding rings on right hands, driving on the left side of the road, not being able to find Half-and-Half, or in fact, seeing wrinkled brows when I say “cream.” I enjoy finding shampoo affixed to the wall in little dispensers, showering using a hose apparatus, surfing through television channels in Arabic, Russian, Greek, English, and I-don’t-know-what-that-one-was.

Culture is one of God’s blessings. It makes human beings different. So it makes us as varied as flowers in the wilderness and, therefore, forever fascinating. What a boring place the world would be if we were all alike.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 November 2010

Gunmen surprised worshippers and seized a Baghdad church during an evening Sunday service. Before it was over more than 60 people, including the priest, were killed when government security forces stormed the church to free the more than 100 Iraqi Catholics who’d been captured. Eventually, the eight assailants involved were also killed.

This didn’t happen due to “forces beyond our control.” It didn’t happen because of unruly weather. It happened because people made bad choices. It was an avoidable tragedy, so why did God allow it?

Tragedy is a conversational word that means disaster, sadness, or unexpected developments that victimize human happiness, wellbeing, and even lives.

Theodicy is a less often used word that means a vindication of divine justice in allowing evil, suffering, or tragedies to exist.

Tragedies we’ve seen, perhaps experienced, and all-too-painfully understand. Theodicy, the idea that God has a reason for tragedies, the idea that God allows or, even more discomforting, directs tragedies is not so easy to understand.

Yet if we believe in the God of the Bible we must acknowledge his sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence. He is in control. He knows all things. Nothing is a surprise or an accident to him. He is all-powerful, so nothing happens outside of his will or influence. Not 9/11, not this senseless brutality against innocent churchgoers.

In the wake of earthquakes or tsunamis taking the lives of tens of thousands of people, including children, the idea that God could have thwarted these so-called “natural” disasters is a difficult theological pill to swallow. In the face of wars that decimate entire populations of people, the idea that God could have stopped the carnage seems to beg the question of God’s purported love and compassion for people. In the after-shock of senseless violence and unnecessary death, the thought that God could have prevented the tragedy tests our faith.

So some question God’s existence, some his goodness. Some, like Job’s wife, simply want to curse God and die.

Yet in the Book of Job, the oldest scriptural writings, God does not answer all of Job’s questions. God reminds Job and us that he, God, is great. That he is good. That he is just. That he is love. God is big—bigger than our circumstances, bigger than suicide bombers, terrorists, or well-armed thugs.

Theodicy, in the end, requires faith—faith in a God whose goal is to reconcile us with him, even through tragedies. This, in turn, requires a right understanding of theology. To interpret properly the world and its volatile events we must know who God is, what comprises his character, and what he wills for the world in which we live.

Tragedy is abrupt and often life altering. Theodicy can meet our rational need to know why and our emotional need for comfort. Theology provides us with understanding of a God who is not mean, vindictive, arbitrary, or clueless but a God who is love, righteous, and peace.

I don’t know why these particular church worshippers were made victims of this tragedy. But I don’t believe in bad luck, the fates, or whimsical deities. I believe in the God of the Bible who will bring all things to account.

We should pray for the Iraqi families devastated by this tragedy. And we can ask God to bring them in contact with Christians who can testify to God’s goodness in the face of evil.

Originally posted as “Theology and Technology,” in “Making a Difference" #437.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 31 October 2010

A spate of articles hit the media this week reporting that Dr. Robert H. Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral filed for bankruptcy protection. Church leaders blamed the economy, drops in attendance, and a large mortgage debt, some $30 million left over from building expansion. According to the church leaders, then, the church has problems and money is the culprit.

But money isn’t usually an organization’s primary problem. Money is more of a symptom than a cause. Sure, some organizations or corporations can truly be caught in the unpredictable vagaries of the marketplace, but imoney is generally a secondary issue.

It’s not unlike couples telling marriage counselors they’re having sex-related problems in their marriage. Again, could be, maybe; perhaps there are genuine, discrete problems rooted strictly in sex. But not usually. Experienced marriage counselors know there’s almost always something else, some other breakdown in the couple’s life or relationship, a primary problem that generates a secondary or contingent sex problem. Money problems in marriage and in organizations are like that too.

The real issue at the Crystal Cathedral is not money but leadership. I visited the Cathedral last winter and wrote about my impressions at the time. I think what I said then holds true today. Dr. Robert H. Schuller didn’t know when to let go. I doubt he was clueless on these mathers—he’s too gifted for that to be the case. No, he either didn’t want to or couldn’t let go.

Dr. Schuller, to give him credit, tried to leave in 2006 when he transferred leadership to his son, Robert A. Schuller. But it didn’t work. Son was gone less than three years later. Despite news coverage no one’s quite sure why. But whatever the surface issues the real problem was leadership again.

At the time, rather than conduct a national search for a pastor capable of leading the church, Dr. Schuller returned and stayed long past a time when he, because of age, could be effective in the pulpit and in leadership. He didn’t change, apparently didn’t let his son change things, and didn’t respond to cultural shifts in the Christian community.

None of this is intended as disrespect for Dr. Schuller. He’s a pastor who accomplished many good things, and whom he is and what he seemed to do in mishandling leadership are all quite human.

But the issue is still leadership. Great leaders know when to leave. Unless God removes them in some way, great leaders leave a legacy to build upon and they leave with their head up.

In football, Tony Dungy, formerly of the Indianapolis Colts, is an example of a great leader who knew when to leave and left gracefully. Bobby Bowden, formerly of the Florida State University Seminoles, is an example of a good leader who didn’t know when to leave, was eventually forced out, and left a legacy of public bitterness and ungraciousness in the process. It’s too bad, because in almost every other way Bobby Bowden is a good man of great achievements.

Dr. Robert A. Schuller is a good man of great achievements, but he didn’t handle well the leadership succession imperative that comes to every leader. Rev. Jerry Falwell planned well, and when God called him home, the plans worked perfectly for the good of the ministries Dr. Falwell led. Rev. Billy Graham planned well, and when advancing age began taking its toll, the planned transition to son Franklin worked admirably.

Money is the great equalizer, so if leaders misstep the mistakes sometimes show up in the bottom line. The Crystal Cathedral needs funds to continue operation, but what it needs more is a vibrant, visionary new leader. Here’s hoping those who care for the Crystal Cathedral ministry realize this and launch not a fundraising campaign but a leadership search.

Start
Prev
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Next
End

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Subcategories