Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 12 August 2024

I wish for you what I have experienced, a Golden Wedding Anniversary.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #164 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.

Aug. 8, 1974, President Richard M. Nixon shocked the world when he announced he would resign the presidency the next day at Noon. Aug. 9, 1974, Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as president. Aug. 10, 1974, Sarah and I got married.

Quite a weekend, don’t you think? At least it was quite a weekend for a young guy interested in politics and even more interested in a certain young lady.

Sarah and I recently celebrated our 50^th or Golden Wedding Anniversary. As I am sure many who’ve gone before me have noted, it’s hard to believe this much time has passed.

It all started when I arrived at Cedarville University as a almost 18 but still 17-year-old freshman. During freshman orientation week, I looked across a big bonfire at a girl giving her testimony and immediately thought, who is that? I was fortunate to meet her later that evening, but she started dating my roommate. That didn’t last long, and we began talking by phone after curfew hours, long conversations about virtually everything. This went on for months over the rest of freshman year.

Then in the fall, beginning of sophomore year, somehow, I had gotten tickets to The Carpenter’s Concert at University of Dayton Arena. Fortunately, my date for the evening cancelled, and I called Sarah saying, “Wanna go see The Carpenters?” Being the music lover she was, she jumped at this, and Nov 10, 1971, became our first date. I can remember what Sarah wore that night, but I cannot remember what Karen Carpenter wore. It was a great evening and the beginning of the next so-far 50+ years. 

I think back to our dating days in college and then getting married a couple of months after graduation. We thought we were in love, and we were, but from the perspective of 50 years later there is no comparison. Now our love is based not just upon attraction and feelings but upon life experience.

When we were blessed with our first child, a “Bicentennial Baby” as they were called back then, born in January 1976, we selected a family verse. That verse still resonates with us. It is Ps 126:3, which we learned and later had embroidered for a wall hanging in the old King James Version language. “The LORD hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad.”

Indeed, the Lord had done great things for us, and we see it now more even than back then. Not only a daughter, but later God gave us three boys. The first two were one and one-half years apart, then an almost four-year gap, and two more about one and one-half years apart. So, I’d come home from work and say, “Where’s the kids,” meaning the older two, followed by “Where’s the little boys,” meaning the forever younger two. Kids and little boys, that was our family.

When we were married, I knew a few things, of course, about Sarah, but I did not know, for example, that the Lord had given her what the Scripture calls the gift of hospitality. I did not see that emerge until later, for Sarah is not only an excellent cook, more than that, she is incredibly gracious, giving, caring, and conscientious about meeting other people’s needs and interests, i.e., the gift of hospitality. I’ve seen this gift demonstrated scores of times over early on with our young family, later with university students, faculty and staff, and supporters, later still with people involved in other ministries and in our church. She is an amazing host.

I did not know that Sarah would develop a capacity to lead groups, in the U.S. to visit key sites, overseas on mission trips, or in service via our local church. Interestingly, leadership is not something she’s ever sought. In fact, truth be told she’d just as soon be part of the group. But I’ve seen this time and again and pointed this out to her, people, especially ladies, gravitate to her kind and joyful personality, and to her capacity to figure out what needs done and make decisions to get there – something, to be frank about it, not everyone can do. 

I saw this when we dated, but I learned far more later about the depth and strength of her faith. Stronger than mine. She came to Christ at the age of 4 years when her older sister Rosemary shared the Gospel with her and with their dog Shep. I don’t know if Shep will be in heaven, but I know Sarah is one who has never doubted her salvation and lives out her faith in a manner rooted in the rock-solid understanding of just who the Sovereign God is.

Now me, on the other hand, as I’ve shared before, I came to Christ via my mother’s witness when I was 6 years of age. But I have a rational bent of mind, and at times in my younger days I kept trying to figure things out or kept thinking there’s got to be more. And I doubted. I never doubted the existence of God, but I did doubt whether I was truly saved once and for all.

I later read Os Guinness’s masterful book, Doubt, Faith in Two Minds (1983), later expanded as God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith Beyond a Shadow of Doubt (1996). In this book I was helped mightily by Guinness’s analysis indicating that to doubt is to be undecided. It is not rejection of the Lord as such. In 2 Tim. 2:12, Scripture says, “If we deny him, he also will deny us,” meaning if we reject the Lord Jesus Christ, then we have no other hope. In 2 Tim. 2:13, the Scripture continues saying, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful,” meaning if we lack faith, i.e., we doubt, we are of two minds, yet the Lord remains faithful because our salvation does not depend upon our or my weak spirit but upon the Sovereign Lord God of heaven.

I have read Guinness’s book on doubt more than once and will likely read it again. And I’ve been blessed with occasions along the way in which I could speak to students and others, sharing Dr. Guinness’s insights as well as relating my experience with doubt and faith.

But as I said, this is my journey, not Sarah’s. Her faith is remarkable.

And this is one of the things the Lord meant when in the Garden of Eden, God looked at Adam and said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:18). The Lord created women to help keep men out of trouble. The Lord created women, and then marriage, to provide a context in which men could be men, using their energies and invest their talents in caring for their families, and flourish. And the Lord provided a context for women to be women, using their capacity for love and caring, and to invest their talents in nurturing their families and flourish. Sarah and I have been enormously blessed to live in this context for the past fifty years.

More reflections. When we were dating, we talked about having five kids. Then when we started a family, after three, we thought, OK, maybe that’s it. But God planned four. And of course, as our family verse said, “Whereof, we are glad.”

We also talked about my aspirations to teach in higher education, which if realized would require more than an undergrad degree. So, going after a master’s and then a doctorate virtually defined the first eight years of our marriage. I used to say, “We had two kids, then we had a doctorate, then two more kids,” and that got laughs in academic circles where others had similar experiences. But that’s how it worked.

With that, we also changed jobs or positions. Christian school in Cleveland. Christian school in Cross Lanes, WV. Professor at Cedarville University in Ohio, Vice President of Academic Affairs or academic dean The King’s College in Briarcliff Manor, NY, President at what became Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI. 

What I am saying is, we moved. We lived in Ohio, West Virginia, New York, and finally Michigan. Never once in all this did Sarah look at me and say, no, or I can’t do this, or we should not do this. Hard though it was to leave friends, lodging, and churches behind, she supported what we thought was God’s leading in our lives to pursue a calling in Christian higher education. And God blessed abundantly.

So, 50 years is an occasion for remembrance and celebration, but also a time to honor the Lord for what he has done. I do not deserve the wonderful wife with whom God blessed me.

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.  

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 05 August 2024

Have you thought about race and racism in terms of your Christian faith?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #163 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.

The tragic death of George Floyd, May 25, 2020, in the hands of a police officer and resulting nonstop social unrest plaguing American cities exacerbated an already fraught milieu in which it is almost impossible to conduct a deliberative conversation about race or racism. Some four years later, the situation has not appreciably improved.

With what seemed like a coup removing President Biden from the ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for President of the United States, 2024. She is of mixed-race heritage—and East Indian mother and a Jamaican father—something she has referenced periodically throughout her career.

Recently, Republican candidate former president Donald J. Trump attended the National Black Journalists conference. At the conference, ABC’s Rachel Scott asked Trump about his comments regarding Ms. Harris and other Black politicians and journalists. After a bit of back and forth on whether the question was nasty, Trump eventually said, “She was always of Indian heritage…I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black.”

You no doubt heard or read some of the meltdown online or in mainstream media. Accusations and counteraccusations have been intense. So, race is now a campaign issue.

This podcast is not about the politics of Harris or Trump, nor a defense of either candidate’s positions. Rather, I want to suggest that this is a moment for us all to apply our Christian worldview to life and culture.

I cannot defend partisan or ideological talking points as the answer to all our questions or problems. I cannot defend party or ideological leaders as the inerrant source of answers to all our questions or problems. Reason is, they will always fail us.  

So, I am back to my Christian worldview, i.e. my understanding of biblical theology and the philosophy of life God commends and commands. Perhaps I may misinterpret, or I may still be learning, or I see through a glass darkly and always will because I am not omniscient, but I can trust the Sovereign God of the Bible and His Word, and I can labor to apply the Word as we are commissioned to do in the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:28). 

And besides, if you or I are going to discuss race or offshoots like systemic racism or White supremacy or White fragility or racial stereotypes or critical race theory or Black Lives Matter the organization vs Black lives matter the slogan or civil rights or defacto vs dejure segregation, or even justice and liberty for all…wouldn’t our perspective be more trustworthy if we based it upon an avowedly Christian worldview, rather than mere partisanship or ideology?

Where does our Christian worldview lead us in this matter or race or racism?

First, God created every human being “in his image,” and as such each person is temporally and eternally significant, possesses dignity, and is the highest order of creation (Genesis 1:26-27).

Second, all human beings, whatever their gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, or any other demographic, are who they are because the Sovereign God created them for his purposes: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands” (Acts 17:26).

Now, let’s think for a moment about how black, brown, red, yellow, and white people are alike:

• We are all created by God in His image. No person who has ever lived, whatever their race, is anything but a human being created by God in His image.
• All nations from one man, Adam. We are all human beings, actually, one race, the human race, all descendent from the first couple in the Garden of Eden.
• The times of our lives, the place where we live, and our specific demographics are all appointed by God.
• We are all uniquely gifted, individually significant with ultimate value, no matter our life’s circumstances, family bank account, education achieved, or our gender, nationality, race, or ethnicity.
• All human beings of all races are endowed with reason and moral responsibility, thus freedom and accountability.
• We are all mandated by God to develop culture, meaning work and invest ourselves in honoring God and human flourishing.
• Because of what’s called the Fall in the Garden of Eden, we all possess fallen, deceitful, sinful, depraved hearts.
• Consequently, every human being on earth needs to experience salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
• Every human being of every race and ethnicity is blessed by fulfilling God’s purposes via faith, family, fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace), free enterprise.
• In heaven someday, all races, ethnicities will be represented because heaven in one sense will be the most diverse community ever.
• No individual is reducible to just his or her race, for while part of the beauty of Creation, this characteristic is not the sum of existence. While demographics are important, they are not the ultimate definition of a human beings’ character or value: 

Think about this:  God loves every human being, and we are to love our neighbors, so racism has no place in God’s design.

But racism exists. It will always exit, because it lies in the deceitful, sinful heart of all human beings. Racism is not just a “white problem.” All people, whatever their race, can be or may have been guilty of racism at some time. Racism will always be with us. But this does not mean we should ignore it, much less advance or excuse it. We work to remove and eliminate it because we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

Consequently, I see no reason why, realizing that many black Americans have struggled or suffered the effects of racism, that the American people should not discuss this problem and take reasonable actions to change the social system. 

To do this is simply caring for our fellow human beings even as we recognize that someday we will likely need them to care for us. 

So, while these biblical principles do not straightforwardly tell us, for example, what we should conclude about tense debates about police brutality or defunding the police, or about the morality or practicality of reparations these biblical principles should guide our attitudes as we conduct such discussions.

Biblical principles do not state outright whether Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion or DEI, is good or bad as such, but biblical principles should guide our thinking about all human beings, about work, merit, access or fairness, justice, right and wrong.

Biblical principles make it clear that race as we now know it is not ipso facto a bad thing, not some human anomaly, but a difference in human characteristics God allowed to develop for our blessing and benefit.

Scripture says this about the Church or Body of Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

So, we can say that race is part of the variety, indeed the beauty, of God’s creation. Race is a gift of God. 

We can say that racism is sin, no matter who expresses it. What God meant for good, sinful mankind has twisted for evil. Substituting one racism for another and re-segregating America is not the answer. Loving our neighbor is the answer.  

When I evaluate the presidential candidates, I make my selection that has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I’d think it wiser to think about what they believe, what policies they support, whether I believe these policies are good for me and all Americans, including our grandchildren’s future.

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.  

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 31 July 2024

Were you offended by some of the elements in the Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony? What did it mean and what should be our response?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #162 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.

To say the Opening Ceremony, July 26, 2024, of the Paris Olympics 2024, was controversial would be an understatement. Indeed, since the typically long and over-the-top ceremony took place on and around the Seine River running through Paris, social media has been on fire jousting about whether the opening was sacrilegious and loathsome, or historic and artistic, or an attack on Christianity, or an expression of French culture, creative genius, or simply pagan ignorance.

In case you did not watch or do not know what I am talking about, the issue for the most part focuses upon a presentation near the beginning of the ceremony of what appeared to be a depiction of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper.

“The scene in question featured a line of drag performers posing shoulder-to-shoulder on a Parisian bridge before turning the bridge into a fashion-forward catwalk. Later, those same queens celebrated over a meal where the dish was revealed to be a nearly nude man painted blue.” 

“In this parody, the Christ figure was an obese woman making a heart symbol with her hands surrounded by a rainbow coalition of drag queens, bearded ladies, and other perversions.”

So, this portrayal included drag performers, a child, and a mostly naked, blue-painted bearded man said be a representation of the mythological Greek god Dionysius, the god of wine, freedom, intoxication, and ecstasy, or as he was later known among the Romans, Bacchus, from which we get the word, bacchanalia, meaning a wild, orgiastic party or celebration.

“The official Olympics Games X account shared photos from the portion of the program featuring the blue man at the tableau’s center and explained, ‘The interpretation of the Greek God Dionysus makes us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings.’”

Interesting argument.

Media have said reaction came from the “Christian right,” but this is limited and slanted at best, for reaction came worldwide from Catholics, Jews, and non-Christians alike. Indeed, you don’t have to be anti-intellectual, or part of the “Christian right,” or a person uninformed about artistic imagery to wonder how a naked man and a bunch of drag queens make a statement about the absurdity of violence between human beings.

The ceremony, we are told, was an attempt to represent the culture and history of the host nation. “France’s history, particularly during the French Revolution, is complex. This period saw the overthrow of Christianity, the execution of monarchs (including the beheadings of Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI), the deaths of 16,000 people during the Reign of Terror, and the rededication of Notre Dame as the “Temple of Reason.” This era marked France's official shift toward secularism.

The ceremony embodied this historical narrative and its underlying themes. Lady Liberty in drag symbolizes the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France to the United States, representing liberty and freedom. Dionysus appears not only because of the Greco-Roman origins of the Olympics but also because he was known as “Liber Pater,” the Father of freedom and liberty. The da Vinci-style imagery with Lady Liberty in drag signifies France’s rejection of Christianity and its embrace of secularism, (supposedly) transforming into a nation of tolerance, liberty, and freedom.

Christians are justified in feeling angry and should voice their disapproval. This event distorted a Christian symbol to celebrate revolution and Bacchanalia, rejecting all meaning, order, and hierarchy. This is ultimately a form of spiritual warfare—we battle not against flesh and blood, but against rulers and principalities.”

In response to the backlash, “Anne Deschamps, spokesperson for Paris 2024, stated, ‘Clearly there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group,’ Reuters reported. ‘The opening ceremony,’ she added, ‘tried to celebrate community tolerance…We believe this ambition was achieved. If people have taken any offence, we are really sorry.’”

This non-apology apology was roundly condemned by religious leaders representing a variety of nationalities and denominations. The ceremony producers are not sorry for egregiously disrespecting more than 2.6 billion Christians in the world. They are sorry someone took offense. In other words, we don’t have a problem, but we’re sorry you all have a problem.

Several things bothered me about all of this.

1. Yes, I felt the presentation was a mockery of Christianity and I was offended this was done in such an in-your-face manner in the Olympics Opening Ceremony.
2. I thought the lying, or what’s now called gaslighting, trying to reinterpret the producers’ intent as something other than mockery was equally offensive, not unlike the mainstream media’s eagerness to rewrite history if it helps a given political candidate.
3. I not only did not like the Last Supper display, I did not like much of the ceremony, for in it I saw a ménage à troispromoted as representative of Paris’s reputation as a city of love, I saw two men kissing each other, I saw the woman who portrayed Christ in the Last Supper, a lesbian DJ named Barbara Butch, kissing her partner after the event, I saw drag queens featured throughout – all this was shared on NBC’s coverage. 
4. I thought the riverboat presentation of the athletes was unique but even longer than usual, thus losing its audience.
5. I don’t blame the athletes for what the IOC approved for the Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony.
6. Virtue signaling by self-avowed Christians hasn’t been helpful. In other words, people who found the display offensive have proclaimed their position online then demanded others do as they do, boycott watching the Olympics. These boycotting individuals have every right, even Christian liberty, to watch or not watch, but they do not possess any biblical rationale for judging others’ Christian commitment based on their viewing choices. That’s just old-style legalism. 

7. On the flipside, I was bothered by the number of people purporting to be Christians, who in their social media comments, pooh-poohed those who didn’t like the ceremony’s celebration of debauchery, acted as if it were no big deal, even defended it on the basis of, well, it’s art or it’s French. Yes, that’s true, but that does not mean it’s good art or that this represents all of what it means to be French nor certainly what is best about being French. 

Some perspective:

1. Olympics opening ceremonies are rarely anything but a celebration of what is called “culture,” but in actuality, is pagan religion. I have especially strong recollections of this for the 1994 winter games in Lillehammer, Norway, and the 1998 winter games in Nagano, Japan, wherein the opening ceremonies were one long presentation of polytheistic religion. So, while what Paris did was objectionable post-Christian wokeism, it was not surprising or new.
2. Ceremony producers are not going to produce any parody about religions other than Christianity, like Islam, or for that matter, Buddhism, Hinduism, and certainly not atheism, because they are afraid of fatwas and other global Muslim reactions, and, ironically, Islam is seen as an ally of the Woke because both want to bring down Western Civilization. 
3. I have wondered about some here in the U.S. who seem to be reacting as if this degenerate display was somehow a new level of public offensiveness. If that is what they think, where have they been? For a few years now, we’ve had so-called Drag Queen Story hours scheduled at public libraries wherein men dressed as women can dance suggestively in front of kindergarten age children. In the U.S. we have Pride Month, parades, corporate kowtowing, and celebrities working overtime to tell us how this is about inclusion, “being seen,” or freedom, when what it’s really about is grooming children and legitimizing immorality. In the U.S., especially under the Biden Administration, we have men masquerading as women in the U.S. military, wearing uniforms, officers in charge of troops, who are symbols not of military preparedness but ideological wokeism. So, while the Paris Olympics captured a worldwide audience, what they did is not all that different from what is taking place every day in the U.S.A.

4. From a pastor friend on Facebook, “I’m grateful we live in the age of streaming television. We can pause whenever, and we don't really have to watch anything we don't want to.”

How should we then respond to all this? Not by angry or self-righteous posts on social media. We live in a fallen and now post-Christian culture, so we need to work harder to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

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.  

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 July 2024

It’s never easy or pleasant to lose a friend to death, so how should a Christian respond to this event that is, according to Scripture, part of life?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #161 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.

From time to time, I find myself talking to a younger person or persons who indicate they have not experienced something like awaking to aches and pains that occur seemingly for no reason, or a highly stressful or traumatic challenge in their education, career, or life, or the death of a loved one or close friend.

When I hear this, I usually respond by saying, “Well, you just haven’t lived long enough.” What I mean, of course, is that these things happen in every human being’s life, sooner or later, because we live in what we learn in Scripture is a fallen world.

Life happens, and one of the things that happens is that eventually we hear of the death of a loved one or close friend, maybe even a lifelong friend.

This recently happened to my wife, Sarah, and me, and within a week we traveled to West Virginia to support his wife and attend our friend’s funeral.

Our friend was Robert, or Bob, Opperman, with his wife Carol. We first met just three years after Sarah’s and my marriage when we accepted a teaching position in a Christian school in Cross Lanes, WV.

Sarah and Carol hit it off as young moms trying to figure out how to raise little girls, and not long thereafter, little boys too. We did not know it then, but there were more children yet to come.

Bob and I were social studies and history teachers, and we liked to talk politics and current events. Bob was originally from Oregon, and I quickly discovered that his ancestors crossed the country on the Oregon Trail. As a guy who read a lot of Western history then and now, I found it fascinating that I actually knew someone whose great-grandparents had trekked the Oregon Trail, and since then I’ve read everything I could get my hands on about the trail.

When I first heard Bob had passed at age 77, slipping away in a matter of a week after experiencing a medical episode, I thought about our relationship. The first thing that came to my mind was a line from a movie. In the movie, “Robinhood,” starring Russell Crowe, an older gentleman, a Baron, approached Robin about conveying a message to another older gentleman. The Baron mentioned his elder friend’s name to Robin and said, “We were young men together.”

I don’t know why that line hit me the way it did the first time I heard it, but it did, and as I said, it was the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about Bob’s passing. We were young men together. 

Most of our time together took place in our twenties. Later in life, because of where we lived, we’d see each other maybe once or twice every year or so, but the friendship we forged as young men lasted a lifetime. Just a few months before, Sarah and I had been in the area for her eldest sister’s funeral, and that night we had a 3–4-hour dinner at the Cracker Barrel with Bob and Carol. We picked up right where we left off. We talked, caught up, laughed, and had a great time rooted in a friendship that had been established more than forty years before.

Bob, as I said, was born and raised in Oregon. He loved Oregon and talked about it if not every day, then every other day. We’d say, “Bob, why don’t you and Carol move to Oregon?” And nothing happened. Again later, “Bob, why don’t you and Carol move to Oregon?” Nothing happened. Then we discovered that Carol was a West Virginia girl all the way through to the bone. Bob loved Oregon and Carol loved West Virginia. What are you going to do? Well, Bob loved Oregon, but he loved Carol more, so he chose to live out his life in West Virginia and came to love the history of his adopted state too.

One year, the four of us flew to Portland, rented a truck, and traveled east into the mountains to Bob’s home territory. We met many of his relatives. And from the vantage point of high on a range of hills we looked out and saw 10-12 plumes of smoke from forest fires, and one morning we exited the hotel to find ash covering the ground, amazing experiences for Midwesterners. Eventually, we got to Greenhorn, the location of Bob’s family’s old cabin, a shack really, and a closed down goldmine. That, too, was an amazing experience and one Bob reveled in sharing with his friends.

Bob was a man’s man and as such from time to time he’d say or do something goofy or illogical. We all do this, men. It’s built into our DNA, and the ladies know it. God knew it. In the Garden of Eden God looked at Adam and said, “It’s not good for man to be alone,” so he created women to help keep us out of trouble.

But being a guy, Bob would periodically say or do something goofy or illogical. When he did, his wife Carol would look at him, look at us, roll her eyes, and say, “Well, he’s not very smart, but he’s cute.” Every time I heard that comment, and I heard it a lot, I thought it was fall out of your chair hilarious. He’s not very smart, but he’s cute.

I’ve thought about this, men. The ladies know we’re not very smart, but if at the end of the day our wives still think we’re cute, well, I’ll take it. You can build a good life on that.

Bob was also a guy who cared about people and liked to help people. He helped me at times. Along the way, he developed several handyman skills. One summer after school was out, which turned out to be the last year we lived in West Virginia, we decided to take on the project of re-shingling a house with a good-sized roof. Bob knew more about this than me, but I was young and had muscle, so it worked out. At some point in the project, we sat down on the roof peak to take a break and for reasons I do not remember, I chose that time to tell my friend that I was enrolling at the University of Cincinnati in the fall to pursue a doctorate, which meant I would not be returning to our Christian school.

Bob looked at me and said, “Wow, where do you see yourself in 10 years?” That question stopped me in my tracks. It’s not that I hadn’t thought about the future, making the decision I was making about more education. It’s just that that question made me stop and think about things with a bigger, broader perspective.

Turns out, over the next forty-odd years of working in higher level administration, I had many occasions wherein a younger staff member would come to see me seeking counsel about pursuing advanced degrees, putting their hat in the ring for another position, or considering leaving one organization to join another. Every time, I’d eventually ask them, “Where do you see yourself in 10 years?” Or sometimes I’d shorten it to 5 years because thinking out ten years seemed too daunting to some people. It’s a great question, and I was able at least twice to remind Bob that he’d asked me this, tell him how I’d been able to pay it forward, and thank him for blessing me with his insight.

Losing a lifelong friend is not easy or pleasant. We grieve. Sometimes you hear people say Christians should not grieve, but this is incorrect. Of course, Christians grieve; we just should grieve differently. Grief is remembrance. We remember the one who has passed. If that person did not matter, we would not bother remembering. We would not grieve. But they do matter, and death is a transition.

God never told us we had to like death. In fact, death is described in Scripture as the enemy (1 Cor. 15:26). So, we don’t have to like death, but we need not be afraid of it (Matt 10:28).

Still, death is a separation, so there is a sense of loss for those left behind among the living.

But I like to remember the biblical theology that when one of God’s saints—people who know the Lord as Savior—passes on, he or she is absent from the body, present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). So, a Christian friend like Bob who has passed is not “gone,” as in no longer in existence or somehow extinguished.

Nor do I believe Bob is sleeping, because I do not think Scripture warrants that.

No, our Christian friends like Bob who have passed are not “gone” but merely “absent,” now more alive than ever in heaven, not simply R.I.P. “Resting in Peace,” but R.I.P. “Rejoicing in peace.”

The beauty of the Christian faith and of the Word of God is that the Lord did not leave us wondering. He told us exactly where our dearly departed loved ones and friends are. If they were believers, they are now in heaven with the Lord.

Bob and I were young men together. He has crossed over Jordan. Someday, when it is my turn, I will see him again.

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. 

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 22 July 2024

Why are Western European nations, Canada, and the United States opening their borders to mass immigration?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #160 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.

The first day President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he signed executive orders changing United States policy regarding immigrants, opening the southern border to a free flow of illegal migrants that have walked or swam into the US every day since.

President Biden’s actions regarding illegal immigrants, which he has enlarged and enhanced repeatedly since, is a conscious decision to defy and ignore the laws of these United States. In other words, lawlessness began in and has continued from the Oval Office.

“As of January 2024, more than 7.2 million migrants had illegally crossed into the U.S. over the Southwest border during U.S. President Joe Biden's administration — a number higher than the individual populations of 36 states.” Illegal immigration is literally changing the American political landscape, threatening the wellbeing and security of American citizens, and, Mr. Biden hopes, building a new base of voters for his socialist views.

Immigration has, therefore, become a major issue in the 2024 presidential election campaign.

Why?

• Illegal migrants break the law as their first act entering the U.S.
• Migrants are shipped to cities like Denver, Chicago, NYC in numbers that now far outstrip the cities’ financial and functional capacity to handle them.
• Migrants are often “fake refugees,” coming not to learn the language and culture and assimilate but to demand freebie entitlements including phones, hotel rooms, food, drivers’ license, insurance, even abortions.
• Insofar as migrants work, and thousands do not, they are taking jobs from American citizens.
• Migrants who do not want to assimilate, which appears to be many if not most of them, not only in the U.S. but in Western European countries, are unhappy, angry, make religious demands, engage in higher levels of crime.
• Some migrants—difficult to tell how many—are religious zealots coming to America with plans to agitate, riot, and otherwise create mayhem, as they are presently doing in European cities, in an intentional effort to disrupt what they consider the Great Satan society.

“Borders globally (are supposed to) serve as the demarcation lines that define the territories of countries, signifying sovereignty and control. In essence, an open border is one where people can come and go without restrictions.”

Let me be clear. I am not opposed to immigration or immigrants but to open border illegal immigration. 

“Those (like me who are) opposed to open border policies argue that an influx of migration risks overwhelming public services, cities face the risk of over-population and some experts say migration presents a security risk.”

Western nations have been opening borders to increased immigration for a variety of reasons, including:

1. Economic Growth: Theoretically, immigrants can help fill labor shortages in various sectors, from high-tech industries to agriculture. They could contributeto economic growth by providing labor, starting businesses, and paying taxes.
2. Demographic Challenges: Many Western countries face aging populations and declining birth rates. Supposedly, immigration helps counteract these trends by bringing in younger workers who can support aging populations through their labor and contributions to social security systems.
3. Cultural Diversity and Innovation: Immigrants bring diverse perspectives and skills, which can lead to greater innovation and cultural enrichment. Diverse societies are often more dynamic and adaptable.
4. Humanitarian Responsibilities: Western nations often have commitments to accept refugees and asylum seekers fleeing war, persecution, and natural disasters. This is both called a moral obligation and a requirement under international law, yet many countries of the world take in no immigrants at all.
5. Globalization and International Relations: As global interconnectivity increases, immigration policies can reflect broader geopolitical strategies and relationships with other countries. 
6. Addressing Labor Market Needs: Certain industries in Western countries rely heavily on immigrant labor, for example, healthcare, construction, and agriculture.
7. Legal and Ethical Considerations: Many Western nations have legal frameworks that protect the rights of immigrants and promote family reunification, which can lead to higher immigration numbers.

Multiculturalism has significantly influenced Western nations' approach to mass immigration by shaping policies and attitudes towards cultural diversity and inclusion.

1. Cultural Enrichment: Multiculturalism promotes the idea that cultural diversity enriches society by introducing a variety of perspectives, traditions, and practices. This belief has led to more open attitudes towards accepting immigrants from diverse backgrounds.
2. Social Cohesion: Multiculturalism emphasizes the importance of social cohesion through the integration of diverse groups. It encourages mutual respect and understanding, which helps create a more welcoming environment for immigrants.
3. Human Rights and Equality: Multiculturalism is often linked with human rights and the idea that all individuals, regardless of their background, should have equal opportunities. 
4. Economic Benefits: Embracing multiculturalism is seen as a way to leverage the economic benefits of immigration. Diverse workforces are often more innovative and better able to compete in a globalized economy. 

While multiculturalism may have played a positive role in shaping immigration policies, it is also met with challenges and criticisms. Debates continue over the balance between celebrating diversity and maintaining social cohesion, the impact of immigration on national identity, and the best ways to integrate newcomers into society.

Why then are Western nations opening their borders in what looks like an irrational form of cultural or national suicide?

1. As I noted earlier, “over much of the world, birth rates are plunging and populations are ageing. This means that there will be fewer workers to support older people and growth. And this means that most countries will increasingly need to rely on migration.”
2. Western nations, beginning with Germany, bought into the idea of multiculturalism, a misguided philosophy that claims all cultures are relative, meaning none are better or worse than others. The reunification of Germany in 1990 and subsequent policies, including the 2000 Immigration Act, marked a more open approach to immigration.
3. Western nations also embraced moral relativism, meaning truth cannot be identified, nor can better or best, right or wrong, thus the host nations neutered themselves with no ability to enforce their own laws or stop illicit behaviors like groping women in the streets.
4. Western nations opened borders to people whose beliefs and values did not align with the host country, who did not really want to assimilate by learning the language or adopting mores and traditions, who rather wished to balkanize into their own ghettoes, who brought with them pagan outlooks on male/female relationships, family, and work, none of which matched the host society, and which generated reaction and division, which true believers in multiculturalism then labeled racism.
5. Migrants arrived from largely Muslim countries which share few to no values in common with Western culture. These new Muslim migrants used the religious liberty of the host countries to promote their own anti-freedom religious views as understood in Sharia law, and often orchestrated provocative in-the-street mass praying toward Mecca, blocking pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Their motives were not religious or personal freedom as much as social domination and economic entitlement.

On balance, the wholesale embrace of open borders, mass immigration, the false teaching of multiculturalism and moral relativism, have resulted not in economic boom but social chaos and unrest, ongoing protests, inter-tribal street-level infighting, residents vs new arrivals, religious tension, and the very real possibility that Western European nations are in the act of committing national and cultural suicide.

Meanwhile, immigrants who seek admission legally are subjected to higher costs and often delayed indefinitely.

This is not racism to say this. It is objectively true, and under the current Administration’s policies, the U.S. may not be far behind the turmoil of Western Europe.

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. 

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024   

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.