Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 17 April 2019

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 14 April 2019

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 04 April 2019

What people born after the 1960s don’t know: How much culture has changed, or I could say, indeed how much it has changed in just my lifetime.

For example, during the week before Christmas, my wife and I watched a Perry Como Christmas music program first aired in 1975. In the latter part of the program Como introduced the Christmas story narrative and read it in entirety from the biblical book of Luke, saying it was his favorite story of all time because its message blessed all mankind with peace and hope and “because it is true.” 

Think about whether an artist today would read the Christmas story at all on national television, much less claim it is true, or whether any entertainer would even use the word “truth” in reference to anything religious. This change in itself is an amazing and far-reaching shift in the moral/spiritual presuppositions of cultural philosophy just in a generation.

Another small example comes from ESPN’s “Good Morning Football.”  The panel participants were talking about players wearing down late in the football season and a commentator used a Scripture paraphrase, i.e., “Spirit has to be willing when the body is weak.” Three others on the panel reacted immediately, “Wow, what a great quote” with raised hands and Woo-Woo hoots. The commentator who made the reference actually chair-danced. None of the four panelists seem to have a clue the paraphrase originated in the Bible. It’s like history books crediting the great Abraham Lincoln with originating the observation “A house divided against itself cannot stand," a notion from the Gospels familiar to Lincoln's audience but lost on 21st Century scholars.

Still another example from the Christmas season: It amazes me how many Christmas cards feature nothing or next to it about Christmas, i.e., lots of snow and red and green but not much else. OK, it’s a free country. But the really amazing part to me is how many ostensibly or avowedly Christian or church-related nonprofit organizations mail what amount to secular cards. Their cards feature no references to Scripture, the Christmas story in the Gospels, no pictures of the babe in the manger—which some people still use even if they don’t make reference to other religious words or symbolism.  When I see these cards it always strikes me that these “Christian” organizations are missing a messaging opportunity.

Now these are just a few examples from the past Christmas season. We could list much more, including dramatic shifts, as alluded to above, in understanding what is objective truth yielding moral relativism, since 1973 the legalization and now expansion of abortion, the normalization and public promotion of LGBTQ followed by paradigm shifts in acceptance, then legalization, of same-sex marriage, since 1988 a steady legalization of commercial gambling including sports gambling in 2018, increasing complacency about debt along with a growing sense of entitlement, fatherless children, along with a decline in the importance of church in daily life with a parallel increase in secularization. More fundamental changes could be listed. 

Of course, some positive changes can be listed too: greater awareness of women’s rights and potential, sensitivity to the needs and prospects of the poor, increased attention to opportunities for all races and ethnicities.

Ideas have consequences.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2019   

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.    

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 22 March 2019

As a Christmas gift, our Son #2 gave me A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story by William C. Martin, the 2018 commemorative update of the original biography published in 1991. It is, as they say, a “Good read.” 

William C. Martin is an able writer, scholarly, fair, thorough, telling the story chinks-in-the-armor-and-all. The Rev. Billy Graham passed Feb 21, 2018, at 99, some 12 years after his wife, Ruth.

Given Rev. Billy Graham’s impact and religious significance worldwide in the 20th Century, I’ll always be glad I heard him in person at least once. It was July 1972, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, in the middle of my undergrad years when I was 19. We rode two hours from southeast Ohio up and back on Ohio’s I-77 in a no-AC “church bus”—meaning a repurposed ancient yellow school bus—with other Guernsey/Noble County, Ohio travelers. 

I remember the packed stadium. Believe it or not, Rev. Graham preached from John 3:16, and I remember him using his trademark phrase, “The Bible says.” I also recall his later invitation to people to come forward and decide to accept Christ.  He did this, then abruptly stopped talking while he stood with bowed head, an elbow in his opposite hand with fist under his chin, and several hundred walked the aisles responding to the “invitation.” Pretty interesting, amazing experience, one I am glad to remember.

I first read this book when it came out in 1991, so some of the read this time was familiar, but of course there’s more of Rev. Graham’s special life added in this edition and it was more than enjoyable to read again. Clearly God had his hand on this man’s life, even and especially through some human missteps along the way like getting “too close” to President Richard M. Nixon, only to be embarrassed by what emerged later.  Dr. Graham in his humility owned it all, said publicly he’d made a mistake, and refocused his efforts on sharing the Gospel.

It’s more than a little interesting today to see his son Franklin Graham position himself so publicly and vigorously in association with President Donald Trump.

Whatever Rev. Graham’s missteps, he and his team avoided the “really big ones” through 50-60 years of public ministry. There was never a moral or financial scandal named among them. For Christian leaders this should not be remarkable, but in today’s terms, it is.

I highly recommend this book.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2019   

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.    

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 20 March 2019

It’s become commonplace for people who don't like a speaker or a public discussion in some other public forum to demonstrate their displeasure by disrupting the meeting or hearings or proceedings or event with the apparent goal of preventing, silencing, i.e., not allowing the other side to be heard.  

Some are now arguing this is their “right,” and that it is good and proper to silence opposing points of view.  We hear this argument on both the Left and the Right.

This is a dangerous trend.  It suppresses the First Amendment, and it is not what a free country is about - again, whether one likes or supports the speaker, or the points being shared.

Let’s take a moment for a much-needed Civics 101 lesson.

1—Is protest legal in the US? Yes, in this free country it is, as long as the protest is peaceful and nonviolent, i.e. not harming people, others’ property, impeding people’s progress on public thoroughfares, or otherwise creating a threat to public safety.

2—Do I have to agree with protesters to agree with their freedom to protest? No.

3—Should protestors (or speakers) with whom I disagree be silenced? No, this idea and now increasingly common tactic is at fundamental odds with the constitutional principle of freedom of speech or expression.

4—If the point of protest is to draw attention to something considered troublesome, isn’t it logical that the more outrageous the protest the more likely it will elicit response? Yes and No. Yes, outrageous is OK, as long as it fits within #1. No, outrageous may backfire on protesters, eliciting not a response to their views but to their methods.

5—Is protest “bad”? No, not really. It is part of what it means to live in a free, open, pluralistic, and democratic society.

6—Do American citizens have the “right” to protest anywhere, anytime, for any reason? Yes and No. Yes, as long as it fits in #1. No, if it violates #1, and No, in that protest is not ipso facto a right in private or even public places because along with a "right" comes "responsibility."

There seems to be an entire generation or more of the American public who evidence little knowledge of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or case law about fundamentals of a free society.  They’ve grown up or are growing up with no instruction, or if they were taught about civics they were taught with a bias.  What’s scary about this is that older political leaders, many of whom know better and who do understand the fundamentals of our free society, are going along with or encouraging this new view because they think it translates to political power for their Party or viewpoints.  Some of them, particularly on the Left, are arguing the US Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights be revised or even thrown out and rewritten.

This is also threatening, trading principle and proven, reasoned and reasonable process for power.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2019   

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.