Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

A January 7-8, 2006 article in The Wall Street Journal, called “A Test of Faith,” tells the story of Wheaton College’s (IL) decision not to continue the employment of a non-tenured faculty member who converted to Catholicism. Wheaton College is an academically outstanding Christian institution of higher learning that requires full-time faculty to sign annually a doctrinal statement affirming belief in “biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity.” The faculty member’s conversion put him in a position in which he no longer could, in the view of Wheaton leadership, affirm this key point in the college’s belief system.

It would appear that Wheaton College’s administrators acted properly, professionally, and compassionately, doing what is right for Wheaton and its mission and stopping short of condemning the departing faculty member as a man, as a professor, or as a fellow believer.

Cornerstone University operates with a similar mission and doctrinal commitment. All university personnel and members of the Board of Trustees annually sign their affirmation of the university’s doctrinal statement, “The Cornerstone Confession.” In addition, personnel are expected to be “faithfully involved” in a “conservative and biblical church.”

This form of annual, mutual commitment to a list of biblical doctrines helps define what we mean when we say “Cornerstone University is a conservative Christian university.”

Cornerstone is a higher educational institution organized as a “university.” It is an avowedly “Christian” university in that we work to build all programs upon an understanding of a biblical worldview. “Conservative” is a theological term. In this sentence and on campus “conservative” means that we believe the Bible is what it claims that it is—the Word of God, and that Word is our guide for faith and practice. Our conservative theology also makes us conservative in our morality—in terms of our attitudes toward definitions of life (“pro-life”) and human sexuality. As a conservative Christian university we work to be, as our “Cornerstone” name implies, “Christ-centered.”

So Cornerstone University is different. It is not like public universities, and it is not like many private colleges and universities, including those that are church-related or even some that are Christian.

Attracting and enabling a faculty and staff who are themselves conservative Christians is not a sacrifice, not limiting, and not an isolating act. Rather, this approach provides a coherent and cohesive philosophy of education. It provides the “uni” in university, which liberates university professionals to explore and to teach “all truth as God’s truth.”

Much is made in the Journal article about whether such faith-based hiring practices somehow violates intellectual “diversity” or prevents “quality” or otherwise biases or limits the institution’s academic program. But I don’t think so. Sometimes, given our criteria, filling a faculty position is more challenging and may take more time. But it is a big world, and we serve a Big God. He counts many in his service who work in a vast array of professions. It’s simply our task to find them. And I can say from experience that we have done so.

If we are not faithful to our mission as understood in part by our confession of faith, we are not distinct. We are not focused. We are not even needed, for there are many colleges and universities that no longer work with any “test of faith” in their hiring practices.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

Sirius Satellite Radio is staking its future on the potty mouth of Howard Stern, paying him a budget-breaking $500 million over the next five years to attract subscription listeners at $12.95 per month. Run the numbers on this and you’ll see what a huge financial risk is involved for Sirius’ investors. I’m hoping at least Stern’s program goes belly-up.

Stern rose to fame on radio by outrageously pushing the envelope—periodically fighting with the FCC, claiming censorship, and attracting an audience who both wanted to hear sexually-charged conversations and who wondered just how far Howard would go. The question now becomes: Will an audience of sufficient size to make Sterns’ program financially profitable be attracted to a mouth that no longer is limited by anything?

In other words—if no one and no agency puts up a fence beyond which you cannot go, who cares how far you go? Where’s the sizzle? Given human nature, if by definition “forbidden fruit” is no longer “forbidden,” who will still want the fruit?

Stern is up against it. The very nature of Stern’s medium and his schtick demands that he keep pushing the boundaries. Otherwise, to his audience he becomes clichéd, boring, and worse from his point of view—no longer listened to.

The only way he’s going to succeed is if he identifies or invents new boundaries and then jumps over them. What might those boundaries be? If there are no legal impediments to his vocal adventures than the only impediments left are moral ones.

Sooner or later, Stern is going to attack the remaining moral conventions in an otherwise morally relativistic culture. What’s left? Sex talk? No, done that. Homosexuality? No, done that. Kinky sex? No, done that a long time ago. Naked people? No, done that, and besides, how does “naked” translate on radio?

So what’s left? Incest for one. Bestiality for two. Pedophilia for three. Maybe even necrophilia (an abnormal, frequently erotic attraction to corpses) for four, and probably some other perversions I have not identified. I don’t like this, but I have little doubt Stern will push these envelopes. Why? Because most normal people, no matter how liberal their sexual views, would still regard these activities as “out of bounds”—which is to say, Stern has found a boundary over which he can jump in order to attract and titillate listeners.

I’m not happy about any of this, and clearly I don’t recommend or support it. Stern is everything a good, decent, and moral person is not and should not be. I’m just predicting where he is going. I won’t be listening no matter what he does.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

United States Representative Mike Rogers (R,MI), recently called for comprehensive reform of Indian gaming laws, as well as a two-year moratorium on casino expansion. In addition, he plans to introduce legislation establishing a moratorium on creation of new Indian casinos, pending a full investigation of how the existing process was exploited in scandals reported in recent media coverage.

Given America’s current fascination with all things gambling Congressman Rogers’ efforts will probably attract more protest than praise. But his appeal for financial and moral sanity ought to be saluted by citizens everywhere. This is especially true in the wake of lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s reported unethical efforts on behalf of tribal casino interests resulting in the latest Washington, D.C.-scandal du jour.

Congressman Rogers is not against Native Americans enjoying all the economic opportunities, progress, and well-being available to any other American citizens—nor am I. He is talking about fairness, accountability, and considered public judgment of something that negatively affects more and more communities. I am talking about legalized commercial gambling, for while I do not oppose Native American interests, I do oppose more gambling.

Gambling operations are financial vampires that suck the money and the general welfare out of any community in which they are located. Gambling operations never produce anything. They only take and redistribute inequitably. Even compulsive gamblers know that the only ones who ultimately “win” are those who own the gambling operations.

Congressman Rogers joins an all-too-limited number of national political figures who have taken a stand or at least spoken out about the negative impact of gambling. Among these leaders are Senator Richard Lugar (R,IN), Senator John Kyl (R,AZ), Senator John McCain (R,MI), and Congressman Frank R. Wolf (R,VA). Lugar worried about gambling during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency a few years ago. Kyl continues to work toward regulating Internet gambling in the United States and his colleague McCain has made banning sports wagering one of his concerns. Wolf has been a longtime, outspoken opponent of more legalized commercial gambling. So Congressman Rogers is in good company.

Current processes rooted in the 1988 Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act make it too easy for Native American tribes to suddenly rediscover their long lost identity, gain Federal recognition, use loopholes in the law, and go “reservation shopping” to acquire land not contiguous to existing reservation lands on which they can now operate casinos. This process is as unfair as it is ludicrous, and it puts neighboring landowners in jeopardy without due process or any real ability to influence or stop the “reservation” assignment. Again—this is not about making negative comments, unwarranted ethnic slurs, or any other racist oriented commentary about Native American people. Such tactics are themselves reprehensible. This is about saying gambling operations should be properly and fairly initiated and regulated.

Some 223 Indian tribes currently operate about 411 casinos in 23 states, bringing in more than $18 billion. This is no longer a fly-by-night operation. It’s big business and it should rightly attract the attention of the United States Congress to assure that processes are not only legal but fair and accountable. So three cheers for Congressman Mike Rogers.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

Sports wagering is a major threat to the integrity of sports. It’s what one experienced gambler called “seasonal losing.” Sports wagering is a more than $200 billion business in the United States with the NFL Super Bowl the biggest betting day of the year. Some 25% of Americans say they bet on at least one sports event each year, and Nevada’s 142 sports books, source of the famous “point spread” or “Las Vegas line,” take in over $2 billion per year.

Sports gambling is still a key entry point to more gambling by adolescents and college students. “Texas Hold ‘em” and other forms of Poker are now presented as legitimate sports events via ESPN’s “World Series of Poker” and Fox Sports Network’s “Superstars of Poker.” Nationally, middle school to college age youth are playing the game—online, at home, and in their residence halls—a computer-adept generation growing up with no experience of cultural condemnation of gambling.

The NCAA’s “March Madness,” a month long intercollegiate basketball tournament, is now in the running to displace the Super Bowl as America’s number one sports wagering venue. Betting interest of fans, coaches, assistants, referees, and players change the dynamic of the game, introducing the very real potential for greed and corruption. The NCAA and now the NAIA are positioning themselves against sports wagering because it threatens the well-being of student athletes and the fair play of intercollegiate athletic competition.

Sports wagering not only threatens the social health of those who participate in it, sports wagering can also be a direct hit on the very idea of competitive athletics and fair play. If athletes, coaches, or referees are influenced by their gambling interests or the pressures of others involved in betting large sums on the outcome of athletic events, they may be induced to throw the game. Point shaving, “taking a fall” in a boxing ring, swinging wildly or dropping the ball in baseball games, intentionally shooting offline on the basketball court, the opportunities to cheat for a dishonest athlete are endless. If this happens, competitive sports based on talented athletes, skilled execution, and “heart”—all the things that make people love sports—disappear. All that’s left is some form of schlock entertainment like televised professional wrestling.

No demographic group is immune to the social pathologies associated with gambling. According to Gamblers Anonymous, compulsive gambling is increasing rapidly in all population groups, even among teens. Estimates suggest that up to 90 percent of teenagers have gambled in some form by age eighteen.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, the fastest growing addiction among high school and college age young people is problem gambling with as much as 7 percent or 1.3 million teens addicted to gambling. Dr. Durand Jacobs, a pioneer in treating problem gambling, believes the rate of problem gambling among teens is at least 15 percent. Teens are nearly two and one-half times as likely to become compulsive gamblers as adults. Suicide rates are twice as high among teenagers with gambling problems.

• Valerie Lorenz of the Center for Compulsive Gambling - Teen gambling is the “least reported, least scrutinized, and least confronted problem of adolescence.”

• Howard Schaffer of the Harvard Medical School Center for Addiction Studies - “We will face in the next decade or so more problems with youth gambling than we’ll face with drug use.”

• Durand Jacobs, nationally known expert on problem gambling - “There’s not a high school in the country where kids are not making book on sports events.”

• Edward Looney of the Council on Compulsive Gambling - about parent views of gambling: “The attitude is that gambling isn’t that big a deal. Let me tell you, it’s a bigger deal.”

• Arne Wexler, a New Jersey anti-gambling expert - “For every college kid who derives nothing but entertainment from his betting, there is another who cons his parents to get money to cover his gambling losses, another who becomes so consumed with betting that he tosses away an education and another who plunges into gambling addiction. It is far from harmless recreation.”

• Jeff Pash, executive vice president of the NFL - “Sports gambling breeds corruption and undermines the values our games represent. We do not want our games or our players used as gambling bait…College students…have for a decade been the fastest growing segment of the gambling population even without the help of the Internet.”

• Benjamin Franklin - “Keep flax from fire and youth from gaming.”

Gambling is not a sport, but youth often think that it is. It’s a “game” that turns into a moral and financial vampire. Youth don’t always know that you can’t serve God and money, and adults are not doing much to teach them.

Gambling demands that the gambler abandon reason. It’s a venue of superstition, religion-free religion. Gambling is a celebration of irrationality. In a time when valuelessness is valued, gambling fits.

Gambling turns tried and true values upside down. Gambling undermines a positive work ethic and the productivity that comes from it. Gambling also undercuts a person’s ability and desire to defer gratification in order to accomplish a goal. Individual enterprise, thrift, effort, and self-denial are set aside for chance gain, immediate satisfaction, and self-indulgence.

Gambling has entered mainstream culture today because of a collapse of taboos. Gambling is correlated with social pessimism. Gambling flourishes in a culture where people no longer believe they can influence their present, much less their future. Gambling blossoms from a mood of despair, powerlessness, and hopelessness. Life is luck, uncertainty, chance, a crap shoot.

American culture has lost confidence in hard work, ingenuity, and a better tomorrow. Consequently, we put our hope in fantasy.

Sports wagering is a growing youth problem and therefore a growing national problem. If adults don’t curtail this phenomenon we will literally be gambling with our children’s future. It’s up to us to take the first steps by banning point spreads in newspapers, making all sports wagering in any form illegal, and promoting understanding among youth of the dangers of sports wagering and gambling in general.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 August 2010

I just finished reading John Grisham’s eighteenth book, The Broker (Dell, 2005). Like all of Grisham’s best-selling legal fiction, this book is well-written, interesting, and contains a plot taken from recent front pages. And most surprisingly of all, it’s clean! That’s right. Grisham has made a very good living as a contemporary author who has not found it necessary to resort to four-letter vulgarity and sex-laden chapters to sell books. His kind is increasingly rare.

You’d think that finding a good novelist who writes books for the annual $24 billion publishing business which are largely free of gratuitous language and sex wouldn’t be all that difficult. But it is. Promiscuous protagonists rule the day. Sure, there are a few good authors left. Mary Higgins Clark comes to mind. She, Grisham, and a handful of others make a rather small book club.

I’m not prudishly arguing that my sensibilities are too tender to survive here and there what we used to call a “bad word,” or even a descriptive of expression of human sexuality. I am saying that I am weary of trying to find television programs, movies, or books that are not thoroughly immersed in our culture’s preoccupation with sex and shock-value language.

I’m currently reading, for example, Billy Crystal’s book called 700 Sundays:  A Memoir (Warner Books, 2005). This is an at times heart-warming, frequently funny account of Billy’s childhood memories of a rather remarkable Russian Jewish family in New York City who made an early mark on the Jazz industry. More specifically, it’s Billy’s memories of his father who died too young. Billy figures he only got to spend “700 Sundays” with his father.

My own son read this book and gave it to me. It’s something we can talk about as father and son. It’s got some good things to recommend it. But for some reason Billy Crystal apparently couldn’t write the book without a considerable measure of everyday profanity, what I’ve always called low level “bathroom humor,” and even frequent use of the “F word.” Now Billy’s family likely used this language, so he’s probably remembering them accurately. But I find it curious that he so easily mixes references to his Jewish religious consciousness with language rejected by Judeo-Christian teaching.

The “F word” quit being funny for me, Billy, in the eighth grade. Why do I need to read it now? How does this kind of language help me understand or respect your father? Or you?

John Grisham’s The Broker is currently fourth on the USA Today Best-Selling Books list (Crystal’s 700 Sundays is 108). It deserves this ranking. It’s a good book about a “broker,” a lobbyist—not unlike Jack Abramoff, whose bribery and fraud scandal is lighting up Washington, D.C.—who makes a gazillion dollars bilking people of their money and buying influence on Capitol Hill. He and the excesses of the lobbying system do not make a pretty picture. John Grisham’s trademark slightly cynical look at our legal system is also on display.

And you will find a few, a very few, “bad words,” so not even Grisham writes a fully sanitized book. But he writes good fiction that does not depend upon titillating words or sexual scenarios to keep you interested. This from a man who once told an interviewer that he avoided such material because he wanted “to write a book my Mother could read.” I appreciate his efforts.

© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.