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: 02 February 2011

David Eisenhower with his wife Julie Nixon Eisenhower remember David’s grandfather, General, as he preferred to be called, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

This book, published by Simon and Schuster, 2010, focuses upon David’s high school through college years at the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania farm General and Mamie Eisenhower made their home after the presidency. These years, the 1960s as noted in the title, proved to be General Eisenhower’s final decade.

The book is well written and readable. It is full of personal asides and memories David or later Julie provide that perhaps no others aside from the General’s son, John, could provide. But the theme throughout is General Eisenhower the man, the leader, and the reluctant politician, what he believed, why he believed it, and what made him tick in these last years of his life. Both perspectives, the personal and the political, are woven into an interesting tapestry of Eisenhower’s life, times, and philosophy.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is the first president I can remember. He was elected President in 1952, just days after I was born, and the fact that he served two terms meant he was in office when I gradually awakened to the bigger world around me. I can still see him speaking over black and white television during my First and Second Grade years of school. I can hear his voice.

It’s amazing how President’s voices find their way into our national and individual psyche. Years later, sometimes long after they’re gone, we can once again hear that voice and it brings back a flood of memories.

A year ago I visited for the first time the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, Kansas. I wrote a blog about it. Eisenhower’s museum properties are a bit dowdy and in need of a facelift, sort of like the nation has forgotten who this man was and what he accomplished in his life. But the visit is worth the time and out of the way trip. Perhaps most impressive is a very long glass-encased tabletop featuring scores of medals given to Eisenhower by grateful nations after the victory of the Allies over the Axis.

David Eisenhower presents his grandfather fairly well. Of course he is proud of the General, and he defends him at certain points. But he also comments on General Eisenhower’s relative lack of ability to connect with Mamie or his family on a more intimate level, though his love for them was real and apparent. David also disagrees with a few policy perspectives. But for the most part, as one would expect, this is not an expose but a celebration of a life of accomplishment.

I recommend this book for anyone but especially if, like me, you lived during the 1950-1960s when so much change took place in American culture. Reading about how Eisenhower processed this change is educational and enjoyable.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex 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: 28 January 2011

Political upheaval in Tunisia and Egypt has gotten the attention of the world this week. Revolution makes good TV, and people in free countries are rooting for what appears to be, or at least what they hope to be, displaced dictatorial regimes and emerging free countries in North Africa.

Politics matter. What happens in the Middle East and North Africa will affect the West and the U.S.

What we should not do, however, in the face of political change is to assume politics will necessarily determine the future of the region in question.

A Dutch theologian named H. M. Kuitert once published a book entitled Politics Is Not Everything But Everything Is Politics. The best thing about this book was its title. Kuitert was right. There’s a great deal more to life than this thing we call "politics." Our lives cannot be reduced to the limitations of the political arena.

On the other hand, Kuitert was correct in his observation that everything we do involves politics. Politics is how we make decisions. It's the art of the possible. It's the act, action, and interaction of debate and decision.

Politics is easily recognizable between nations. And, of course, Washington, D.C. is synonymous with politics. But there's a lot more politicking going on than that.

Some of us have been victims, or maybe beneficiaries, of office politics. Family politics takes place every time relatives decide to do anything, from a trip to Grandma's to a stop at a restaurant. And what about church politics? Can it be? Yes it can. Church politics frequently produce more heat than light and sometimes occupies more time than the central purpose of the church. So we can agree, everything is politics.

The key point to remember is that all politics involves decision-making, and all decision-making is built upon values. Values are basic beliefs and commitments, the ideals we embrace.

Everything is politics, but politics is not everything. What’s happening politically in Tunisia and Egypt will influence the region’s peace, prospects, and prosperity. But even more than politics, the region’s religious worldview will determine its future.

We can pray and root for regime change that leads to open, free, and democratic societies. But we should remember that God is in charge, holds the heart of kings and kingdoms in his hand, and is as able to work his will in closed societies as he is in open ones. While some mean something as evil, God can turn it to good.

This said, I believe God created and endowed human beings with "certain unalienable rights," so I pray for peaceful, non-violent political change that makes possible just governments and free societies.

A version of this blog was originally recorded for the “Making a Difference” radio program, June 22, 1995.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 January 2011

Recent political upheaval in Tunisia and subsequent protests in Egypt remind us once again that a compelling drive for freedom exists in the heart of every human being.

Freedom, variously called liberty, so beautifully described in the United States Declaration of Independence, is the God-given inalienable right of every human being who has ever lived. While not every person experiences freedom, every person nevertheless possesses it. Freedom can be taken away from one’s body, but freedom can never be taken from one’s soul.

Freedom is more precious than gold. Just ask those without freedom.

Freedom is a gift, from God, and from those who’ve gone before, paying for the gift with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Freedom must be protected and preserved.

Freedom in its fullest and best sense is a matter of the body—freedom of life, assembly, mobility, mind—freedom of speech and expression, and soul—freedom of religion.

Freedom is a political birthright for those blessed with nativity in a nation based upon respect for life and dignity, the rule of law, the recognition of right versus wrong, equality, justice. It’s a birthright in that I did nothing to earn it. My freedom as an American citizen was handed to me, no questions asked, when I came screaming into the world.

Freedom can be a spiritual birthright for those who acknowledge the sufficiency unto salvation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. My freedom as a Christian was handed to me, no questions asked, when I was born again.

Freedom must be cultivated, multiplied, shared, for it is not a concept or reality limited to the American or Western or Caucasian or Well-born or Well-off or Male or Mighty.

Freedom is a responsibility, for which we’re accountable.

Freedom produces aspiration and inspiration, a hope for our country, culture, and children.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 January 2011

New methods of purportedly preserving life, or resuscitating it after you’re dead, are now being marketed by the immortality movement. Want to sign on?

Cryonics puts your remains in deep freeze, hoping one day technology will catch up with our desire to live forever. Ted Williams is frozen somewhere in Arizona, maybe upside down and apparently sans head, awaiting his return to the ball diamond. In order to create a sense of permanence and political legitimacy, Bolshevik supporters of Vladimir Lenin, who died in 1924, embalmed his body, a la the ancient Egyptians, in the now infamous mausoleum on Moscow’s Red Square.

Techno-utopians, as they’re sometimes called, hunger for a time when humankind can outthink God and remake itself in its own image. Robots, androids, $6 million men, bionic women, the Borg, and the latest promises to upload our minds to computer chips, fantasy culture aspires to prolong life indefinitely. It’s an idea as old as the Garden of Eden, Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth, and Frankenstein.

But the Bible says, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, KJV). No one lives forever.

While it is true death originated in the Fall and the Curse, the reality of death is not a uniformly bad thing for the advance of civilization. Yes, we eventually lost Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, but who misses Nero, Ghengis Khan, Adolph Hitler, or Pol Pot? Death sometimes is described in Scripture as the “last enemy,” but at times it’s a blessing from a Sovereign God who limits the extent and impact of evil in the world.

Western culture seems taken by the idea life must be extended at all costs, and we’ve built a health and medical life support system to make it happen. While this may not seem unwise, much of the impetus behind this movement is based upon a faulty worldview that believes life is all there is. Who wouldn’t want to extend life if you genuinely believed there’s no life in the after-life?

Saying this doesn’t mean I support euthanasia. I’m just pointing out that we’re mad for life because we aren’t as connected personally or culturally as we once were to the Giver of Life.

For the record, I believe science will continue to discover ways to preserve body parts and re-use them in other needy bodies. I’m in favor of this as long as the removed body parts are taken from the dead not the yet living. I also believe science will continue to identify or develop ways to fabricate body parts for replacing ones we’ve worn out or injured beyond repair. A lot of people are ambulatory today because doctors have developed knees, hips, and other amazing replacement parts.

On the other hand, I don’t believe science will ever develop a means for postponing death indefinitely. I don’t believe we’ll ever terminate death because death is part of living in a sin-cursed world. It is God’s accountability, the great leveler. And death comes to us all great and small.

For believers, if we know we’re “absent from the body, to be present with the Lord,” (2 Corinthians 5:8. KJV) nanoseconds after death, why worry?

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 January 2011

It’s disconcerting to enter souvenir shops in other countries (this time, Malta) and find depictions of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley on cheap trinkets. There’s nothing else, usually, of America evident in such shops and, really, there shouldn’t be. They are after all souvenir shops for the locale. But apparently Marilyn and Elvis sell worldwide.

For whatever reasons Marilyn’s and Elvis’s pictures are available on cigarette lighters, plates and cups, T-shirts, and more. The question for me is why?

I’ll guess. It’s because this woman and man, nearly always portrayed in their late 20s at the zenith of their physical attractiveness, represent a personal presentation and/or sex appeal everyone else yearns for. People want to live vicariously through these celebrities.

OK, but stranger still, both iconic personalities are long dead, and sadly, met their end too young via drug overdose. Yet people still buy products emblazoned with their images rather than, say, currently globally known celebrities like Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt.

Maybe people buy Marilyn and Elvis partly because they’re dead, their youth forever frozen in time. Their foibles and failures are all known and they aren’t around to create further embarrassment. And the fact that they came to their end sadly adds poignancy to their reputations, kind of like John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and political Camelot.

Or maybe Marilyn and Elvis simply attained a certain cult celebrity status during their lives and commoners simply want to associate themselves with entertainment royalty. I don’t know. And I still don’t get it.

Of all the things I consider admirable about America—I won’t take shots at Marilyn or Elvis; I like their movies and music too—it wouldn’t be celebrities. I’d recommend something else for export. Or if it’s people we export, than I’d wish for people of substance, people whose lives and work made a mark. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower come to mind. So do Helen Keller and Shirley Temple Black.

But it’s the nature of popular culture to latch onto the young, rich, and famous no matter their actual impact or importance. So I guess we’re stuck with Marilyn and Elvis.

Based on this, the rest of the world won’t really learn much about America’s values and contributions. But I guess at least the world will think we're good looking.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 January 2011

In a recent book entitled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses lead author Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa claim nearly half of American undergraduates evidence no significant academic gains in their first two years of college.

The researchers also noted students spend 50% less time studying than students a few decades ago. Some 50% said they never took a class wherein they wrote 20 or more pages.

Arum and his co-author's research results are discouraging but not surprising. In fact, I find it interesting Arum described the results as “really kind of shocking.” If he means he’s appalled, than I understand. If he means he and other researchers or faculty members in general were unaware of this trend, than I think he must live in an academic bubble. People in higher education have watched these trends for years, but like the growing national debt, not much has been done about them—at least not the things most likely to turn trends in a productive direction.

Higher education has become a huge bureaucracy with its own rhythms, power structures, and focus on means over ends. There’s still much good, but there’s even more that’s not so good. After more than thirty-four years “in the biz,” I’d offer three critiques of American higher education generally:

--Public and private institutions without commitment to Christian or religious worldviews have become “multi-versities” with no coherent over-arching paradigm. There’s no “uni” left. Faculties dispense information as facts but do not provide students with a philosophic overview or set of wisdom principles by which to organize, evaluate, and apply the information/facts.

--A significant majority of faculty members in most institutions have earned tenure and, while it’s not true of all, many if not most professors teach what and the way they will and no longer respond to administrative influence, much less directives, to improve pedagogy or increase excellence. They focus more on advancing within their professional disciplines, which requires research and writing, than upon teaching. Yes, there’s a lot of noise about excellence (every institution of higher learning claims to be excellent) and committees sometimes spend months on the subject, but in the end, most professors do their thing much like they always have. Tenure shields them from accountability, robs them of incentive, and reinforces mediocrity.

Both of these higher education characteristics undermine learning. But declines in student learning are not solely the responsibility of academia. These declines are rooted in American culture too.

--We no longer demand or expect a strong work ethic or excellent work. From family room to courtroom, we’ve established innumerable obstacles for academic authorities to negotiate even if they want to place higher demands upon students. Students are, therefore, protected within a zone of laxity. At home, we don’t teach students restraint, a sense of personal limits, respect for authority, or accountability, so schools and schoolwork that used to benefit from these cultural characteristics are now no longer reinforced.

The result of all this is that generations are coming to adulthood without maturity—some don’t even know what maturity is—and worse, with a sense the world owes them rather than they owe the world.

If higher education is to produce greater returns on students’ first two years of investment, several reforms must be implemented:

--In colleges and universities, resurrect and implement cohesive “meta-narrative” approaches to education—even if not specifically Christian or religious, schools should define themselves and expect faculty members to support their school’s philosophy of education. Tie state disbursements to whether this gets done, gets implemented, and is owned and applied by school faculty.

--Even if it must be phased out via new hires, eliminate tenure—at secondary and postsecondary level—which no longer protects academic freedom. It just protects poor teaching and poor teachers. Tenure is an impediment to academic excellence. Tie professor advancement and salaries to actual in-class teaching excellence, not solely advanced degrees and most of all, not simply seniority.

--Put political pressure on governors to make education excellence and achievement, at every level, top priority in their states. No other public policy would reap as high a return on investment as could be accomplished via developing truly better schools.

--Reposition elementary and secondary education with family and local support, focusing upon teaching and learning, achievement, and accountability. Sounds like pie in the sky, that maybe we’ve gone too far and it couldn’t be done. But with dynamic leadership it has already been accomplished in some districts, and it can be done in others.

Start
Prev
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Next
End

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Subcategories