Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 March 2018

One of the things I find fascinating, and at times frustrating, is trying to convey to young adults just how much societal and cultural things have changed. I mean from the time I was their age, and especially since I was in my 20s or when I was a kid.

This may not sound like much, or it may sound like just another old codger grumping about getting older, and maybe it is. But I don’t think so.

For example, I remember the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, which in some ways is similar to race discussions now but in other ways not at all. Yes, there is more to be done, but No, it is not true that no progress has been made. And if you read speeches given by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, you’ll hear him calling for human rights for people of all colors and creeds. You’ll hear him dream about a “color-blind” society. This is decidedly not what we are hearing today. Now it’s about “identity politics.” It’s about advancing one group’s rights, or power, versus another. It’s not about respecting and realizing the ideals of the American experiment, as King called us to do, but about rejecting those ideals. Race politics in the 2000s is qualitatively different from race politics in the 60s and 70s.

The abortion issue looms large. Since Roe vs Wade (1973), more than 58 million abortions have taken place in the United States. Now it seems there are fewer political leaders on either side of the aisle who are willing to stand as pro-life, and even more importantly, actually work to change this situation. We’ve had “pro-life Presidents” like Reagan or GW Bush, but we still have abortions. More and more of the next generations simply consider abortion a civil right, so things are not likely to change soon.

Moral issues were front and center in the 60s: “Make love not war,” do what feels good, the whole spectrum of loosening and changing sexual mores, except one key difference. The sexual discussion in those days assumed the existence and historic attractions of man and woman, not the 71 hybrid versions of gender identity some now say exist.

In addition, LGBTQ has become a social force demanding recognition for any and all manner of self-proclaimed sexual proclivities, which in turn are presented regularly on television programs, i.e. sit-coms must have a gay character and entire shows are built around LGBTQ characters. It’s really incredible how quickly LGBTQ points of view have been embraced by the general culture and by political leaders, like for example former President Barack Obama who began his term opposed to same-sex marriage and by the end was its best-known advocate.

“Trans” quickly became the next frontier after same-sex marriage was accepted, particularly through the high-profile transition of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner. Bruce, a gold medal decathlete in the 1976 Olympics, and later the increasingly emasculated father of the Kardashian clan, had worldwide fame, so his inexplicable and sad transformation got global coverage and thus reinforced the idea anyone who wants to be trans should be saluted for doing so. And the rest of the population must make accommodations from public restrooms to youth camps. Corporations made a pell-mell rush to present themselves as “with it,” proclaiming their support, or not-supporting athletic tournaments or even entire states like North Carolina where laws existed that seemed to discriminate against trans people using public facilities. In any event, there’s an ongoing movement to try to normalize LGBT and now every manifestation represented by Q, and for a sports fan like me, seeing a hero athlete like Bruce, who was young when I was young, follow the path he has taken is a sad experience indeed.

Don’t get me wrong. I support human rights and civil liberties. I do not embrace or endorse discrimination against any American citizen, including those with different gender or sex orientation than I understand, nor for that matter undocumented immigrants. I do not want any American citizen to be prohibited from working or living in given communities, etc. But I do not believe every inclination, sexual included, of any individual must ipso facto be embraced and normalized. Some things people want to do are objectively wrong and injurious and should not be legalized.

For example, I do not believe in “cultural relativism.” While I do not in any way believe immigrants or refugees should be discriminated against or in some other way socially harmed because of their faith or culture, at the same time, I recognize that among both Muslim and Christian subgroups in some cultures, actions like FGM or honor killings or forcibly arranged marriages are practiced. I reject these actions, regardless of the religion or culture involved, because these actions are, on a human rights level, immoral and threatening to the individuals involved and to society. They are quite simply, wrong, and I believe society must be able to say so, thus preventing these behaviors. But today, there are many who argue otherwise, saying whatever one’s culture prescribes is, in essence, OK, and the public has no say. This is very different from the American social logic generally applied when I was younger.

I could list other examples of societal or cultural change but perhaps this is enough. And I do not mean to imply that all change has been bad or wrong. I appreciate the progress American culture has made in recognizing how women are treated and in giving them access. I am glad for the progress made in the ways American culture views physically or mentally disabled individuals.

But I am also concerned about what seems to be a cultural decline based upon sporadic and now systematic rejection of American ideals, the ones drawn from centuries of Western Civilization and ones that proved their time-tested worth, like respect for human life and all human beings, respect for truth—even the idea of truth, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech—the right to be heard, not silenced, and the right to access to the public square. If these values continue to be rejected, the changes we are experiencing in American culture will not be beneficial to the generations that come after us.

*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: 15 March 2018

Is there any other kind of news? All news sources are biased, in some way, even if unintentionally, but many today are intentional.

So, the only way around this is to read multiple sources. And I say "read" because reading is better than watching or listening. The depth available in a print source, even digital, is often better than the rush-to-judgment infotainment on broadcasts. Plus, in print you can avoid commercials and self-promoting celebrity anchors.

I take umbrage immediately w/pieces alleging news bias is "Conservative" or "Liberal," i.e., the other bad guys. Baloney. They all do it. You don’t detect bias in the news sources with which you agree because bias is in the eye of the beholder. To hear ideologues and partisans talk, you’d think “their side” was always right, never got anything wrong, always supported the best leaders, yada yada. But, of course, this is simply not so.

Tapping into international sources once in a while is helpful, even if you don't like what they might say, because they see us/US from a different angle. This doesn’t mean these international news sources are not biased, just that they’re biased in a different way so you hear a different take and perspective, which in my book is good for thinking.

Gone are the days of Huntley-Brinkley, and gone is Walter Cronkite. But they weren’t unbiased either. So check multiple sources if you really want to gain as much perspective as you can on the breaking “news” of the day.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 March 2018

I am 65 and experiencing things I never thought possible when I was 25, and I’m not talking about technological wonders.

When I was 25,

-No one searched my bag when I went into a church service. Now, in many churches this is a routine security check.

-Culture knew the difference between male and female, sort of a no-brainer. But not anymore. Facebook offers something like 56 gender options and some are arguing there’s more than 70. I’m sometimes confused, but not about this.

-No one policed the infants and children’s areas for fear someone would come to harm or take a child. I know this is now necessary and am glad for the people who protect children, but I’m saddened by this obvious change in our culture.

-Churches didn’t have special windows in children’s areas not only so people could walk by and enjoy them but to increase the number of “eyes-on” as an accountability to all adults working with or entering among children, thus to protect the children from various kinds of abuse.

-Criminal and financial background checks were not performed for every personnel hire, even within religious nonprofits, because today, there’s too much risk, too much legal exposure for hiring a person who has serious issues.

-No one thought much about it to see a young man walk down a country road with a rifle.

-Most people thought patriotism was a good thing, even hippies leftover from the 60s.

-On trips short and long our children romped freely on a quilt we placed in the back end, back seat down, of our hatchback Chevy Vega (I loved that car), not in car seats made for astronauts. Now I am not against progress in keeping children safe, of course, but I am forever amazed at how involved and how expensive our kids’ kids’ stuff has now become.

-Politically correct meant we could answer questions about politics and government accurately.

-Gay meant happy.

Strange changes, not all of which are progress.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 21 February 2018

Flying over the Rockies on a clear day is an experience I'd wish for anyone. I did it yesterday.

Reddish pink cliffs, towering to sheer, sharp edges. Flat-topped mesas big enough for airports.

White, deep red, and salmon colored rocky crags surrounded by brown lowlands.

Vast dry lands, then lakes trapped at high elevation.

Massive, jagged peaks chained along miles of high lonesome ranges.

Flatlands suddenly interrupted by rock ridged singular peaks rising hundreds of feet above sandy floored deserts.

Broken country, serrated ridges, canyon upon canyon to infinity. Giant snow-covered summits above the timberline.

Snowy landscape far as the eye can see, lined with thousands of valleys, precipices, oddly shaped pinnacles, and infinite rock formations.

What looks like desolation is actually unlimited resources, terra firma interspersed with flora of fathomless variety, home to fauna fit for a wilderness. Incredible landscape stretching the length of a continent.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 January 2018

We live in a social media age. Unless you’ve chosen to live off the e-grid you’re probably participating in some kind of social media experience, like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

Incredibly, more people are now active monthly on Facebook, about 2.07 billion, than the population of the United States and China combined. It’s a global village.

With this kind of connectivity, and with immediacy made possible by mobile devices, anyone who wants to “talk to the world” can do so in seconds by posting online. This is interesting, good in some measure, not so good in others--reason being, it’s not the content of the post but the people posting that matter. They’re the ones who are good in some measure, not so good in others.

Since the 2016 US Presidential election campaign, it seems more people (around the globe not just in the States) are posting regularly about politics, and in particular, often posting about President Donald Trump. This is occurring for many reasons—

the ease of access of social media,
increasingly divided politics, ideologically, ethnically, demographically, and otherwise,
Pres. Trump’s ongoing use of Twitter, and
the president’s persona—bigger than life, at the center of every issue whether you like him or his views, or not.

All this means more politics in social media.

One of the staples of this growing politicization of social media (Maybe we should just throw in the towel and call it political media?) are shoot-from-the-lip reaction-posts. You don’t like what’s said or happening, so you reach for your device, go online, and let it rip, posting your rant and venting your emotions without filter.

OK, if you want to rant or vent on social media, go ahead, it’s a free country, at least it’s constitutionally supposed to be (The US is experiencing an increase in individual’s or groups’ attempts to limit the First Amendment free speech of others, particularly people or groups with whom they disagree). But the problem with venting or ranting regularly is that after a while few people pay attention, other than those who already share your view. So, you’re mostly preaching to the choir. And though you may not care, you gain the reputation of a malcontent, a curmudgeon, one who “Cries wolf,” or simply an unpleasant associate.

Let me say outright: There are better ways to comment, critique, or criticize than ranting or venting. I’m not saying you shouldn’t speak. I’m saying there is a better way than politically ranting or venting. By “better” I mean more effective, more likely to reach and influence others. Isn’t that the purpose of your rant, to reach others?

With venting, maybe not. Maybe it’s just to blow off your own steam. Either way, social media is inundated with these kinds of posts and even the social media industry is beginning to consider ways to “re-socialize” social media, i.e. reduce one-n-done negative political rants.

As an aside, I’ll add that the other problem with social media posts, specifically those involving “friends,” “fans,” or “followers,” is that your post primarily reaches a subset of these people. Theoretically you can speak to the world via social media but due to complex algorithms that’s not generally how it works. Even the President’s well-known tweets reach only his followers, unless and until media quote his comments. If you want to speak into culture, win friends, and influence others, maybe you should consider launching a blog that’s available to the “world wide” web.

Now, how can we comment, critique, or criticize in an influential manner?

Check your facts. Nothing undercuts credibility more quickly than false statements—something presidential candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton and Pres. Trump have had to learn in their use of social media. Just take the time to do a little research online. If something bothering or encouraging you is indeed false, why waste time on it? If something with which you agree or disagree is indeed true and happening, then speaking up with a firm foundation of factual data reinforces your point of view.

Popping off is just popping off. We’re back to ranting and venting. Maybe it helps you feel better, so go ahead, but I recommend tossing your text after it’s written. Don't post popping off. In the pre-social media days, I used to write letters in which I dumped my arguments and feelings about organizational developments that concerned me, but then I destroyed the letters, never sending any of them, ever. Made me feel better but I didn’t spread around hastily-conceived negative thoughts. If I really had something substantive to say, I took the time to develop my argument and shared it with the right people in the right place at a later time.

Gotcha posts aren’t worth much. Other than giving you a reputation of a self-appointed watchdog with nothing of your own to contribute, gotcha posts are just jabs, more of the same, just one more chance for you to say, "Look what the bad pol has done now." For example, whatever you think of Republican or Democrat posturing or comments, constantly posting the latest perceived faux pas of the other side doesn’t change the narrative. What do you think? If you were a political leader, or in the Oval Office, what would you do? How would you suggest we encourage Middle East peace, or what policies do you support re immigration reform? So it goes. Say something meaningful. Add to the conversation. Add an alternative idea. Gotcha is old news.

Talk about issues rather than people. Focus your posts and arguments on the issue of the moment instead of adding another round of gossipy criticism of a politician you don’t like. OK, you don’t like him or her, we get that, but what do you think about the issue?

Respect others and their right to hold their views. Attacking the person(s) holding views different from your own does not advance your argument. It just lets us know you don’t like that man or woman. I’m weary of posts using terms like “moron,” “idiot,” “crazy person” to describe political leaders whose views one does not appreciate. Even if a political leader somehow deserves these appellations, what good does it do to keep labeling him/her this on social media? And do you really want to use this kind of low-level vocabulary in your political discussions?

Comment and Critique rather than Criticize. Comment is any statement, positive or negative, good or bad. Critique is analysis, which could be critical but may not be and is best based upon studied reflection and review of data. Criticizing or criticism generally implies a negative assessment, which is why the term “constructive criticism” is used to describe an evaluation that attempts to be helpful, no matter the nature of the review. Learning to offer critique that respects others and their right to hold their views, respects the democratic process, and ultimately attempts to resolve a problem is better than criticism per se that offers nothing but cutting disapproval.

Seriously consider others’ views. Before you post, comment or critique and especially criticism, give a careful look-see at others’ views. Many seemingly either/or issues are not either/or. They’re more complex than this, and frequently there are points of agreement that could further the discussion if acknowledged.

One side of the partisan aisle is not always right. You may not agree with this, but over time it is easy to document that both Republicans and Democrats, men and women, Liberals and Conservatives, Whites and Blacks, etc. etc. are at times in the wrong. So go slow when you tout loudly the sins of the other. Your turn is coming.

Keep sharing your views, including your comments, critiques, and criticisms, but do so in a way that advances our public conversations about the issues confronting us.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 January 2018

Unknown

“10/40 Window” has been part of the Christian lexicon for more than twenty-five years. It’s a handy designation for that part of the earth’s land mass lying between 10 and 40 degrees latitude north of the equator. The 10/40 Window encompasses North and Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and most of Asia.

10/40 Window rolls nicely off the tongue, is intriguing, and is, once the geography’s envisioned, easy to understand. The phrase was coined in 1990 by mission strategist Luis Bush, who first called it a “box” but at his wife’s suggestion changed the name to “window” to emphasize spiritual opportunities in the region.

The 10/40 Window spans over 60 countries and two-thirds of the world’s population—over 4 billion people. These countries, though widely variant in history and culture, share several negative “social indicators,” for example:

highest number of socioeconomic problems,
high levels of illiteracy, higher still among women,
90% of the poorest people,
most countries closed or resistant to outside influence,
highest levels of Christian suppression, oppression, persecution,
8,671 people groups, a majority “unreached,” meaning limited to no access to the Christian message.

You can Google more statistics, but you get the picture. The idea of the 10/40 Window was to encourage a Christian outreach strategy to the most spiritually needy regions of the world. To some extent this has happened. Mostly it hasn’t.

Some Good News: SAT-7’s satellite footprint covers the entire Western Half of the 10/40 Window. While Asia and Africa are linguistically fragmented, one advantage for broadcasting in the Middle East and North Africa is that residents typically understand one of three languages: approximately 300 million Arabic, 165 million Turkish, and 70 million Persian (Farsi). SAT-7 broadcasts biblical truth and a Christian worldview in all three languages.

Some 95% of Middle Easterners have access to a television and 60%+ (about 85% in Iraq) can access a satellite dish. So despite the spiritual challenges on the ground, or maybe because of them, spiritual opportunities are still beaming uncensored from the air.

The Western Half of the 10/40 Window is blanketed everyday with the Christian message. And God said, “So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

What do you think the Apostle Paul, missionary to the Gentiles, would say if he could reach millions via satellite television? No long boat rides or shipwrecks, no snakes, no Roman soldiers to dodge, no interminable hikes, no waiting weeks for your epistle to get there.

I think Paul would pray, “Dear Lord, give me the 10/40 Window.” And then to his taxi-driver, “Get me to the SAT-7 studio. Now.”

Subcategories