- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Mr. Terence Ascott is the recipient of the Honorary Doctor of Christian Ministries from Belhaven University. Mr. Ascott also gave the commencement address at the university’s IXth Orlando Commencement, December 8, 2011.
Dr. Ascott was recognized for his pioneering service in Christian satellite television in the Middle East and North Africa, for his contribution as Founder of SAT-7, and for his continuing service in advancing the cause of Christ in a region highly resistant to Christianity, the Church, and at times individual Christians. Dr. Ascott helped craft a new model of ministry and missions, one that strategically communicates theology through a technology providentially available for such a time as this.
Dr. Ascott saw the spiritual need in the Middle East and developed a vision for fulfilling that need using satellite television. In a region characterized by violent reaction to religious ideas and activities different from those of domineering religious regimes, Dr. Ascott recognized that satellite television could enable broadcasters to bypass such obstacles and reach directly into the homes of the people.
In 1995, Dr. Ascott and regional Christian leaders founded SAT-7, a Christian satellite television ministry that began with two hours of Arabic programming per week. In the early years, the ministry’s progress was slowed by potential Middle East actors’ and hosts’ fear of appearing on screen, a dearth of television on and off-camera talent, and limited funds.
Today, SAT-7 broadcasts 24/7 over 5 channels across 7 time zones throughout 22 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, along with some 50 countries in Europe. One of the channels, SAT-7 KIDS, is the only Arabic Christian television channel in the world. Production values are high, the Christian faith is effectively communicated via almost every genre of television programming, and 80% of what airs has been produced in the Middle East by Middle Easterners. Support offices exist in Canada, Europe, the UK, and the US.
From the beginning, Dr. Ascott’s vision included the three dominant languages of the region: Arabic, Persian (Farsi), and Turkish. These languages include a population of more than 500 million living in some of the most religiously or socially closed or largely closed countries of the world. Yet the region has been historically neglected by Christian outreach and remains so today. This is SAT-7’s opportunity and niche.
Dr. Ascott helped define SAT-7’s distinctive ministry model. SAT-7’s “Ethos”—it’s core values—requires the ministry to remain thoroughly Christian but non-political and non-partisan, to not request funds on air, to never attack or demean other religions, and to be culturally sensitive (respectful) in the Middle East context. This Ethos helped SAT-7 develop programming that opens doors to Middle Eastern homes and hearts.
Dr. Ascott has lived in the Middle East and served as the leader for indigenous media ministries for more than 35 years. In 1973 he and his family moved to Beirut, Lebanon and helped launch an Arabic Christian publishing ministry. After the start of the Lebanese Civil War, he and his family evacuated to Egypt where he helped begin the Arabic youth magazine, Magalla. This was the first Christian magazine to be successfully distributed on Egyptian newsstands. Magalla was published for 20 years and, according to many Arab Christians, was instrumental in bringing many people to Christ.
Following this, Dr. Ascott focused upon SAT-7. In a video shown during the commencement, university president Dr. Roger Parrott expressed his high regard for SAT-7 and Mr. Ascott.
Dr. Ascott holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering with honors from the Middlesex University, England. He and his wife Jacqueline live in Cyprus and have three adult children and one grandchild.
Dr. Ascott continues as the International CEO of SAT-7.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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
"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."
Remember that one? Vice President Al Gore repeated variations of this interesting ethical argument several times during a press conference in March 1997. The issue was whether the Vice President had violated any laws by making partisan calls in the White House to solicit campaign funds. The Vice President’s against-the-wall defense was, to paraphrase, “It’s not specifically illegal (which by the way wasn’t true), so it must be OK.”
I thought of this last week listening to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain announce he was “suspending”—a soft word for quitting, running for cover, or I have no idea what may come out next—his campaign for the Republican nomination.
Why did Cain suspend his campaign? “I’ve got to think about my family first. That is absolutely my #1 priority.” Really? Since when?
I’m not suggesting I know whether Herman Cain is a philanderer. I don’t, at least not for sure. But there was a lot of smoke and more coming: his wife apparently didn’t know anything about the woman (an alleged 13-year affair) to whom Cain had given money and spoken on the phone repeatedly over months, he apparently never talked to his wife about all this until he made a trek home to “reassess” his campaign, and his wife, perhaps tellingly, never publicly came to his defense. Sad.
What’s worse, like “no controlling legal authority,” before Cain threw in the towel, Cain’s lawyer issued this statement in an attempt to defend him: “...This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults—a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life….”
Are you kidding me? If this were you, do you really want your lawyer making a lawyerly statement like this? Why didn’t Cain or his wife or his lawyer scream to the high heavens, “It ain’t so”?
Now we have a new one: “Sex between consenting adults is no one’s business.” OK. I can buy the freedom and privacy part of this argument. But I can’t buy the implication that anything two people decide to do is by definition “right” or “moral” and, by the way, no one else’s business. And oh by the way, society, morality, children, family, friends, organizations, and nation-states that happened to be affected by these consenting adults be hanged.
Bill Clinton tried this. He said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” lying through his teeth to the American people as he said it. Later under oath he debated the definition of “is.” Look in the dictionary under “weasel words” and you’ll see a picture of Bill Clinton, or maybe Al Gore, or maybe Herman Cain—I know, I know, we don’t know for sure about Cain. OK. If he didn’t conduct an illicit affair(s), then why did he suspend his campaign?
Not illegal doesn’t make something right, moral, or necessarily even advisable. Vice presidents, presidents, and candidates don’t seem to have learned this along the way. Ask John Edwards. For that matter, if he were still around, ask Ted Kennedy. Ask too many American political leaders. Will Newt Gingrich be next? I don’t know, but I do know his personal past is checkered at best.
Sex, lies, and presidential politics are becoming an all-too-common evil triumvirate. Wonder what it would be like to listen to presidential candidates who had high principles of ethics and actually held to them?
Wonder what it would be like to hear presidential candidates who actually told the truth? Especially to their spouses.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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
It bothers me when presidential candidates talk about immigrants as if they’re all terrorists. Or at least riff-raff we should keep out of America at all costs.
It bothers me when politicians and pundits refer to immigrants as some kind of blight. In a recent article on the "immigrant problem," I said, "We didn't awaken one morning to discover millions of illegal immigrants had entered the country overnight. Porous borders, ineffective policy, lack of leadership--and will, and sporadic enforcement have co-existed for a long time." We don't have an "immigrant problem." We have a "political decision-making problem."
It bothers me when political leaders make ridiculous proposals like building a two thousand mile electrified fence between the United States and Mexico.
It bothers me when immigrants are referenced in the same breath with “the criminal element,” especially when the people making the references are conservatives who supposedly embrace the American ideal of freedom of opportunity and justice for all. Yes, it is true, we have a border enforcement problem and a huge number (estimated 12 million) internationals living on U.S. soil without benefit of legal recognition as immigrants-in-process-toward-citizenship. But it’s frankly not immigrants’ fault our border enforcement and citizenship policies and processes haven’t worked well. It’s our political leadership's—or the lack thereof—fault.
Especially in a culture that's committed to having fewer children and aborting others, immigrants are an important source of future vitality, ideas, productivity, and output for this nation’s future. If we insist upon demonizing them for wanting what everyone wants—freedom—than they will not be as inclined to take correct legal steps toward citizenship. Nor will they be as inclined to work productively.
Both the Republican and Democratic politicians running for high offices must come to grips with this challenge. Candidate Newt Gingrich is taking some heat for recent comments that seemed to offer a bit of common sense and compassion about immigrants. Perhaps his comments were merely a politician’s ploy and an appeal for votes, but hopefully his attitude is authentic. If so, it’s a step in the right direction.
Immigrants are not the enemy. They’re part of our future, so we need to provide them with a doable process toward legal recognition. And of course they need to take this step. They will if what we offer them is a path to meaningful American citizenship and not a road to second-class status.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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
“Simply having a wonderful Christmas time. Simply having a wonderful Christmas time.”
If you hear these lyrics less than a thousand times this Christmas season I’ll be surprised. They’re played ad nauseum on the radio, over retail store muzak, in elevators, at the gas pump, and probably in more than a few churches, though thankfully I haven’t heard that yet. Trouble is, the song isn’t worthy of the attention it gets.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Christmas music—my wife plays it non-stop from mid-November on—and we go in for Christmas big-time: huge, real tree (sometimes two) we’ve cut ourselves each of 37 years running, mucho decorations, presents for the kids and now grandkids, good food, family, friends, fellowship, fun, and, via social media, fans and followers. So please, hear me out. Though you may think I protest too much, I am not a Scrooge by a long shot. (I’m even a guy who likes to go to the mall with his wife.)
But Sir Paul McCartney’s ubiquitous “Wonderful Christmastime” is just too much.
Why do I dislike it so? Well, for one, it’s poor music; the tune, texture, form, rhythm, melody, none of it is uplifting, just drive-you-bananas abominable.
Another reason this is my least favorite Christmas song is the over-the-top repetition involved. I know nearly all song lyrics involve repetition, and for good musical reason, but this song is run-you-in-the-ground repetitive. The lyrics repeat “Simply having a wonderful Christmas time” fourteen times as written. Some renditions repeat the phrase more often than that.
Then there’s the song’s claim to “Christmas” status. Other than using the phrase “Christmas time” in the lyrics and “Christmas” in the title and last line, there’s nothing distinctively Christmas, from a Christian point of view, about this song. No manger, no baby Jesus, no three kings, no silent night, no star or Good News. Just “Ding dong, ding dong.”
On this theme I’d even go further and say the song, perhaps intentionally perhaps not, is a wholesale secularization of the season. The song’s been sanitized of all Christmas story content—nothing to “offend” anyone here, just a party for one and all. This is another reason retailers in an increasingly secularized Western society find the song acceptable. “Wonderful Christmastime” becomes a “safe” (in our religiously privatized culture) replacement for “Silent Night” or “O Come All Ye Faithful.”
Read the lyrics yourself. Here’re verses 1-4:
“The moon is right, The spirit’s up, We’re here tonight, And that’s enough”
“The party’s on, the feelin’s here, That only comes, This time of year”
“The choir of children sing their song, Ding dong, ding dong, Ding dong, ding, oh, oh”
“The word is out, About the town, To lift a glass, Ah, don’t look down”
These verses are interspersed by the chorus “Simply having a wonderful Christmas time,” then repeated. Pretty stirring isn’t it?
If there is religious content in this song it’s in the line “And that’s enough,” which makes the subtle statement that we’re the end-all be-all and nothing is needed for fulfillment other than our own happiness at “This time of year.”
Maybe Paul McCartney just wanted to write a little jingle and thought no more about it than any of hundreds of other songs he’s written. But I doubt it. This one was meant to profile him and his work prominently for the general public at least once per year. If he didn’t intend this I’ve no doubt his managers and marketers did. I'm not against Paul McCartney or his music, per se; he's obviously a musical genius and I like some of his songs. But he missed it on this one. Even he reputedly knows this; though he makes about $400,000 per year in royalties from this song, he has said for years that it embarrasses him.
I know I’m making a lot out of a pop song. One could just ignore it and go on, which I try to do. But it’s hard to ignore because “Wonderful Christmastime” gets more airtime every year. When this song is played there’s an opportunity cost in the sense that better Christmas songs are not given airtime.
I’m not against all non-Christian or non-religious Christmas music. I like “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and “White Christmas,” for example. I like these and other “secular” songs because they’re good music. “Wonderful Christmastime” isn’t wonderful, isn’t Christmas, and isn’t good music.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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.
The Sad Case Of Brett Favre
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Brett Favre played quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, and finally for the New York Jets and Minnesota Vikings. In his playing days he was without question one of the most exciting players to watch. His “gunslinger” approach created plays time and again where there were none moments before and brought his team success and his fans enjoyment. Then it came time for him to retire.
If you’ve paid much attention to football you know his story. Fuss with the Green Bay Packers organization, act like a spoiled kid instead of a nearly 40 year old professional, retire, not retire, retire, come out of retirement. Cry at retirement, come back a few months later: what is this? Whatever was going on in Favre’s life this non-disappearing act made the man look like he didn’t know what he was doing. After a couple of years of this he finally retired January 17, 2011. Or maybe he did—word this week is that he may get a call from the Houston Texans.
Worse than Favre’s retirement fiasco were some alleged off the field shenanigans, investigation by the NFL, a finding he’d violated the league’s personal conduct policy, a $50,000 fine for not co-operating with the investigation, and Favre’s typical reticence on something he should have been man enough to handle. Favre supposedly texted or “sexted” the Jets “Gameday” host Jenn Sterger several times during the 2008 season, sending her salacious messages. She and others claimed he did, he denied it, and now no one really knows. But there was a lot of smoke to believe there was no fire.
Worse still is how Favre not only left the Green Bay Packers but how he spoke publicly about a management and a team that had been his home for most of his illustrious professional career. He slammed them in public and argued his weak case in media.
And worse than this is how he then and now has continued to treat—which is to say not treat at all—Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. In a recent television interview Rodgers carefully admitted he “had not heard from” Favre after the Packers won the February 2011 Super Bowl and that he thought he’d had a relationship with Favre earlier but not now. Rivalries in sports and otherwise are understandable, even healthy at times, but this kind of silence speaks volumes. This is what we now have come to realize is the real Brett Favre, a small man in a big profession.
One of the signs of a great leader is that he or she knows when to leave. Great leaders are great not only for what they do during their run at the top but for how they handle themselves and what they do when it’s time to move on—and every leader eventually moves on via opportunity, retirement, illness, or death. The end comes to us all. Favre walked out whining and has never stopped. He clearly is bothered by his successor’s success, and he’s made it clear that he is a selfish person. It could have been different.
When Joe Montana, winner of four Super Bowls in the 1980s with the San Francisco 49ers, came to the end of his run in San Francisco he quietly went to Kansas City and played out his career with the Chiefs. He remains today one of the most respected quarterbacks to play the game, and he lives near San Francisco his adopted town. He won big, he left quietly and respectfully. This is what could have been for Brett Favre.
Whether Brett Favre ever regains his stature in Packer land is largely up to him. For now he’s a sad case. Someday, hopefully for his sake, he’ll make amends. But the damage to his legacy has been severe and it will remain so until Favre demonstrates a depth of character that has so far been absent.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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.
Tebowing Testimony
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
“Tebowing” is the word of the moment. It’s a noun describing NFL Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow’s practice of bowing in prayer on single knee here, there, and just about everywhere on the football field. The word was likely first coined as a form of ridicule, but like a lot of other things in Tebow’s life, he’ll probably get the last laugh.
Tim Tebow’s story is by now well known to anyone paying attention to football. He’s the son of missionary parents in the Philippines and grew up home-schooled and groomed for service. Turns out Tebow is a physical specimen, 6 foot 3 inches, 235 pounds, athletic, tough, and gifted at running if not throwing a football.
At the University of Florida Tebow helped his team win the National Championship as a backup quarterback in 2006, won the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore starter in 2007, and helped his team win a National Championship again in 2008. In college he won numerous other awards as the best college football player in the nation.
But Tebow is known for more than this, most notably unfailing optimism, terminal niceness, and super-sized leadership skills. Somehow, someway, Tebow always seems to get the job done on the football field and off, giving credit to others along the way. He’s also known for openly living and referencing his Christian faith and testimony, wearing “John 3:16” and other Bible verses on his eye tape in college until the NCAA outlawed it, speaking constantly of Jesus, praising the Lord for his accomplishments, saving himself he says for marriage, and of course Tebowing, which is only one part of his testimony.
For a number of reasons, the suitability of Tebow’s football skills for the NFL, his faith, his openness about his faith, and his Tebowing all create controversy. In particular the latter, how he practices his faith, drives people to polarizing frenzy. His critics accuse him of “pushing his faith on others,” something he has never really done. They accuse him of “telling others what they should believe,” again something he’s never done. They go berserk at Tebow’s expressions of faith ignoring the fact that many other NFL and other professional sports athletes openly express their varying faiths.
Meanwhile, Tebow keeps doing his job, trying to make it as a quarterback in the NFL. He refuses to criticize others who criticize him, including especially players who’ve mocked him with their own Tebowing stance. So far, he appears to be everything he claims that he is, a young Christian trying to live a good and exemplary life, even if a highly visible one in the public eye. In this regard it’s hard not to defend him and a lot of sports journalists and current and retired football professionals are increasingly speaking up for him. Others of course may never be won no matter how consistently he lives his faith.
One has to be concerned for him too. When you live as publicly as Tebow lives, when you put your faith out there and say, “This is me,” you’re a target and you’re vulnerable (as are we all). One misstep, one unwise comment, one human moment of angry emotion, one wrong girlfriend in the wrong place at the wrong time, one ugly reaction, and you’re toast. Ask Mel Gibson, who never lived like Tebow but who did build an image of himself as a religious person that was later shattered by his own anti-Semitic comments, ugly divorces, and romps with supermodels.
For Tebow, despite the doubters, so far so good. He just keeps on. Actually, so far, he keeps winning. At this point, he is 4-1 as the starting quarterback of the Denver Broncos, turning a team from 1-4 to 5-5 with a chance to yet salvage the season.
I don’t have any problem with Tebow’s Tebowing, as long as it’s sincere and not a show. On the other hand, I can see why some people question its appropriateness. Put the practice in another professional setting. Do you think it would be helpful if attorneys, doctors, salespersons, bus drivers, or politicians dropped to a knee with each accomplishment? I don’t. But then again, maybe politicians indeed need to spend more time on both knees.
I root for this guy. In an age when sports heroes are more often anti-heroes whose lives are one long story of self-indulgence, Tebow is different. He’s about others. He works hard. He tries to do his best, share credit, live honestly, be nice, and take responsibility for his actions and failings. He’s a leader who’s thus far leading in the right directions. So I’ll cut him some slack. Tebow can “tebow” all he wants.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*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.