Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 07 March 2011

Unprecedented social foment continues in the Middle East and North Africa. People demonstrate, protest, and even fight for change, and “Freedom” is the watchword.

Quick revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt may have spoiled us. The world wants peaceful resolution, and the sooner the better. But protesters in Libya are facing the strongest government opposition yet, complete with mercenaries, tanks, and fighter jets firing on Libyan citizens. Each day the prospects of a protracted civil war grow more likely. Meanwhile protesters in Bahrain, Yemen, and several other Arab countries press their governments for more economic opportunities, access to political decision-making, and basic human rights.

So far, it appears the two successful revolutions and protesters throughout the region seem to be nonsectarian, meaning they’re motivated by something other than religious goals. They’re driven by scattered leaders or by groups of freedom fighters rather than by organized religious movements. This is positive in the sense that religious influence generally heightens the stakes, making orderly transfers of power more difficult. The fact this could change as the revolutions settle into some kind of new political normal is a “known unknown” element of Middle East social transition.

On television or the Internet we watch tens of thousands demonstrate and/or fight. This is impressive, but we should remember there are tens of millions on the sidelines, sitting at home watching, doing nothing, or mostly just not engaging knowledgeably with the protests. What we don’t know is whether these millions at home are or will vote in favor of change or in favor of not changing? This is another element of change-by-the-moment Middle East/North Africa social transition.

One hopes that what emerges in all the countries engaged in civil discourse and/or civil war is a new level of tolerance and respect for minority individuals and groups. That is to say, one hopes post-revolution governments will not only protect basic human rights but will set the tone for inclusive societies in which acceptance is extended to all—ethnicities, races, religions, and also women and the disabled. Whether this will happen is yet uncertain but could change by the moment.

Three groups now seem to have emerged in the Middle East and North Africa: 1) people committed to revolutionary change, 2) people committed to maintaining current governments, and 3) the “silent majority” waiting, watching, and wondering which way they’ll cast their lot when the time comes. This could change at any moment and no one knows just how or in which direction.

The Middle East has always been a fascinating and an inherently important region of the world. Never more so than now.

*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: 05 March 2011

At the dawn of time, God looked upon his creation, including a guy named Adam, and said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). This suggests a number of jokes like “God created women because he knew men by themselves would make a wreckage of things.” If you look around, that joke isn’t far off the mark.

Really, though, God created men and women for companionship, first with himself, and second with one another. Notice that God’s observation began with “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Being alone can be productive if you get more work done, relaxing without distractions, or simply enjoyable if you spend the time reflecting on whatever seems interesting. But being alone too long or too often can also be lonely or depressing.

Companionship matters because God created us to be companionable people. We’re individuals, but we work best in community. Aristotle was a smart man, but he only got it half right when he said, “Man is a social animal.” Human beings are not animals, but we are social.

Companionship is key to successful marriage and it’s always a great story to read about a couple that’s lived in holy and happy matrimony for more than sixty years. Husbands and wives, rightly matched, balance, reinforce, hold accountable, encourage, and complete one another. When it works as God intended it’s a great thing to experience and to watch.

But some people aren’t and maybe don’t want to be married. They’ve chosen a single person’s life and there’s nothing in Scripture that suggests this is anything other than a different choice or calling. It presents its own challenges and advantages. In terms of challenges, needed companionship must come from someone other than a spouse.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong, per se, with being alone or choosing to live alone. A lot of people live alone for their own reasons or for a time and do so in a healthy manner. More power to them and may they be blessed with many friends.

It’s still rather interesting, though, to note that when you hear media describe someone as “a loner” it’s generally not a good thing. “Loners” can be so idiosyncratic they turn into hermits, recluses, or troglodytes. Howard Hughes, talented and rich though he was, became increasingly neurotic in his withdrawal from others, so his life didn’t end well or happy. “Loners” in this negative sense bring visions of the Unabomber. Companionship might have saved both men from ignominy.

Friends matter whether a person is married or single. Good friends are more difficult to find than one might imagine, and as one grows older, they’re sometimes even more difficult to find. But finding friends is usually possible and always necessary.

Companions must be carefully chosen. In Proverbs, Solomon repeated this refrain often: “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (18:24). Real companions are loyal to not just you but to truth and your best interest: “A friend loves at all times and a brother is born of adversity” (17:17) and “Wounds from a friend can be trusted” (27:6). Who our companions are says a lot about us, and who we are attracts companions of a similar worldview, character, and vision: “He who walks with the wise, grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm” (13:20). Worthy people seek worthy companions.

Companionship can be developed, and in a healthy way, with animals. People who own pets typically live longer. Pets brought into nursing homes can reinforce the wellbeing of the people who live there. Many true stories are told of pets that in their animal instinct and loyalty reached heights of heroism and nobility on behalf of distressed human masters.

Companionship is sometimes best appreciated when it’s not available, i.e., “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” Or, “I miss you.”

But companionship is also a warm and precious thing to appreciate when it is available. When a friend stops in unexpectedly. When a pet bounds to the door at the end of a stressful day. When a loved one passes and others sit with you in silent support. When the arrival of grandkids is given away by the noise of their excited chatter, as in “The Marines, er, the grandkids have landed.” When the beloved spouse sits or works quietly nearby. When the Spirit of God communes with your needy heart.

If more people experienced true companionship the world would be a more pleasant place. God grant us more companionship.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 March 2011

Free speech—if you asked the average person on the street if he or she believed in freedom of speech you'd hear, “Yes.” In fact, most of us would defend the principle vigorously. It’s a precious and basic human right many in the Middle East are currently fighting to attain.

In America, the majority population enjoyed freedom of speech, even more broadly freedom of expression, throughout our history. It took us longer to establish freedom of speech for minorities, but it did come, if painfully, in time.

Now we live with it, which would seem to be a grand experience. And it is. But there are times freedom of speech tries our souls.

Such is the case of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for the church over a lawsuit by Albert Snyder, father of a dead American soldier at whose funeral the church sponsored a protest.

The church contends God is killing American soldiers to judge the nation for its tolerance of homosexuality. Church members march near soldier’s funerals carrying signs stating “God Hates You,” “God is Your Enemy,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Thank God for 9/11,” and worse. They shout at soldiers’ grieving families and spout hate in the name of Christianity. Veterans on motorcycles have lined funeral procession routes in an attempt to hold Westboro at bay.

To say Westboro Baptist Church is un-Christian, wrong, and reprehensible, as I've said before, is true. But they become more egregious with each passing funeral. Their words hurt families, grossly misrepresent biblical Christianity, and incite some to violent response. All in all, it seems like some legal remedy should be applied to stop them, and Mr. Snyder tried. But the United States Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor not of Westboro but of freedom of speech.

Sometimes defending freedom makes for awkward bedfellows. Freedom of speech protects the KKK, American Nazis, and various militias. It also protects the platform, the podium, and the pulpit. If the Court ruled for Mr. Snyder, which our emotion and all that seems just suggests, we’d limit freedom of speech. More, the Court would be forced to draw lines and create categories, further delimiting freedom. Emotion, however understandable, doesn’t make good law.

With freedom of speech, those of us who disagree with Westboro Baptist Church may say so. We can contend with their view in the public arena and through moral suasion perhaps win the day. The United States Supreme Court made the correct ruling, however difficult it is to take, thinking about Westboro.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 March 2011

I wonder if Adam laughed before Eve came along? Or more likely, I’m guessing she might have been the first with a big laugh when Adam created “It’s a guy thing,” showing off for the lady. Whatever.

Really, what would we do without laughter? Or more broadly, what would we do without humor, light-hearted entertainment, or comic relief? I’m not sure I’d want to live in a world or a human race where humor and therefore laughter didn’t exist.

I was and I am an avid newspaper reader. For years I started at the back of the paper and read my way forward, which is to say I started with the comics and moved on through sports and entertainment to business to hard news. I went from the light to the heavy stuff.

Why, I don’t know, but a few years ago I inexplicably switched. I suddenly felt compelled to start with front-page heavy-duty material and move through opinion columns to business to sports and entertainment. And now, I always save the comics for last.

I guess this happened because it feels good to wrap a session reading about the problems endemic to the human predicament with a little time spent with "Peanuts." I like them all, but my all time fav "Peanuts" characters are Lucy’s little brother Linus and Charlie’s little sister Sally. Linus is the intellectual, the young one who quotes Shakespeare and the Bible and spouts history and trivia. Then there’s Sally.

Sally’s the one who keeps coming up with a “New Philosophy.” Hilarious. With credit to Charles M. Schulz, here’re two:

Sally: “I have a new philosophy, ‘Life goes on.’”

Charlie: “Good for you.”

Sally: “So what’s on TV?”

Charlie: “Not much.”

Sally: “Life goes on.”

Sally: “I now have three philosophies: ‘Life goes on,’ ‘Who cares?’ and ‘How should I know?’”

Sally: “Pretty profound, huh?”

Charlie: “Maybe a little too profound.”

Sally: “Who cares? How should I know? Life goes on.”

One of my habits is to tear or cut out comic strips I think are funny and share them with Sarah. We do this pretty regularly and it’s always fun. Some comics have a way of presenting life poignantly. Some strike a chord because they talk about experiences with which you relate. Some, like "Garfield," grab a faithful readership because Garfield thinks, says, and does things that we sometimes wish we could get away with. They’re all amusingly enjoyable. Good comedy in television and the cinema can be the same.

Laugher is good for you. Innumerable empirical studies have demonstrated as much. But Solomon knew this long ago. He said, “A happy heart makes the face cheerful” and “A cheerful heart is good medicine,” (Proverbs 15:23a, 17:22a). Later Solomon said, “There is a time for everything…a time to weep and a time to laugh,” (Ecclesiastes 3:1a, 4).

So in the midst of inevitable challenge and adversity...in the face of life's turmoil, trouble, and turbulence, do yourself a favor. Find things in life worth laughing about. LOL.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 02 March 2011

Charlie Sheen’s media blitz is a lesson in what not to do in public relations. In a matter of a week, Sheen compared himself to a warlock, a rock star, and God. He’s called himself “special” in a number of different ways and he presented himself to the American public as apparently what he is, a self-deluded narcissist.

This sounds harsh, but if you kept score across his several high profile morning show and news program interviews it’d be “Arrogance 10, Humility 0.” Sheen is way past confident in himself and his own abilities, all the way to “I’m a winner.”

As the star of CBS’s “Two And A Half Men” Sheen makes $1.8 million per episode and as such is the highest paid actor on television. He’s also reputedly a chronic drug and alcohol abuser, has been in and out of rehab several times, is twice divorced, is the father of five children, and is now engaged in a highly public feud with CBS about the impact of his personal behavior upon their top-rated program. For now, the show has been taken out of production and may end its nearly nine-year run involuntarily.

Sheen’s drug and alcohol problems, the fact he lives with two women he calls “the goddesses,” and his bellicose attitude havemoved him from entertainment news to the front page. If it is true that “any publicity is good, even bad publicity,” than Sheen is in for more high paydays later. If not, he’s in trouble.

Journalists frequently refer to Sheen’s “personal demons.” Since O. J. Simpson, it’s a phrase that’s become the go-to description of a person struggling with emotional stability or inner turmoil. It’s a way for journalists to deal with inherently moral considerations without sounding religious or moralistic, which of course would violate current standards of political correctness.

For some who use the term, calling a person’s attitudinal and behavioral issues “personal demons” also serves nicely to ascribe the ultimate responsibility for the issues to something other than the individual involved, i.e. “He can’t help himself.”

Not being responsible sounds attractive, as in “Wow, you mean I can do all this and not be held accountable?” Or, “I’m a jerk because of something beyond my control? Great.”

But it’s not so great. When you think about it, not being responsible means you’re the victim of fate or forces or something, and you have no say in it. If you have no say in it, if you are truly controlled by something else, you’re not just “not responsible,” you can’t change it. And if there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change you, you’re doomed. Being doomed doesn’t sound attractive to me.

Charlie Sheen, like many people before him and probably many after him, is a product of his own choices. He’s not manipulated by personal demons in the sense of things beyond his influence. He’s driven by his own poor or argumentative attitudes, his own boorish or self-destructive behavior, his own sin—just like the rest of us. His problems seem bigger than those of others because his are on display.

I don’t want to see Charlie Sheen die young. But I think he’s on that track. I don’t think “Two and a Half Men” is worth much—it’s funny, but it’s primarily driven by one plot theme: two brothers trying to get and have sex with women, as much as possible. But otherwise I like some of Sheen’s movies. I’m not trying to throw judgmental rocks at him. But I don’t think it’s compassionate to blame his problems on something he can’t change. It’s more compassionate to call his wrong choices and immoral lifestyle what they are, sin. And then point him toward the God of hope who can forgive, change, and heal.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 01 March 2011

The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) annual meeting brings together Christian radio, television, and other media people from across the nation and, in more recent years, the world. This year’s event at Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, February 26-March 1, 2011, represents my second visit.

The Charlotte, North Carolina event a few years ago was my first event, which I attended after several years of our radio staff at WCSG inviting me to go with them. At the time I was still serving in the university presidency. In other words, I was more of an academic than a broadcaster, so much of the potential of the NRB blew past me. I focused on my staff friends.

This year in Nashville has been different. I’ve been serving with SAT-7 for about a year and one-half and this changed everything.

After 34 years in Christian higher education I knew the principals. I knew which organization represented what and which school or leader was known for this or that. Now I’m in a new element. I’m learning a new landscape, actually what I call a “people-scape.”

Even more, really—I’m learning the key people, organizations, and culture of three areas at once: Broadcasting, Missions, and Middle East. The people-scape in all three of these areas of expertise and service is substantially different from Christian higher education, as is the politics and culture. There’s some overlap: I met one former Christian university president who has spent years in the NRB. We enjoyed a good chat about “life after the university presidency.” But mostly, things are new, challenging, and interesting.

I was impressed by the spiritual energy of the event. People I met, sessions in which I participated, large plenary meetings I attended, all evidenced a passion for Christian ministry, service, and use of media to advance the message and person of Christ. Quality ran high—events were professionally produced. And I appreciated the fact that I didn’t run into a kind of personal or institutional arrogance—my ministry’s more significant than your ministry—I’ve witnessed in other Christian settings from time to time.

Given the unprecedented and continuing events of the past six weeks or so in the Middle East, people’s interest in the region is higher and more energized. People wanted to know about SAT-7, about Christian ministry in the Middle East and North Africa, what’s going to happen next, and how media might play some positive role. Consequently, we did radio and television interviews and connected with key leaders whose influence can help SAT-7 communicate its mission in the States.

We made a long list of contacts that will likely result in future interviews, name recognition for SAT-7, and ministry. We saw what we needed to do, which is get more content into audio and video format for sharing. And we made a lot of new friends. For SAT-7 and for me I’d say this event was a success. We plan, Lord willing, to return next year.

Subcategories