Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 December 2010

Despite conservative outcry, fear-mongering, and dark warnings of a hastened Armageddon the demise this week of the United States military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy doesn’t matter all that much.

Congress voted earlier, and Wednesday this week President Barack Obama signed into law a repeal of the nation’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward gays and lesbians serving openly in the United States armed forces. The policy had been in effect since 1993 when the Clinton Administration supported its adoption as a compromise policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve as long as they or their commanders didn’t make an issue of their sexuality. Prior to this time, gay and lesbian citizens were denied entry into the American military and were dismissed if discovered.

Since his days as a candidate President Obama has made no secret of his support for this change. In the sense of a promise made and delivered this is a victory for the Obama Administration. After the President’s brokered tax deal this month he’s on a small roll. He should enjoy it. Given the tough budgetary choices, volatile economy, and chronic wars and rumors of wars facing him he’s not likely to have too many more good days.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell doesn’t matter much for several reasons. Gays and lesbians have been and are serving in the military, sometimes with distinction and rarely with issues developing around their sexuality. Gays and lesbians already have access to virtually every other professional opportunity in the American economy and culture, so why not the military?

If it’s a matter of civil liberties, than it’s a no-brainer. Gays and lesbians, however much some people find their sexual orientation unacceptable, are just as much citizens of a free country as heterosexuals.

A number of years ago I watched as a local school district all but crucified a teacher who'd been outed. He was, by virtually everyone's testimony, a good, effective teacher. His only "crime" or "unprofessional" act is that he was gay. Christians in the community led the charge to oust this person, made national news, and it wasn't pretty. It was awful. Had the man done something inappropriate than surely he should have been held to account. But he had not. This was all about who could be the most moral by casting the first stone. No one "won" in this charade, least of all not the community, the school district, certainly not the teacher. It was politics not moral suasion. It was ineffective and wrong.

Women have been serving effectively in the United States military since World War II, and even before that in non-soldier or sailor staff roles. Since the Persian Gulf War women have flown combat aircraft for the United States. While they yet do not serve in combat arms positions, women serve in virtually every other role in the American armed forces.

So what’s the point? Doesn’t it seem logical that if any emotional or psychological or gender-related issues develop in military situations they are far more likely to develop between straight men and women as opposed to heterosexual and homosexual individuals? For one thing, there’s simply far more straight men and women serving than gay or lesbians serving. In this case, gender tensions are more likely to develop from time to time than any tensions rooted in sexual orientation. So if heterosexual people can manage to serve near one another in the American military, without inappropriate consequences, why can’t homosexual individuals do the same along with them?

And why, pray tell, are conservatives or religious groups so bent out of shape over potential immoral homosexual activities when the armed forces certainly has its share of potential and real immoral heterosexual activities? The reason is, of course, an implication that homosexual immorality is worse than heterosexual immorality, a moral distinction not found in Scripture.

Let me be clear: I do not embrace or condone homosexual behavior. I believe the Bible’s teachings on sexuality, heterosexual, homosexual, and otherwise, are quite clear. Sex is a gift of God reserved for monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual marriage. Sex outside this definition, gay or straight, is in God's eyes immoral.

But I think conservatives and/or Christians have long since lost the culture war on this one—and I've written about it—and need to determine how they are going to live in a society that openly allows homosexuality.

Sure, gay and lesbian interests will declare the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a great victory and try to use it as a springboard furthering their other social goals. But won’t they work toward those goals anyway?

In the end, when it comes down to it, gays and lesbians can be and have been just as patriotic, sacrificial, noble, brave, or heroic as any other soldier or sailor. I say, “Let them serve.” Address moral concerns with moral living and a moral message, not politics and not the military.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*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 Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 December 2010

It seems our home is a breeding ground. Workrooms are apparently getting together late at night. Next day, voila, more workrooms.

It’s the season, I think. There’s something about Christmas that demands space for stuff, hidden and lounging about. Stuff to be wrapped. Stuff to wrap with. Stuff to “conspire, as they dream by the fire.”

The wife is in the middle of all this, managing the workrooms like different fronts on a battlefield. Right now, all’s quiet on the Western Front, but the Eastern one is aglow with frenzied activity. I can hear Christmas music and rattling paper, smell candles burning. Things are happening there that will delight grandchildren and bring smiles to daughters and daughters-in-law. The men involved will grin in a manly man sort of way. I know, I’ve been there, done that.

The wife, the Grandma, you see, is the conductor and soul of the Thanksgiving-to-Christmas symphony. She signs off on the right tree to cut, I erect it, and she decorates it. Actually, she bedecks two, one real, one artificial. Used to be three when the kids were home: one real—the big one, one artificial—the artistic one, and another real one—the smaller one adorned with kids’, traditional, and sentimental family ornaments. Whatever, she is seen in them all.

The wife is the one, too, who actually works in the workrooms. I make forays in and get out quickly, like a medic on a field of battle. She stays in the line of fire and directs the action. She wraps decoratively. I tape paper around purchased items. She is the one, of course, who envisioned, found, purchased, and carried home the stuff—gifts—in the first place. She’s the one who transforms the stuff into Christmas memories.

So multiplying workrooms are a symbol of love not labor. God give us more workrooms.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*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 Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 21 December 2010

So now you can get ordained online. No fuss, no muss. No theological education necessary. No experience needed. No Ordination Council to survive, and none later to backstop you when you’re thrown your first curveball. No criteria whatsoever really, except maybe a handling fee.

Google “Online Ordination” and you get links like “Become a Minister Today” or “Fast Minister Ordination.” Or the all-purpose “How To Become An Ordained Minister Online For Free.”

I’d laugh, but I don’t know if I can laugh and shake my head at the same time. In my book online ordination is right up, or maybe down, there with online, non-accredited, no-coursework-necessary college diplomas. We’ve endured diploma mills. Now come ordination mills.

A trend is developing nationwide wherein more engaged couples are turning to friends and quicky ordination for friend-led weddings. The idea is that it’s cheaper, more intimate—couples at the altar “feel better” with someone they know as opposed to a clergyman they don’t know. And friend-ordination reduces pressure to be married in a church.

The Universal Life Church claims to have ordained some 18 million people, about 3,000 per month. This is all in the name of religious liberty.

It gets worse. Some of ordination websites assure the would-be applicant he or she will be able to start a church or conduct religious ceremonies. One site suggested ordination is a good way to get a business going, earn extra money, and travel to interesting locations to administer ceremonies.

Why become ordained, for free or fee? Websites proclaim advantages:

--Perform weddings

--Earn respect typically accorded to members of the clergy

--Gain a title, like Reverend, Bishop, Rabbi, or even Prophet

--Earn money

--Garner preferred treatment often given to clergy—like parking spaces.

One online ordination site offers “Clergy Packages,” which is to say if you pay more money, about $40 to $60 more per package, you’ll get more helpful items: new ministers handbook, ceremony templates for weddings, funerals, baptisms, an Honorary Doctor of Divinity, and my favorite, a CLERGY dashboard sign.

Online ordination is important more for what it represents than what it is. What it is, of course, is ludicrous. But what it represents is further secularization of American culture. One more important life event is removed from the experience of the church.

Why doesn’t the betrothed couple know the pastor or want a church wedding? Because they don’t go to church.

But ordination isn’t a game denominations play. Sure, one can always find examples of excess. But this isn’t the norm. Religious orders, Catholic, Protestant, Judaic, and more, which take their beliefs seriously, look upon ordination as an important, exciting, and affirming experience in a young ordinand’s life.

Generally, an ordination involves the ordinand’s statement of a call to service. The ordination is an examination for which the ordinand has prepared, probably for years, gaining theological degrees and experience. It involves the questions, review, and affirmation of a body of denominational leaders who know what it means to be clergy. Ultimately, an ordination means the leaders have examined and attested to the young person’s character, call, preparation, and readiness for religious leadership. And finally, the ordination is a dedication, a high point near the end of the ceremony when some honored person prays for the applicant to ministry, for the future ministry, and for the Church.

To undercut this kind of solemnity with online ordination is to undermine the integrity of the Church and to make a mockery of religious dedication.

So I think online ordinations are shoddy, shallow, and sad.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*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 Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 20 December 2010

Am I the only one who gets the shivers when I open a box only to discover it’s full of polystyrene packing peanuts? If there’s one commercial product I cannot abide it is packing peanuts. And there’re a lot of good reasons for my mania.

Packing peanuts are those typically white, petroleum-based cushioning products patented by Dow Chemical Company in the mid-1960s. They’re used in boxes or other conveyances to protect the object being shipped. Dow Chemical calls their polystyrene product Styrofoam, a word that’s gone into everyday currency for any product that’s remotely similar, like the material in a coffee cup. Scary as it may seem, there’re now different kinds of packing peanuts.

I, for one, despise them all. Nothing is more challenging—or frustrating—than trying to unpack something covered with Styrofoam peanuts. First, they fall apart and small pieces scatter everywhere. Second, these small pieces as well as whole peanuts stick to everything: the product, clothes, hair, furniture, carpet, you name it, they stick, and the more you try to avoid them the more they spread. They get into cracks and crevices of the new product, stick to your couch, and turn up later between your toes. Packing peanuts are, in a word, diabolical.

Styrofoam packing peanuts are 95% air. Thus, they easily blow in the air and float on water, hence the nickname “White Pollution.” They’re reusable and in loose fill fashion, allow air to flow through packaging yet interlock under pressure.

Sound good? But: polystyrene peanuts are not biodegradable (unless you count gradual breakup over 500 years), are not water soluble, give off toxins when they do finally fall apart, and are highly static.

In the United States we throw away about 2 million tons of this stuff per year, most of it ending up accounting for 25-30% of the waste in landfills. It can kill birds or fish mistaking it for food.

Efforts have been made to find a biodegradable alternative to polystyrene packing peanuts. Starch and other food-based peanuts are now used by some companies. Usually they’re green to signify their recyclable, biodegradable qualities. They’re heavier, water soluble, non-toxic, and non-static, but more costly. Nordstrom, at least, is there, having switched all packing materials to biodegradable soy-based peanuts.

A new paper-based peanut called PaperNuts has also been developed. PaperNuts are not made from oil or food materials, aren’t static, toxic, or heavy. They’re made from recycled paper, and are recyclable, biodegradable, and compostable.

Styrofoam packing peanuts periodically steal into our home inside an opaque box, like Greeks hiding in the Trojan horse entering Troy. I consider them the enemy and while the Greeks defeated the Trojans I try to get the upper hand on packing peanuts.

Here’s the battle plan: Don’t touch the peanuts with your hands, use an old towel to wipe peanuts from the product, thus allowing inevitable static to stick peanuts to the towel. Clean the product of peanuts while it’s yet in the box. Do your level best not to let the Greeks, I mean the peanuts, into your house. Keep them inside the horse, er box. Get the box of peanuts outside your house as soon as possible, as in immediately. If you don’t, pieces of will travel and you’ll find bits of static poly for weeks to come.

I say, “Down with polystyrene packing peanuts. Up with paper peanuts.” And if this won’t work, drive to the nearest retail establishment and by your product, specifying no packing peanuts allowed.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*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 Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 18 December 2010

My good and generous wife has taught me many things, not the least of which is how to be more compassionate toward others. While I’m still a work-in-progress, caring oozes from her. If anyone has the gift of spiritual hospitality, she’s one.

But two eminently practical things my West Virginia flower taught me stand above all others: how to build a fire and how to handle wrapping tape.

Now perhaps you don’t think these skills are anything to write home about. But not me. I know these practical proficiencies make life immensely more livable and for years they’ve saved me time and preserved the thimble of sanity God gave me.

Building a Fire: You’d think that anyone with a brain could build a fire. I mean the capacity to do so is one of the attributes scientists tell us distinguishes man from beast. Yet I reached the legal age of 21 without really knowing how to build a fire from scratch.

I could light fires with a match in the trash drum in the back yard, an experience now almost gone from urban life. I could strike matches all day long. But I didn’t know how to build a wood fire in a fireplace because I grew up in a house that didn’t have a fireplace. Only the well-to-do in mansions or the homeless under the bridge had fireplaces in my town. So when we arrived at our cabin in the woods to begin our honeymoon at Babcock State Park, my fire building trouble was nigh.

It was August 12, 1974. Nixon was three days out and Ford was three days in the presidency. We were living the second full day of our marriage. We walked into this beautiful log cabin built by the Civilian Conservation Corp in 1937, complete with fireplace. Fantastic, so much so we came back for summer vacation, kids in tow, for the next thirteen years. But back to the story.

Later that evening—it’s our honeymoon, remember—we decide flaming logs might be romantic, so in my macho glory I build a fire. Actually, I piled huge chunks of wood in the fireplace, doused them thoroughly with kerosene, and tossed in a match. Sometimes this method eventually created a real fire, usually it didn’t. Either way, it created an overpowering kerosene stink in the cabin. This episode repeated itself until my new honey, with sinus issues to begin with, said, “Enough”—or more new-wifey words that meant the same thing.

Sarah built a fire as I watched in nonplussed amazement. She started with little wads of paper, piled small sticks than larger sticks, built a teepee of smaller pieces of wood around the core, and finally stepped back to survey her handiwork. After a sigh that said, “I’ve got this, Bub,” she struck a match at the bottom and watched with no small satisfaction as the teepee burst into a real live ongoing fire. After a few moments when she graciously (remember, she’s compassionate toward the needy, which in this case was clearly me) did not gloat, she gradually layered larger pieces of wood on the now raging fire.

Wow, what a woman. To this day, I make fires properly, ones that do homage to a pretty young bride.

Handling Wrapping Tape: On several occasions I’ve tangled myself in wide-band wrapping tape while failing to get a single strip of tape affixed to the box in front of me. The tape always seemed to double-up on itself, thus making it impossible to apply. Either that or it stuck vigorously to my skin, taking with it decades of hairy growth when I pulled it off.

I was ready to pitch the tape roll and concede that some tasks were beyond my mental and physical dexterity. But then Sarah interrupted my mania with adult insight.

She said, “Stick the roll of tape to something like the edge of your desk while you work with the cut piece. Then the main roll won’t turn back on itself. When you’re finished bend the end of the tape back so it sticks to itself, thus preventing it from adhering again to the roll and making it nearly impossible next go round to pull up the end.”

Her technique worked scary well and has ever since. It took the “dys” out of my dysfunctional wrapping tape machinations and made me once again a productive member of society. Who knew common sense could be so sensible?

God knew what he was talking about when he looked at Adam and said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18).

Without my helper I would have by now either frozen to death trying to make a fire or mummified myself in wrapping tape.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*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 Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.