Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
In an August, 2005 article inThe American Prospect, author Christopher Hayes claims that students at evangelical Christian colleges and universities are taught “to live out a Christ-centered existence in all facets of their lives. But what they learn is to become Republicans.”
Hayes’ article is entitled “Student Body Right: At Evangelical Colleges Like Pat Robertson’s Regent, What They’re Taught and What They Learn Are Two Very Different Things.” In it he accurately chronicles what he calls a “U-turn” in evangelical college attitudes toward student interaction with the world. Where once many evangelical colleges considered it their mission to protect and separate students from culture, now many evangelical colleges encourage student “engagement” with culture. Once upon a time many evangelical colleges emphasized personal faith to the point of exclusion of any concern for social or political responsibility. Now, most evangelical colleges promote an active application of faith to all of life, including politics.
Hayes isn’t entirely comfortable with this shift, because he thinks it is driven by partisan designs and people like Regent University’s Pat Robertson, a person for whom he clearly holds little esteem.
Keying on Pat Robertson is Hayes’ first misstep. Robertson is better known for his broadcasting and run for the presidency than for any real leadership in Christian higher education, and he clearly has a knack for making imprudent public comments. In recent months he has almost become a caricature of himself, but in any event he is not representative of evangelical college leaders or faculty members. Hayes doesn’t seem to make this distinction.
Hayes is also bothered by the “worldview” concept common to the language and mission of many evangelical colleges. Hayes says that worldview at its best “pushes students to rethink settled positions, to wrestle with what a Christian’s duty is to the poor or the infirm or those on death row. It can create a sense of mission and moral obligation that produces students who sound strikingly like liberals…” At its worst, Hayes says, worldview “reduces to an uncritical acceptance of a handful of issue positions that have come to dominate the political energies of the religious right; it is the ideological bus that picks people up at church and drops them off at the voting booth.”
What disturbs Hayes is that a biblical worldview “cleaves the world in two, identifying in one column those first principles that are taken as given…and, in the other column, the many beliefs, values, and positions that one might hold that are less certain.” He doesn’t like the idea that abortion is considered morally unacceptable or that defense of “traditional marriage” may be viewed as foundational to a Christian worldview. He likes it even less that people who adopt these viewpoints have in recent years voted Republican.
So for Hayes, a worldview is good if it leads you to a politically liberal point of view, and it is bad if it leads you to a politically conservative point of view.
Hayes does acknowledge that political positions are heatedly debated among some Christian academics, that evangelical colleges have in recent years expressed more interest in “social justice” issues, and that surveys indicate evangelical college students exhibit little overall consistency in issue positions. But it still bothers Hayes that many of these students eventually vote Republican.
Hayes is apparently unaware of the fact that evangelical Christian institutions like Cornerstone University, though theologically conservative, take pains to encourage students to apply their Christian faith across the spectrum of political partisanship. At Cornerstone, we have repeatedly said to students, “both major political parties need Christian participation, influence, and ‘salt and light.’ Christians ought to get involved in both the Democratic and the Republican Party.”
We’ve also encouraged students to understand that while a biblical worldview makes clear what our perspective should be on moral issues like abortion and human sexuality, there are no “chapter and verses” that tell us what we should think about tax policy, modifications in Social Security, or even flag burning. The Bible speaks to moral absolutes, but it is not a political much less a partisan handbook.
God gives us trustworthy principles in his word and he expects us to apply them. He grants us truth, than commissions us to apply that truth in its propositional form to complex contemporary challenges. He wants us to think, to spiritually discern, and to use our Christian liberty and our reasoning capacity to live out our faith in the real world.
At a given point in time, this divine commission may lead Christians to vote Republican or Democrat. It may lead us to assume a Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative position. It may require that we pursue what some may call an extreme, radical, reactionary, or revolutionary platform.
The point is this: a truly biblical worldview is never captive to any political party or ideology, because a biblical worldview is permanently relevant in a way that no humanly devised philosophy or program can ever be.
Evangelical college graduates may be voting Republican these days, but that says more about perceived public morality than it does about the supposedly partisan intentions of evangelical colleges. I wonder what Hayes would say about the partisan outcomes of the public university experience?
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2005
*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
From the viewpoint of the American victims of priestly sexual abuse, the Vatican’s pronouncements this week about would-be gay priests may be a day late and a dollar short. But a clear line has been drawn in the moral landscape.
On Tuesday, the Vatican issued a long overdue clarification on its position on homosexuals in the priesthood. The document is called “Instruction on the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Priesthood and to Sacred Orders.”
In this twenty-one paragraph document the Vatican weighs in on the most sensitive issue to confront it in the past five years, particularly since the priesthood sexual scandals in the United States in 2002. According to the document, “the church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”
The document addresses the question of gays seeking admission to seminaries and the priesthood but does not comment upon already ordained priests who may be gay. While attempting to identify and separate from those with “deeply rooted homosexual tendencies,” the document does not permanently bar from consideration for the priesthood individuals who may have struggled with what it calls “the expression of a transitory problem.”
As a moral statement this document leaves something to be desired not so much by what it says but by what it leaves unsaid. We still hunger to see the Vatican do more to “call sin, sin” by dealing compassionately but effectively with those priests who were involved in the sex abuse scandals so grievously detailed in the past few years. While the Vatican has certainly responded with concern and with some clerical discipline, there is more that should be done. The issue here is not punishment but moral accountability, clarity, and credibility.
But let’s give the Vatican some credit. It did not buckle to political correctness or current morally relativistic trends. It didn’t waffle on its biblically informed understanding of moral truth about human sexuality. The Vatican considers homosexuality a sin and therefore an intrinsically immoral, psychosexual disorder and in this respect does not depart from traditional Catholic Church policy regarding homosexual priests or homosexuality.
Evangelical Christians ought to cheer—not as “anti-gays” but as followers of Jesus Christ, who loved sinners (including every other sinner—us—who may not be given to homosexuality but who by our nature are given to other sins) but who condemned sin. It’s early, but let’s celebrate this Vatican nod to moral truth as a victory in the culture wars.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2005
*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
If you don’t know who you are, all you have to do these days is read the press or listen to the news. I’ve learned that if I believe life begins at conception, than I am an “extremist” whose views represent the “the radical Right.” And if I happen to also believe in capital punishment for murderers, than I’m worse than an “extremist,” I’m an “inconsistent extremist.”
If I question the wisdom of the Iraq War or how it is being prosecuted than I am apparently “unpatriotic.” If I disagree with Jimmy Carter, I am, at least from his point of view, a “fundamentalist” responsible for undermining the separation of church and state. If I believe the best approach to interpreting the law and the Constitution is judicial restraint and I am, therefore, uncomfortable with an activist judiciary, than I am “anti-women.” How did I become anti-women by supporting judicial restraint? Because by definition I am apparently against the “right to privacy” and therefore the now nearly-sacred “woman’s right to choose.”
If I wonder aloud about the rationale or direction of any of President Bush’s decisions, than I am “disloyal.” If I believe the universe was initiated by Intelligent Design and I question the logic of evolutionary theory, than I am a “creationist in sheep’s clothing.” If I support evolution, I’m an “atheist.” If I like faith-based initiatives I am a “religious fanatic.” If I believe women who choose to be full-time homemakers should be respected, than I am at best a “chauvinist” and at worst a “misogynist.” If I believe parents should largely be responsible for their children’s sex education I am a “Puritan.”
If words could kill we’d all be dead—so much for civilization. Loose rhetoric produces more heat than light, is a sign of poor critical thinking, and is an infection to the body politic. Conservative and Liberal, Republican and Democrat, have all been guilty of intellectually vacuous sound-bites. I’m tired of being called names and of calling others names. I yearn for the reasoned discourse of statesmen and stateswomen based upon principle.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2008
*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
Beer companies are now pushing organized drinking games for university students. Groups of guzzlers crowd around the ends of tables trying to lob ping pong balls into cups of beer at the other end of the table. One team scores points and the other team downs cup after cup.
It’s called a “beer pong championship,” and it’s usually sponsored by a beer or beer pong table company. Urban Outfitters offers a beer pong kit called “Bombed” as well as boxed sets of rules for other games. In January, 2006, the first World Series of Beer Pong is scheduled in Las Vegas. Earlier this year, Anheuser-Busch began marketing a game called Bud Pong. Official rules state that water, not beer, should be used—which protects the company but fools no one. Miller is also promoting beer pong events.
It is, of course, ludicrous to believe that beer companies are genuinely interested in marketing games that encourage water drinking. This new foray by beer companies into university age binge drinking also calls into question their purported concern for promoting “responsible drinking.” None of this makes any sense.
Beer drinking, often to excess, has been a staple of the university experience for decades if not centuries. Many universities have worked valiantly to warn students away from the negative side effects of excessive drinking, curtailing tailgate parties, prohibiting beer and alcohol in some residence halls, offering seminars or other public service instruction on alcoholism, and more. Some campuses have tried to ban drinking games to limited success, usually because bars nearby provide all the action drinkers want.
Beer or alcohol consumption is not intrinsically evil. There is no explicit biblical prohibition of drinking, though there is a proscription of drunkenness. Many dedicated and sincere Christian people, including some scholars and pastors, have long warned the faithful away from drinking entirely. Generally, they build their case on the biblical teaching enjoining followers of Christ not to do anything that harms their bodies, the “temple of the Holy Spirit.” And, believers are also warned to stay away from beer or alcohol altogether because consuming it can undermine their testimony of faithfulness and tempt them with other sinful practices that tend to associate with drinking.
Whatever your view on these matters, clearly binge drinking by university students—many of whom are under the legal drinking age—is not a healthy activity. Beer companies and others in the industry who indirectly promote binge drinking while maintaining a legally parsed distance in their marketing are disingenuous at best. Binge drinking contributes to student traffic accidents, injury, and fatalities, reduces student inhibitions toward sexual activity, and degrades students’ ability to perform well academically.
Binge drinking and university students are not a healthy mix. Beer companies who ignore this reality are more interested in the mighty dollar than responsible drinking. Universities and parents should lobby the beer companies to adopt a higher standard. No one is saying they should not market their product, just that they need to develop socially “responsible marketing.”
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved
This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers 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
To the question, “Why is support for President George W. Bush’s performance declining in the polls?” one might reasonably be expected to respond: “Because people disagree with his policies.” And, of course, this answer would be correct. But like the infomercials say, “But wait! There’s more.” President Bush is struggling to maintain the focus and support of the American people in part because of the limited range of his communications skills.
Unlike Ronald Reagan who could make people cry or wave the flag simply by reading the phone book, and unlike Bill Clinton who possesses not only exceptional speaking skills but also the gift of empathy—“I feel your pain”—President Bush just can’t find the right tone, the right cadence, or the right sound-bite. At least in the public forum and in front of crowds and cameras, a turn-of-phrase just does not come easily to him. Add to this his Texas posture and movement that seem to suggest a cocky swagger (In a light moment of self-deprecating defense Bush said, “In Texas we call it walking”). Add to this his grin and his laugh that appear and sound like a smirk, and you have the recipe for a communications-challenged leader.
In some sense the man can’t help it, and I feel his pain. So what that his walk seems like a strut and his words seemed clipped and strained? Why does it matter that his grin/laugh reminds us of the young fraternity party boy at Yale? Because this is the media age. Because the presidency, the “bully pulpit,” demands gravitas. A pulpit needs a preacher, one who shares the good word par excellence. The leader of the free world must be able to speak the King’s English, an American version to be sure, but nevertheless be able to articulate ideas and decisions and the rationale for both.
At this point in his life, Bush cannot change his grin/laugh, and is highly unlikely to change his stance and manner of walking, but he might be able to do a better job of communicating. It’s not like he’s never risen to the occasion. Remember his speech to both Houses of Congress right after 9-11? Masterful.
How does he improve his communication and, thus, his leadership? One, return to the themes closest to his heart, the ideals that took him to the Oval Office, values he has pondered and shared throughout most of his adult life. This step will not only put him on familiar ground, it will reignite his passion for why he does what he does. The War on Terrorism may be defining his presidency, but it should not be all that defines George W. Bush.
Two, change his venues. Stop speaking almost exclusively on military bases with soldiers as a backdrop. He should take his ideas to the American people by connecting with everyday Americans, not just those who are duty bound to say, “Yes sir.” Three, own his mistakes. Somehow, someway, about something, actually assume responsibility and say “I’m sorry.” The American people are amazingly forgiving—except of those who are too arrogant or ignorant to express contrition (Think, Pete Rose). Four, be himself, be human, not just the invincible Commander-in-Chief. Be someone to whom the American people can relate.
President Bush yet has time to re-energize his leadership before he and the First Lady take that last flight on Marine One around the capital before heading home to Crawford as “just a citizen.” His effectiveness as a leader, and his legacy, are directly tied to whether he can learn to communicate better with those he wants to follow.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2005
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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.com.
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
What Senator John McCain modestly calls being “physically coerced” is more commonly referred to as torture. Whatever the Senator from Arizona calls it, his credibility is unassailable. He survived five years as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam during some of which he was subjected to what his new anti-torture bill in Congress wants to ban—“cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment. McCain’s bill passed the Senate 90-9 and awaits review by the House, but the Bush Administration is opposed to such limits.
Since 9/11 and the War on Terror against Al Qaeda and similar forces, American agents and military personnel, with the blessings of the Bush Administration, have used so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques to garner intelligence from detainees. Enhanced interrogation techniques, sometimes called “torture lite,” involve the use of dogs, public nakedness, prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, detainee phobias, “waterboarding,” long term hooding, forced lengthy standing, squatting, or other physically stressful positioning—anything short of “organ failure” or death. The worst case scenario to date is what has been called abuses by rogue soldiers at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
“War is hell,” said General William Tecumseh Sherman in a famous Civil War line that describes all armed conflict. And during the final push ending World War II we discovered just how awful hell can be.
But the American soldier has always been different, so much so that noted historian Stephen E. Ambrose observed that German, Polish, and Russian troops fighting for the Nazi Army would at times eagerly surrender, knowing that Americans would treat them well and thus their chances of surviving the war were greatly increased.
The record of the American soldier is the G.I. with candy, the citizen soldier that just wanted to get the job done as soon as possible and go home. He or she hated war and might learn in combat to hate the enemy’s tactics but generally did not hate the people. Americans didn’t want territory; they wanted justice.
McCain wants to preserve this record. He doesn’t want troops from this nation to act like the enemy. He believes the U.S. military and intelligence agencies need rules, limits beyond which an officer cannot go in an attempt to extract information from a helpless prisoner. He believes mistreatment of enemy prisoners will ultimately place American prisoners of war at greater risk because the enemy will retaliate in kind. McCain argues that torture techniques really don’t provide that much actionable intelligence anyway. The point is, Americans have been and should continue to be different.
America should listen to John McCain. America needs to take the long view. It stands for values too precious to be muddied or lost in the storms of current conflict, however severe the test may be. Respect for life, individual dignity, and the inestimable value of the human being are Christian values that have, thankfully, become American values. Torture terribly sullies this picture.
Torture is an affront not only to human sensibility but to our very souls. The Word of God clearly draws a line at animal cruelty let alone abusive treatment to those made in the image of God. There are other ways to gain intelligence.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2005
This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part but with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers, President, Cornerstone University, or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.