Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!
- Details
- Written by Rex M. Rogers
Last weekend, Tucson was the scene of tragedy, 6 people killed in senseless violence, including a nine year old child born on 9/11, along with 14 people seriously wounded, including Rep. Grabrielle Giffords.
I sincerely hope Congresswoman Giffords and the others make it. Truly it is a sad and sorry situation.
Watching cable news report and try to interpret tragedy is interesting and instructive. News anchors interview psychologists and professors but rarely pastors, the one exception being Billy Graham when he was younger and healthier than he is today at 92. To do so would, in journalists' minds, violate modern conceptions of the proper place of religion in public life, which is to say keep it private and personal and not really public in any meaningful way.
Journalists, therefore, search for secularized vocabulary to describe essentially religious or moral circumstances. They talk about "his demons," as in “he’s wrestled with his demons since childhood.” This is the go-to phrase media have developed in the past twenty years to describe sin or wrong moral choices, without actually admitting that there are moral choices.
Instead of personal or spiritual or moral explanations, journalists typically look for social explanations for tragedy. For example, it's the political rhetoric of the Right (which should be tuned up and toned down) or it’s the economy or unemployment.
Certainly inflamed or mean-spirited or hateful rhetoric can influence people. So do economic downturns. But to say this is to admit that any and all environmental circumstances of life influence people. Yet not everyone responds to social difficulty by becoming a killer. And to say social conditions influence people is not the same as saying such conditions are deterministic, meaning people are programmed to respond in a certain way and cannot do otherwise. No, people make choices.
Beyond this, journalists talk about mental instability, which certainly exists and may ultimately be the primary explanation behind Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner. Examining mental issues is a legitimate discussion. But not every person who suffers from mental illness becomes a killer. In fact, the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people do not resort to violence.
Perhaps the real reasons for tragedy lie deeper within hearts not taught moral accountability, nor instilled with hope. The culture in which we live celebrates detachment from moral restraint. Many kids grow up thinking they aren’t really responsible for their attitudes and behaviors. Remember? It’s the economy or parents or the environment or poverty or something, anything, other than them or us or me.
Kids grow up in a culture of abundance, whether or not they experience it, together with a sense of entitlement that makes them forever unfulfilled and unsatisfied. Even those who have are taught to want more in a consumer-driven culture.
Maybe more worrisome is our culture’s dying sense of hope, a declining belief that things can or will be better tomorrow. The Greatest Generation believed this. Nearly all American generations before it believed this. But today hope is in short supply.
Hope is a religious or spiritual concept. If human beings have no hope something withers within them. Loss of hope brings in its wake angst, anomie, and alienation.
Social explanations may be helpful in understanding something about tragedy, but social factors are never enough. Sin and evil are rooted in the hearts of humankind. Journalists, if they really want to get to the bottom of tragedy, should open media to spiritual insight. American culture, if it wants to reduce the number of tragedies like Tucson, needs to rediscover a Sovereign God who lives, loves, holds accountable, forgives, and offers a better tomorrow.
To argue tragedy is rooted in sin, evil, and personal moral choice is not to pronounce doom and gloom as much as to pronounce hope. Because for moral failure, there’s a remedy in Christ who personifies hope.
© 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
What would the world be like without animals? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t want to live there. I’d rather live in an animal-populated world as we know it or in a world like Jurassic Park. I am, have been, and ever will be an animal lover.
So in a new article called “Praise God For Animals” I tell a couple of animals stories and finally put in print a record of my own growing-up dog, Peppie. She was a good dog, one I can still miss.
In that article I discuss what I believe God thinks about animals. He is, after all, the one who gave us animals in the first place. Yes, he made us humans smarter, but with our smarts he also gave us responsibility. We are his care-takers. We are stewards of the world and everything in it, including animals. So there is no place for cruelty, misuse or abuse, needless slaughter or any other decimation of a specie.
Loving animal life meant, for me, loving reading about animals. Each month in junior high and high school I read religiously Field and Stream, Outdoor Life, and Sports Afield. In time, I read some of the classic stories involving animals: Jack London's White Fang and The Call of the Wild, then Moby Dick, Animal Farm. I read and than watched Black Beauty, My Friend Flicka, and Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan books and later films. I watched Gentle Ben, Old Yeller, Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, Lassie, and every other film or television program involving animals. Later still, I read some of Theodore Roosevelt's reports and books about his big game hunting and other expeditions. Loved them all.
Animals provide us with companionship, food and clothing and a host of other products necessary to life. They provide us with a labor force, intriguing true stories, and entertainment. We need to care for them, domesticated and wild. We could not do without them. Who would want to?
© 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
Newly elected Republican leaders kicked off the 112th Congress by reading the United States Constitution. Oddly, it was the first time in history the nation’s founding document had been publicly and entirely read aloud in Chambers.
On day two of this congressional session it took about 90 minutes for 135 Member volunteers to finish reading an edited version of the Constitution. Only about two-thirds of Members bothered to show up, many eventually appeared bored and worked with smart phones during the reading, and most had long since left when the final words were read. This suggests Members, too, need to ratchet up their regard for the historical and ongoing importance of the Constitution.
In consultation with the Congressional Research Service leaders opted for an edited version which omitted sections of the original Constitution referencing slavery and Prohibition. Why this caused concern is anyone’s guess, but Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D, IL) and others later registered protests saying Republican leaders were trying to whitewash history by skipping over slavery and the painful politics and war that led its demise.
Of course, had Republican leaders chosen to read sections of the Constitution dealing with slaves as “three-fifths of all other Persons” protests from liberals and/or Democrats would have been even louder. In this politically correct age, conservatives would have been accused of insensitivity, intolerance, or worse, racism.
So, was reading the Constitution aloud in Congress a gimmick? Probably. But was it a bad gimmick? No. I’d suggest, no matter what the motives, reading aloud the nation’s founding document, which has served this country so well through thick and thin, is an excellent idea.
I recommend Congress begin all its future sessions reading the Constitution. Prepare for the event via a bipartisan committee. Treat the event with respect and conduct it with dignity. Forbid Members from reading papers or accessing cell phones in Chambers, and honor the nation’s core values.
A few Christian colleges and universities begin academic years with special services or ceremonies, sometimes during convocations, with formal readings of the institution’s doctrinal statement. They often include faculty signing ceremonies within the program to reinforce the institution’s commitment to its philosophy of education. I think this is a valuable reminder that helps students understand the school wasn’t born yesterday, owes much to those who have gone before, and is grounded and integrated in its approach to education. I think reading the Constitution is a similarly valuable exercise.
According to the National Constitution Center only 20% of Americans know each state may elect two Senators. Only 2% know James Madison is called the Father of the United States Constitution. Scarier still, some 75% cannot cite what rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment. The average educated person, let alone others, is not able to quote the Preamble or otherwise provide accurate comments on the document’s content.
Reading the Constitution in Congress, than, would seem to be more practical than political. It would be a worthy tradition, a symbolic reminder of what defines our nation. At its best, it could become a non-partisan salute to freedom and government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
So why not read the United States Constitution to signal the beginning of every new session of the United States Congress? Sounds like common sense to me.
© 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
January 6 is the traditional date of celebration in the west of the Epiphany. Sometimes it’s called Three King’s Day. Epiphany has generally been regarded as the end of Advent or what some celebrate as the Twelve Days of Christmas, December 25 to January 6.
Epiphany means “manifestation.” It recognizes the coming of God in human form, the babe in the manger, as celebrated by the Three Kings from the East who worshiped the babe they knew was the Christ. They presented him with gifts of gold and frankincence and myrrh as a way of celebrating Jesus’ position as Savior, Lord, and King.
I grew up in a church tradition that did not celebrate Advent or Epiphany, much less the Twelve Days of Christmas. Not that this was a bad thing. I enjoyed a series of wonderful Christmas seasons as a child, teenager, and young adult. It’s just that my church experience didn’t focus on these forms of remembering the First Coming of Jesus.
In recent years, I’ve enjoyed learning more about these traditions as a way of learning more about the Christian faith. What I like best is that Advent gets us thinking earlier, before Christmas, about the reason for the season, while the Twelve Days of Christmas leading to Epiphany allows us to stretch the season longer.
Epiphany is particularly enjoyable for me because I’ve always loved the Christmas carol, “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” I used to sing it to the kids when they went to bed in the days leading up to Christmas. In fact, we used to sing it pretty much year round lying on the floor or the bed in the dark—elongating the “Oh-h-h-Oh” at the top of our lungs—You had to be there.
The conservative Church and increasingly ahistorical Christians need to rediscover and resurrect more worthy old traditions. They can enrich our knowledge, our experience, and our worship. Learning about Advent, the Twelve Days of Christmas, and the Epiphany have enriched mine.
© 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
Tonight, five of us went to an Olive Garden in Temecula, California. Once we were seated, the wait for drinks and further service was interminable. We were given salads but no plates. One member of our group waited for his salad plate nearly ten minutes after the rest of us finally got ours. During the meal we asked for items, were promised, but only received after we’d asked twice again. We were told by our waitress the manager would bring salads; never happened. When the manager finally did get involved, at my request, she apologized several times, said she’d bring us more salad but never did. One member of our group had ordered a meal with clams and mollusks only to discover that most of her shells were just that, shells with no meat in them. She had to ask for the meat that was promised with the meal.
The end of this story is the manager eventually, via the waitress, absorbed the entire bill, apologizing again and charging us nothing for five meals, a tab that approached $100. This is nice, was appreciated, and rarely happens. We left the harried waitress an appropriate tip. And by the way, this is not my typical experience at Olive Garden.
As I said, I asked to speak to the manager because my friend was left sitting after we’d spoken twice to our inefficient waitress. I rarely do this. Though I experience my share of poor customer service I rarely challenge or even respond to it, primarily because I don’t want to create conflict or otherwise appear to be just another unpleasant customer. But I wonder, is this avoidance the best idea?
Last fall at Philadelphia International Airport I endured my worst ever experience with a clerk. I needed to change a train ticket into a plane ticket. But the young woman at Continental Airlines didn’t want to assist me or didn’t know how to do what I needed. In any event, she presented me with an extreme condescending attitude and brusqueness, all the while tossing her head, rolling her eyes, and shaking her body in ways that indicated she thought I was beneath her effort.
What had I done to deserve this? Nothing. What made it worse is that her manager eventually stood behind her, watched her treat me the way she did—even with a “Tsk” of disgust when her question elicited an answer from me that she didn’t like. Yet the manager said and did nothing to intervene—even looked me in the eye to see how I might react.
I didn’t challenge this extreme attitude that day, but sometimes I think I should have done so, if nothing else so the young clerk would at least have the experience of being held accountable whether or not she agreed. But I didn’t say anything, just absorbed the bad behavior because I didn’t want to escalate the attitude war.
What bothers me most, and maybe this is ego or pride, is when I follow instructions exactly as given to me by one clerk only to have another clerk act as if I’m dumb, don’t know what I’m talking about, or simply a bother. This happens to me a lot, at hotels, car rentals, and stores—yet almost always I eventually prove to be the one with correct information about their procedures.
This happened during Christmas week when I had to work with three Rogers and Holland jewelry stores to get them to add an accent diamond, which was missing at delivery from the new engagement ring I’d just purchased. I approached the Grand Rapids store staff and said to them what the Lansing store staff said I should say. For five minutes until they got their bearings, to hear them interpret it, I was the uninformed customer. Actually, they didn’t know what they were talking about and consequently were blowing smoke to placate me or to get me to go away. When I finally got in direct touch with the jeweler, a gentleman about my age, he bent over backwards to meet my needs during Christmas time, even gave me his cell phone number. And he eventually added the accent diamond. I salute him.
But this customer service breakdown had happened earlier at the Lansing store, too, where we’d ordered the ring, were told they’d call me, but they did not. So after the deadline I called them. The manager kept saying she was “Sorry for my confusion”—said it three times until I intervened and said I was not “confused” but her store had not done what it said it was going to do. At that she admitted I was right and from there we resolved the issue.
I’m at a point where I’m old enough, experienced enough, and weary enough that I don’t think I want to go on in silence anymore. Like Olive Garden tonight, I think I’ll speak up. But if I do this, it seems to me the primary concern or key for success is not so much what I say as how I say it. I am, after all, a Christian, so I don’t want to evidence a decided lack of the fruit of the Spirit.
I don’t want to convey anger or any other uncontrolled emotion. I don’t want to be pushy, grouchy, or unduly demanding. I don’t want to be unfair. I want to give people a break and not always jump on their miscues.
But I also want to say, “Hey, wait a minute,” to note unprofessional attitudes or poor service or products. As long as I respond winsomely I think I have every right as a paying customer to speak truth to shoddiness or incompetence. Me not speaking up is not doing them any good or doing any good for the next customer treated in a similar shabby manner.
I’m not quite ready to wear a shirt that says, “Don’t Tread On Me.” But I am ready to say, “You know, you’d have a better day if you respected your customers.”
© 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
Much is being made of the Seattle Seahawks winning their National Football League division with a losing record, 7-9. The Seahawks will be the first team in NFL history to walk into the playoffs a “loser.” This offends purists. To make matters worse, the Seahawks went 3-7 in their last 10 games, not an especially auspicious way to get into post-season play.
But statistics aside, the Seahawks won their final game, won fair and square, and, well, won the division. The team earned its playoff berth by being the best in a weak division. So I say “Congratulations.” Not every team can be the New England Patriots in the same way not every quarterback is a Tom Brady.
There’re several lessons here: you don’t have to be perfect to be the best in your corner of the professional world; you should never, ever, give up; don’t listen to naysayers; keep working, getting better than yourself on each new professional effort; even less talented people sometimes win with desire, work ethic, and grit, things more talented people don’t always evidence—watch the Olympics for more lessons.
Contrast the Seattle Seahawks debate, though, with the annual intercollegiate NCAA Division I football bowl series fandango. Given the proliferation of bowl games in recent years—we now suffer through 35 bowls, all wishing they were the Rose Bowl and all longing to be scheduled on New Year’s Day.
Here we’re not talking about one team in a professional league. We’re talking about a self-defeating bowl explosion that dumbs down post-season intercollegiate play.
For 35 bowls you need 70 teams. Check the win-loss records of this year’s bowl participants and you’ll find 23 of 70 teams sport records with 7 wins or less, almost one-third, including once-vaunted Michigan. In 4 bowl games, both opponents featured 7-win or less records. In the 7-or-less club are 3 teams with .500 records. Still more mindboggling—and now we’re finally to the Seahawk comparison—6 bowl teams have losing records: Clemson, East Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Texas El Paso, all (6-7). Yet they made it to the show.
If people are going to become agitated by the Seattle Seahawks’ 7-9 losing record, perhaps to be consistent, at a minimum, we need to eliminate teams with losing records from collegiate bowl games. I’d even go one step further and suggest the NCAA would be better off if it increased bowl-eligibility standards from 6 to 8 wins in a season. This raises the bar and helps assure top achievement is rewarded.
But this won’t happen. Reason being is that the number of bowls is not about quality football but about money. Raising the bowl-eligibility standard would probably force bowls out of existence, thus universities with football programs would have fewer places to go to pay for the exorbitant funds they’re pouring into programs, trying at almost any cost to produce a winner. This includes most prominently the off-the-charts multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts head coaches are now commanding with even rather average records. It makes you want to ask whatever happened to academics—and I’m a football fan.
So do we get bugged at the Seattle Seahawks who played by the rules and won one for the Gipper? I don’t think so. At least they’re professionals and a losing record team can only get into the playoffs when other teams competitively don’t make the grade. It’s not really a system that rewards mediocrity.
On the other hand, I think the NCAA and BCS system is rewarding mediocrity each year. I’d radically readjust intercollegiate NCAA Division I football, which ultimately might produce better athletic contests and, who knows, maybe graduate more top-tier student-athletes who actually stay in school long enough to earn their degrees.
© 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.