Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponRSS Feed

Does the culture in which we live seem like it promotes ideas and values foreign not only what you remember from your youth but contradictory to religion, especially Christianity?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #103 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.


There is a sense today, actually a reality, that Christians, the Christian family, the Christian church and nonprofit ministry organizations, including missions and certainly universities are under attack.

They are now experiencing direct, head-on challenges to their existence or worthiness, to their beliefs, values, and goals. And they are experiencing flanking movements, hijacking the meaning of words or promoting new anti-biblical ideologies, approaches that are just as threatening, if not more so, as the frontal assaults.

Either way, I see this asSatan’s deception, diversion, and division tactics designed to water down the Christian, i.e., biblical message to the point of ineffectiveness or to an unrecognizable version of what God spoke in his Word.

I suppose it could be said with both historic and theological accuracy that this Satanic blitzkrieg is not new. In fact, it dates to the Garden of Eden when Satan in the form of a snake said to Eve, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

And Eve said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Now, God had not said anything about not touching the tree. Eve made this up.

The serpent Satan then said, “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened.” (Gen. 3:1-7).

So, there it is, in seven verses, the fall of humanity into sin. Satan comes along and deceives, diverts, and divides. He planted wrong ideas.

Eve saw the fruit was good for food – lust of the flesh. She considered the forbidden fruit pleasing – lust of the eyes. She bought Satan’s evil twist, thinking she would not die – Satan’s lie – and that the fruit would give her wisdom like God – pride of life.

So Satan has been attacking God’s purposes and people from before Creation right up to today. But today, Satan is using new tools of deception, diversion, and division.

I’ve noted before that Christians, churches and denominations, and Christian organizations are being tempted, “dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed,” as James 1 puts it, by several ideas and ideologies originating in rebellion against God.

Christians and Christian organizations are being enticed by moral relativism, affluence and materialism, secular humanism, socialism, a new climate change orthodoxy, self-aggrandizement or narcissism, sexual liberation, ideological social justice including woke ideas about race, and a host of political thought rejecting basic human freedoms, ironically in the name of tolerance, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

As I’ve said repeatedly, and will be forced to keep saying, one deceitful enticement now attracting Christian adherents is LGBTQ+ sexual orientation and gender identity ideology.

What began as an argument for personal freedom has morphed into totalitarian demands for not simply tolerance but acceptance and affirmation and promotion.

What was once a matter of adults deciding what they do and with whom in their own bedrooms has morphed into a drive to recruit children, propagandizing in school curricula, and now social, corporate, cultural, and increasingly legal efforts to silence the freedom of speech of anyone who disagrees with what they call the “prevailing acceptable narrative.”

And now, it is coming, an attack on freedom of belief and speech within the church itself, i.e., attacks on freedom of religion.

You mean here, in the USA? Yes. It’s already happening in Canada.

There is much to be sad about in the record of this explosive social phenomenon in the past twenty years. But our topic here is how these Satanic ideas are being accepted as a new orthodoxy, against which no opposition is allowed.

It’s almost like the old blasphemy laws. At one time, a person could be prosecuted or imprisoned for perceived wrong religious speech. Now, it’s perceived wrong statements that question the LGBTQ+ juggernaut that can get a person in professional if not personal trouble.

For saying they believe in man-woman marriage, or they believe biological males identifying as females should not be allowed to participate in female sports, people have lost jobs, had their reputation trashed, been called horrible names by people who supposedly don’t like “hate speech,” or been threatened physically. This has happened not just to John Q. Public and Jane Doe but even celebrities like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling or professional athletes forced to remove tweets or grovel apologies for daring to share their point of view.

Many Christians, churches, denominations, and Christian organizations are literally changing their theology, adopting views supporting LGBTQ+ sexual orientation and gender identity values that are in direct contradistinction to these Christian groups’ presumed or traditional Christian faith beliefs. The result has been what Satan wants, buy his deception, and reap diversion from your historic biblical beliefs, life, and practice, and also reap division among the brethren, splitting families, churches, and organizations.

Christians are being enticed to medicalize or psychologize sin. I don’t mean that people do not suffer from real mental, physical, or emotional challenges, nor that medical or psychological understanding is of no value. I’m just saying that words or phrases like “mental health” are now being used for a wide swath of emotional, social, spiritual difficulties that once were the province of religious faith.

One hears Christians worrying aloud about their “mental health” and to address this perceived problem they are taking several steps, none of which involve the Word of God, the church, Christian fellowship.

Why is it that we think there is greater power to fix our problems out there somewhere when we have in our hands and hopefully our hearts access to the greatest transformative power in history, the Gospel and Christian teaching, promising we will become a New Creation?

Many Christians today are susceptible to this devilish deception. Christian social researcher George Barna calls the new, emerging American religion as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a Do-It-Yourself religious mix that gives Satan what he wants – Christians “having a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Tim 3:5).

Arizona Christian University President Len Munsil noted, “As a nation, the biblical worldview is running on fumes…People see themselves as Christians, but…they are actually living out a watered-down, counterfeit worldview that looks more like the culture around them than the biblical Christianity they profess.”

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism can be understood with 5 points, but truly biblical Christians will have a problem with all five:1. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism says “a god” exists, but biblical Christians believe in not just “a god,” but the God of the Bible, who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 5:23).\1. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism says “a god” exists, but biblical Christians believe in not just “a god,” but the God of the Bible, who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 5:23).]1. The new Deism believes God wants people to be good, nice, and fair, but biblical Christians know God commands us to obey Him. God is the One who definesgoodand nice. He calls sin “sin” and promises to judge it (Rom 1:18–32).

1. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism says “a god” exists, but biblical Christians believe in not just “a god,” but the God of the Bible, who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 5:23).

2. The new Deism believes God wants people to be good, nice, and fair, but biblical Christians know God commands us to obey Him. God is the One who definesgoodandnice. He calls sin “sin” and promises to judge it (Rom 1:18–32).

3. The central goal of life is not just to be happy and feel good about oneself but to give glory to God (Rom 11:36).

4. Unlike Moralistic Therapeutic Deism that believes God is not necessary except when there are problems, biblical Christians believe our primary goal as believers is to be constantly in tune with God (1 Thess 5:17).

5. Unlike DIY religion that thinks one just needs to be good enough to go to heaven, biblical Christians know that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory (Rom 3:23). No one is good enough, and that is why we need Jesus, God in the flesh. (1 Pet 2:24).

In a Post-Christian culture, more than ever, Christians need to understand theology, to learn how to apply it in everyday life, and to live out our faith as unto the Lord.


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me

In the face of rapid social change, indeed moral change, what are Christian organizations doing with their foundational documents, and how can they maintain their fidelity to the faith?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #102 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

In my other earlier life as a Christian educator, I remember Christian organizations or ministries including churches, colleges, camps, missions, para-church organizations, etc. nearly always possessing and periodically citing key, foundational statements.

These foundational statements were and are carefully written expressions of: 

  • theological understanding = doctrinal or faith statements,
  • employee behavioral conduct = lifestyle statements,
  • ethical perspectives on contemporary issue = position statements.

Christian organizations, especially denominations, sometimes also issued:

  • declarations for statements about current issues, 
  • policy or social statements regarding broad issues, 
  • resolutions or social messagesaddressing specific issues, or
  • proclamationsfor significant announcements.

These statements helped individuals understand what the people in the organization affirmed, i.e., where they niched along a spectrum of Christian belief and practice. In their best application, such statements reinforced organizations' raison d'etre and, over time, helped maintain continuity.

On the other hand, sometimes such statements wre elevated to a kind of sacred status, maybe even equated with Scripture, and as such could become stodgy dogma, more about means than ends. In turn, these bureaucratized documents could be used to suppress independent thought and thus got in the way of perhaps needed change. Often this happened because individuals in the organization were vested in the current system and change meant a possible loss of status or power.

Today, the content and use of Christian organization statemens is changing rapidly.

Doctrinal statements have certainly changed over time, which may or may not be good in terms of biblical fidelity. 

For example, most Christian doctrinal statements used to reject all forms of divorce, but these stipulations have mostly been modified or removed. 

Some doctrinal statements prohibited use of alcoholic beverages, dancing, and smoking, but many of these injunctions have been removed.  

Premarital and extramarital sexual engagement were often referenced in older doctrinal statements and in many statements still are, but there is considerable pressure to remove these sexual prohibitions, or at least to ignore them.  

Many personal morality matters, along with use of alcoholic beverages, dancing, and smoking if these things are referenced at all, have been moved out of doctrinal statements into organization lifestyle statements. 

But lifestyle statements are changing too, or more often, I think, the statements in part or even entirety have joined a growing list of behavioral concerns that have been tossed overboard.  

Gambling, for example, not long ago in the 1960s was overwhelmingly considered morally unacceptable and was cited in many older lifestyle covenants, if not doctrinal statements. Now, it’s the reverse.  

The American public, and surveys suggest many Christians, no longer considers gambling a threat, or maybe not a sin either. And in 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States in a 6-3 ruling, struck down a 1992 federal law that required states to ban sports gambling. With this social acceptance of the most prevalent form of wagering, gambling has pretty much enjoyed open season since. No one much cares, and Christians can be found on Facebook celebrating their most recent trip to Las Vegas.

Christian organization policy statements have become commonplace, particularly those related to the safety of children placed in the care of church workers during church activities. Some policy, rooted in custody issues, pertain to how parents are identified and who is permitted to retrieve the child from church facilities. 

In addition, churches and other Christian organizations are now typically conducting background checks on childcare volunteers and requiring they participate in training. Churches maintain “two-person” rules, meaning an adult should never be alone with children, no photography stipulations, and much more.  

Ministries have also adopted policies regarding abuse, harassment, security, etc.  

Now, there’s even more extensive change in the wind. 

A growing number of “new” moral and social issues, which in the past didn’t create problems for Christian organizations, are now front and center.

An illustrative list includes: abortion, bullying, domestic abuse or sexual violence, climate change, green policies, medical ethics (stem cells, cloning, euthanasia) and healthcare, the rights of women, children, the disabled, human trafficking, immigration and refugees, pornography, racism, religious freedom, and the vaguely defined social justice.  

Same-sex marriage is a consideration for theologically conservative Christian organizations, but in June 2015, the Supreme Court of the US ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples possessed the same fundamental right as opposite sex couples to marry. In other words, same-sex marriage is now legal, so churches and Christian organizations wishing to position against it must approach the matter carefully.

In June 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court of the US held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). In other words, the Court read SOGI back into the meaning of “sex” as written in the 1964 laws and with that move, not only undermined the rule of law, put religious liberty on a legal collision course with SOGI.

This ruling is a landmark of the wrong kind, making SOGI – subjective and unverifiable socially constructed identities, not objective biological traits – what the law calls a “protected category.” This ruling will have seismic impact upon American culture, including, but far beyond, discussions about who uses women’s bathrooms, who participates in women’s sports, what pronouns corporations are forced to use or force their employees to use, etc. 

While this ruling will affect schools and universities, businesses, camps, youth organizations, daycare, and other workplace conditions or sex-specific facilities, it will also affect churches and Christian nonprofit organizations. 

The Heritage Foundation commented, “SOGI laws threaten the freedom of citizens, individually and in associations, to affirm their religious or moral convictions—convictions such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Under SOGI laws, acting on these beliefs in a commercial or educational context could be actionable discrimination.” 

“Currently, Title VII, a section of the Civil Rights Act, allows religious exemptions for faith-based organizations to hire with an eye to religious qualifications.  

Some have used this to argue that religious organizations can refuse to hire and/or fire employees who are LGBTQ if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. However, because LGBTQ persons are now included under the ‘sex’ category of Title VII, it is unclear whether these exemptions are still understood to permit religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of LGBTQ status.” 

In its analysis, the ECFA said, “religious groups with theological views that do not align with that interpretation will need to show that they are entitled to an exception under existing laws, such as the ministerial exception defense.

Christian organizations are for the most part not ready. What’s missing in nearly all church or Christian organization foundational statements is any reference to sexual orientation or gender identity (LGBTQ+). This is because these issues have literally exploded in our culture in just the past 20 years. 

SOGI involves not just personal moral conscience but H.R. or human resources hiring practices. And if the US Congress passes the Equality Act these identifications will be brought under the legal protection of federal civil rights laws.  

If Christian organizations add paragraphs in their doctrinal or lifestyle statements referencing SOGI identification matters, these Christian organizations will potentially be subject to legal challenge. Or if not this, the organizations may be subject to the new online bullying tactic that declares something ipso facto non-inclusive, discriminatory, or racist, then attacks the organization for its “Christian supremacy.”

Another hugely influential and divisive issue is Critical Race Theory (CRT), an empowerment philosophy, based upon oppressor and victimhood, that argues racism is the defining explanation for all of America’s social problems. It takes identity politics to a new level of discord and intolerance.

Yet Christian organizations are being seduced by CRT. To what extent CRT is acknowledged or embraced or promoted is already contributing to division in Christian organizations like Cru

American Evangelicalism is indeed not without its race problems and the need for open discussion on how to address the issues and move forward biblically, but CRT is not about forgiveness or grace but about “being woke,” claiming America is systemically racist, whites are by definition supremacists, and, ironically and dangerously, promoting racism under the guise of antiracism

CRT is all but a new religion. It has literally taken American culture by storm, is long since deeply entrenched in American higher education, and is now making significant inroads into the Church. But it is incompatible with Christianity and churches are going to be forced to respond, to declare themselves, in one of the forms of statements mentioned in this piece. 

So, churches and Christian organizations are now editing doctrinal statements, revising lifestyle statements, and developing position statements on a wide range of social or moral issues. Whether these efforts will protect Christian organizations remains to be seen in how future politics develop vis-à-vis the First Amendment and religious freedom.

Certainly, putting well-reasoned, biblically grounded statements into print before legal challenges occur is better than an approach that is a day late and a dollar short. 

Christian organizations need to think carefully, perhaps seek legal guidance, and assure they have in print what they consider essential, foundational statements regarding the moral and social issues of the day. 

Procrastinating on this task will not make the challenges go away, because they are being used by the Satan, who masquerades as an angel of light, but is the master of deception, deceit, division, and darkness.


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s  

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023     

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me at  

Have you gotten weary of racial division and discord? We’ve certainly experienced it since the George Floyd tragedy in Minneapolis: riots, destruction, calls for defunding the police, charges of so-called white supremacy. But let’s pause a moment and ask, what does a Christian worldview say about race?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #101 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

The tragic death of George Floyd, May 25, 2020, at the hand of a police officer resulted in nonstop social unrest that plagued American cities, and created a milieu in which it was and is almost impossible to conduct a deliberative conversation about race, racism, police brutality, or police actions.

So much angry momentum fogs the air that anyone questioning the wisdom of what’s taking place does so at risk of reputation, maybe employment, and in some cases personal well-being. At least this is true on American campuses if not also in some corporations or other public venues.

The point is, it’s risky to disagree with the prevailing acceptable narrative endorsed by much of Big Media, Big Social Media, corporations, various celebrities, the political left, and other cultural opinion elites.

This said, I am not suggesting there were or are no issues, i.e., no racism, never any police brutality, no room for police reform. I am, however, suggesting that much of what’s become accepted mantra does not bear up under objective analysis.  

But my point here is not to argue politics as such, much less to be partisan.  

Rather, I want to suggest this is a moment for us all to take a breath and to attempt to better understand, and to work to apply our Christian worldview to life and culture.

Where does our Christian worldview lead us regarding race?

First, let’s begin at the beginning, noting that God created every human being “in his image,” and as such each person is temporally and eternally significant, possesses dignity, and is the highest order of creation (Genesis 1:26-27).

I’ll repeat that. God created all human beings, “Red and Yellow, Black and White, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

I don’t know if Adam and Eve were White or Black or Red or Yellow or some other racial hybrid unknown to us today. I do know God created humanity, beginning with these two people, and you and I, along with 8 billion others in the world, descended from them. So, the DNA for racial variation was built in, and God allowed these differences and distinctions to develop later, like he did with various animal and plant species.

For example, there are more than 400 dog breeds recognized around the world. While I believe God created dogs, I do not believe all the breeds we know today were present in the Garden of Eden. While I don’t buy into evolution from one species to another, I do believe God created, as he said in the Genesis account, various “kinds” of animals that allowed for inter-breeding, tapping gene pools, which in turn allowed the development of new breeds. So, while we don’t see, and there are really no fossil records to indicate, one kind or species evolving into another, much less monkeys becoming apes becoming human beings, we do find record of gene pool variety developing within given species or kinds. This continues to this day within kinds of animals that are sexually compatible, meaning they can mate and reproduce.

Same for human beings. We are all descended from Adam and Eve, via Noah and his wife, their 3 sons and their wives, from whom Gen. 9:19 says, “from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.” These scattered people represented a vast and varied gene pool, some of which were later isolated to allow for the development of dominant characteristics, including skin color, hair color, body shape, physical attributes or capabilities.

Think of the blonde-haired people in Scandinavia or both the short pygmies and the tall Dinka or Tutsi people in Africa. Even among Native Americans there was great variety in biological stature and appearance across a continent. While Darwin once argued for multiple races of humanity, though there are variations, clearly God created one human race.

In modern terms, race goes hand-in-hand with skin color. This is the predominant characteristic and the first thing that enters people’s minds when race is mentioned.

So, let’s think about how Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, White people are not as different as we may assume, but how we are similar if not alike:

  1. As noted, God created all human beings—including every racial variation—in His image.
  2. In Scripture, we also learn that all nations come from one man, and that people’s time, place, and demographics are appointed by God. 

All human beings, whatever their gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, or any other demographic, is who they are because the Sovereign God created them for his purposes: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands” (Acts 17:26).

  1. Each human being is uniquely gifted, individually significant with ultimate value.
  2. All human beings are endowed with reason and moral responsibility, thus freedom and accountability. No exceptions.
  3. Human beings are directed by God to develop culture, meaning we are to be stewards of the world God gave us, investing ourselves and our creativity in a way that cares for our families and for the environment so that humanity can flourish.
  4. In Rom 3:23 we learn that all human beings are fallen, sinful. We have deceitful, depraved hearts in need of forgiveness and redemption (Jer. 17:9).
  5. Every human being, regardless of race, needs salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Jn 3:16).
  6. Human beings are blessed by fulfilling God’s purposes via faith, family, fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace), free enterprise. This is part of the Cultural Mandate (Gen. 1:28).
  7. No individual is reducible to just his/her race, for while part of the beauty of Creation, this characteristic is not the sum of existence. While demographics are important, they are not the ultimate definition of a human beings’ character or value: Scripture says, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
  8. All races, ethnicities will be represented in Heaven, the most diverse community ever (Rev. 7:9). 

So, as we can see and easily demonstrate from Scripture, Red and Yellow, Black and White people share far more in common than anything that makes them different.

Meanwhile, contemporary culture and the ideology of the Left constantly pounds a drumbeat of difference, division, victimhood, blame, oppressor and oppression, discrimination, recrimination, hate, all of which is based upon the sins of lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life (1 Jn 2:16).

The Word of God teaches us that God loves all, and we are to love our neighbors, so racism has no place in God’s design.

Still, racism exists, for it is rooted in the deceitful, sinful heart of all human beings. Racism is not just a “White problem.” Despite what we’re being told today, racism is not just about economic power, haves and have nots, though this can be involved.

Racism is about sinful attitudes. All people whatever their race can be or may have been guilty of racism at some time. Racism will always be with us. But this does not mean we should ignore it, much less advance or excuse it. We work to remove and eliminate it because we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

Racism is sin, no matter who expresses it. Substituting one racism for another and re-segregating America is not the answer. Loving our neighbor is the answer.  

We are called of God to live justly, to love our neighbors, to bless and do no harm, for one and all. Race is part of the variety, indeed the beauty, of God’s creation. Race is a gift of God. Shouldn’t Christians celebrate the gift of race?


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023   

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me at  

You’ve undoubtedly heard the rumblings about President Biden and former President Trump’s age.  Are they too old to assume the presidency?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #100 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

So the question, are Joe Biden, born November 20, 1942, now 80, and Donald Trump, born June 14, 1946, now 77, too old to be President of the United States?

Well, to speak constitutionally, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, are Biden and Trump too old?  According to the U.S. Constitution, no, they are not tool old.

As to the natural born citizen stipulation, this is why, for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, now 75 but born in Austria, can never run for president. Even 100-year-old former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is not too old to be president, but he’d be excluded for the place of his birth, Bavaria, Weimar Republic.

So, regarding eligibility for the presidency, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about maturity—on the young end—and citizenship, than they were about age or aging per se. The Founders left to the voters any considerations about appropriate top end age.

“The median age at inauguration of incoming U.S. presidents is 55 years.”

“The youngest person to become U.S. president was Theodore Roosevelt, who, at age 42, succeeded to the office after the assassination of William McKinley. The youngest at the time of his election to the office was John F. Kennedy, at age 43.

The oldest person elected president was Joe Biden, the nation's current president, at age 77. Biden celebrated a birthday between Election Day and Inauguration Day making him 78 when sworn into office.”

“The oldest president at the end of his tenure was Ronald Reagan at 77; this distinction will eventually fall upon Joe Biden, who is currently 80.”

Jimmy Carter's retirement, now 42 years, is the longest in American presidential history. At age 98, Carter is also the oldest living president and the nation's longest-lived president.”

As a side note, I might also add that Mr. Carter is the most-published former president, taking this honor from Teddy Roosevelt.

“Should Biden run for re-election in 2024 and win, he would be 86 years old at the end of his second term. Former President Trump, who already announced his 2024 bid for office, would be 82 years old at the end of his second term if he were to become president again.”

“Trump was 70 years old when he took office in 2017. During his last stint at the White House, Trump faced questions about his age and health following a bout with COVID-19, which was revealed to be more severe than the former president let on at the time. If Trump were to win a second term, he’d be the second oldest president in U.S. history after Biden.”

Both men hoping for another four years in the White House are already older than the average male life expectancy in the United States of 74.5 years of age. Each is also more than a decade past the average retirement age, 65, for American men.”

“A vast majority of Americans don’t wish to see a rematch between former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden next year, and their respective age is cited as one of the primary factors that would-be voters see as a concern. According to a recent Yahoo/YouGov survey, 67 percent of Americans, including 48 percent of Democrats, said that Biden is too old for another term; while 42 percent also said former President Donald Trump was too old to run again. In addition, a recent NBC survey found that 70 percent of the respondents said that Biden should not run again, and about half of them said that Biden’s age was a ‘major factor.’” “There are valid reasons for such concern among voters.”

Some arguments against voting for a person as President who is considered "too old" may include:

  1. Health Concerns: Age can be associated with an increased risk of health issues, and the demands of the presidency can be physically and mentally taxing. Concerns about a candidate's ability to handle the stress and rigorous schedule may arise.

Sometimes people note the advanced ages of many Supreme Court of the United States Justices as a comparison. But this is apples and oranges. Justices are driven between their home and office in limousines and spend their day in palatial offices with a fleet of clerks to bring them research, food, you name it, while they think and write deep thoughts on matters of the law.

Presidents also occupy an impressive office and have a fleet of staff at their beck and call, but Presidents are responsible for the security of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, they get scary briefings every day, they regularly have to make high-pressure, high-risk decisions that put Americans in harm’s way, 

they travel extensively, they meet international dignitaries, and on and on. The stress of the presidency is at quantum levels higher than anything confronted by Supreme Court Justices, so the President’s mental and physical health are of paramount concern.

  1. Cognitive Decline: There could be worries about cognitive decline or diminishing mental sharpness in older candidates, potentially affecting their decision-making abilities and judgment.
  1. Technological Disconnect: Older candidates might be less familiar with rapidly advancing technology and modern communication methods, which could hinder their ability to govern effectively in a digital age.
  1. Generational Disconnect: Concerns may arise about their understanding of a and connection with the concerns and needs of younger generations, leading to potential policy gaps.
  1. Lack of Long-Term Vision: Some may argue that older candidates might not prioritize long-term issues as much as younger candidates who have more years ahead of them.

Frankly, I don’t like it when partisans make age jokes, making fun of Biden or Trump or Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell or anyone else. Aging comes to us all.

Of far greater importance, offering plenty of fodder for discussion if not also humor, are values and religious convictions, policy positions, competence, experience, and leadership qualities.

“Perhaps the most important age-related question for voters is whether there is any established relationship between age and effective leadership. The answer might seem less than satisfying but, broadly speaking, research has found mixed results. 

For example, as leader age increases, research has found productivity and peer evaluations of effectiveness both increase while supervisor ratings of effectiveness slightly decrease.”

“In other words, there is no research declaring a certain number “too old,” as aging is an individual process.”

This all said, “Not since Woodrow Wilson's incapacity rendered him bedridden and all but incommunicado for the last 17 months of his presidency, has a president appeared so enfeebled. The 80-year-old Biden has fallen repeatedly. He often slurs his words to the point of inaudibility. His halting gait radiates frailty. Often aides must remind Biden where he is. Biden appears frustrated and angry at his increasing cognitive decline--forgetting the names of foreign leaders and close associates.To be blunt, Biden is one more serious fall from physical incapacity -- and a Vice President Kamala Harris' stewardship of his presidency. Apparently Democratic insiders hope Biden does not run for reelection—but by all accounts, must finish his term to prevent a Harris presidency in either 2023-4 or thereafter.”

I agree. There is the idea of a “young 80” and an “old 80.” President Biden is clearly an “old 80.” He is experiencing cognitive and physical decline before our eyes. In fact, one of the things that scares me is that he will not be able to fulfill his presidency, and, God forbid, Vice President Kamala Harris would be sworn in as President. She is younger, but she is woefully incompetent, inexperienced, an ideological leftist, and would be a danger to the security of the country.

While I can support many of Mr. Trump’s policy perspectives and in some ways, he may be a “young late-70s,” I also think former President Trump is showing signs of aging, not like Mr. Biden, but in Mr. Trump’s increasingly caustic, agitated, frenetic, unorganized, and narcissistic speech and actions. 

We are blessed to live in a country that has inherited a gift of liberty, opportunity, and abundance, not perfect, because we are human, still with needs to change or improve, but nevertheless, the freest country in the world. This is why immigrants come by the thousands to our borders.

We should not squander this inheritance based on ideology, misplaced loyalty to political leaders, false premises that somehow President Biden or former President Trump are the best we can do. As citizens we need to act responsibly.

May God give us wisdom, and may God bless America.


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023     

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me at  

If you’re a well-balanced individual, you haven’t thought much about child sex-trafficking, but it’s real, if ugly, so will you join me in thinking for a few minutes about sin, darkness, and hope?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #99 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life. 

My wife and I recently went to the cinema to watch “Sound of Freedom,” the movie featuring “Passion of the Christ” Jim Caviezel as a federal agent who pursues sex traffickers to rescue a child. As you might expect with a topic like this, not all the scenes are easy to watch, but for my money, I think the director and actors did a good job of drawing attention to this global evil in a way that hopefully raises consciousness, concern, and action.

"’Sound of Freedom’ draws upon the real life of Tim Ballard, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security agent who is credited with saving countless children, largely from outside the U.S., from traffickers who force them into prostitution rings aimed at pedophiles.”

Jim Caveziel plays Tim Ballard in the film, and his wife is portrayed by actress Mira Sorvino. Her part is small but important in this film.

Years earlier in 2005, Sorvino played the lead role as a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in a television miniseries called “Human Trafficking.” Her boss in the miniseries is portrayed by actor Donald Sutherland.

The miniseries followed the stories of three women and girls kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, all of them eventually working out of New York City for an enormously wealthy and ruthless Russian crime boss. The miniseries is especially good at portraying how women and girls get sucked into the trade. This is most assuredly not a so-called “victimless crime.”

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.” To lure victims into trafficking situations, traffickers use various approaches, like violence, manipulation, false promises of well-paying jobs, or romantic relationships.

Remember the first “Taken” movie starring Liam Neeson? In it, a retired CIA operative—Neeson—crosses the globe to rescue his 17-year-old daughter after she had been kidnapped by a group of Albanian smugglers while traveling in France.

She and her friend were first enticed by meeting a charming young Frenchman, then she is betrayed, kidnapped, and sold into the sex trade. Of course, this and the later “Taken” films are primarily vehicles for showcasing Neeson as an action hero, but the first film is especially on point as to how even teenagers can be duped and, well, “taken.”

If you are interested in going deeper, several other films or documentaries have been made that examine various aspects of this evil perversion, one that combines greed, sexual hedonism, crime, power, politics, and corruption. Hyperlinks to these sources may be found in the transcript of this podcast.

After her earlier miniseries role, Mira Sorvino stayed involved with this heinous crime. “From 2009 to 2012 she was a United Nations Goodwill ambassador for combatting human trafficking,” I recommend Sorvino’s miniseries, “Human Trafficking,” which you can acquire inexpensively online.

Back to the new film, “Sound of Freedom”— You’d think that, if anything, the ideological Left might find morally compelling the fact that children are being coerced and abused by a huge international sex trade. But believe it or not, I’ve read several reviews of “Sound of Freedom” that seem oblivious to this issue involving children, choosing rather to politicize the motives of the producers and actors, accusing them of conspiracy theories and being tools of the Far Right, yada yada. Really? People can’t even agree that child trafficking is an unholy scourge.

Well, I for one recommend you watch “Sound of Freedom.” I respect Jim Caviezel and Mira Sorvino for their involvement, not just as professional actors but as people who care about human beings. The film presents a real issue, and for all the wretchedness, there is hope in the end.

It is estimated—that’s right, I said “estimated” because one of the problems with stopping human trafficking is getting reliable numbers. Who’s going to provide them? Law enforcement counts what it knows, but criminals know far more,

and they aren’t going to volunteer information. So, it is “estimated that approximately 1,000,000 people are trafficked each year globally and that between 20,000 and 50,000 are trafficked into the United States, which is one of the largest destinations for victims of the sex-trafficking trade.” Based on multiple sources I read, I think the number of trafficked people, and children, is far higher.

There are tremendous numbers of kids, a multitude of kids that are being sold as sex slaves today in America. These are American kids, American-born, 50 percent to 60 percent of them coming out of the foster care industry…If you are trafficked in the United States, 85 percent of victims that are trafficked here are from here.”

“The United Nations (UN) divides human trafficking into three categories— sex trafficking, labor trafficking, and the removal of organs—and defines human trafficking as the induction by force, fraud, or coercion of a person to engage in the sex trade, or the harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for labor service or organ removal.” “Sex slavery involves males and females, both adults and children, and constitutes an estimated 58 percent of all trafficking activities.”

“California consistently has the highest human trafficking rates in the United States…This is followed by Texas…Florida…and New York. These four states with the highest human trafficking rates have the highest populations in the U.S., which can explain why their numbers of cases are significantly higher than other states and have very high immigrant populations. This, combined with certain industries such as agriculture, creates prime environments for forced labor.”

Hard to believe, but in the United States, “Human trafficking wasn't illegal until 2000, when the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed, which made it a federal crime.”

In the US, there is no official number of human trafficking victims, but estimates place it in the hundreds of thousands.”

Globally, an estimated //">25 million people are subjected to human trafficking and forced labor, which is responsible for an estimated $150 billion annually in illicit profits.”

To say the least, human sex trafficking is a heinous crime that violates the basic principles of human dignity. It involves the coercion, abduction, and exploitation of individuals, primarily women and children, for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

At its core, human sex trafficking strips victims of their humanity, freedom, dignity, and autonomy, subjected to physical and emotional abuse, and forced into a life of sexual servitude. The traffickers, driven by greed and power, exploit vulnerable individuals, preying on their desperation, poverty, or lack of social support. This cruel industry thrives on the suffering of its victims and the insidious demand for commercial sex.

The consequences of human sex trafficking on its victims are profound and long-lasting. Physically, victims may endure sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, physical injuries, and drug addiction. Emotionally and spiritually, they suffer from trauma, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, often requiring extensive therapy and rehabilitation to regain a sense of normalcy.

Furthermore, the social stigma associated with sex trafficking can leave victims isolated and shunned by society, exacerbating their suffering.

Human sex trafficking not only harms individual victims but also has detrimental effects on society as a whole. The thriving underground market perpetuates violence, organized crime, and corruption. It undermines the rule of law, weakens institutions, and fosters an environment of fear and exploitation. Additionally, sex trafficking contributes to the spread of sexually transmitted and other diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and places an enormous burden on public health systems.

As “Sound of Freedom” demonstrates, children are the most vulnerable and tragic victims of human sex trafficking. “It is believed that one in five human trafficking victims are children, exploited for begging, child pornography, or child labor.”

Often kidnapped or coerced into the trade, they are robbed of their innocence and subjected to unimaginable horrors. The emotional, spiritual, psychological, and often physical scars inflicted on these young souls can haunt them for a lifetime, hindering their development and impeding their ability to lead fulfilling lives. Protecting children from exploitation should be a top priority for every society.

Human sex trafficking is abhorrent. It treats human beings as non-entities, perpetuates violence, undermines law and order in free societies, and is an example of man’s inhumanity to man, an evil straight out of the pit.

There are Christian organizations, among them Women At Risk International, that combat human trafficking and work to help women, girls, and boys enslaved.

Sexual sin and slavery are together as old as mankind. Both sins violate the character of God and the fact that He created every man, woman, boy, and girl in his image.

Let’s pray, and let’s take action to assure “Sound of Freedom” sows seeds that fall on good soil. It could be our children, our loved ones that we save.


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me at  

Were you startled in March 2022, when United States Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s request that she provide a definition of “woman” and Judge Jackson said, “I’m not a biologist”?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #98 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.


Senator Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) full questions to Judge Jackson was “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” The confused chaos of contemporary America’s intellectual elite led Judge Jackson to give a wiggle room answer, actually a non-answer. Ironically, now Justice Jackson, were she asked this question today, would probably not say she’s not a biologist, not because she now can answer the question, but because the Left no longer trusts science, if it ever did.

“What is a woman?” Yes, we’ve come to this. American, or Western, culture has dipped so low in its sophisticated ignorance that we’ve talked ourselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac where one of the easiest and most obvious questions in life cannot be answered for fear of offending someone or otherwise creating a political backlash.

This is the context into which conservative commentator Matt Walsh stepped when he decided to produce and feature in his documentary, What Is a Woman? This film was released in June 2022, but I just watched it a few days ago.

Walsh’s documentary reminded me of actor Ben Stein’s 2008 film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which Stein attempted to engage intellectuals on their basic presuppositions about God, or at least an intelligence, but found that many of them could not or would not engage, and even the ones who did, eventually offered outlandish leaps of logic regarding their assumptions.

In his What Is a Woman film, Walsh travels around the United States, and also across the pond to the Maasai tribe in Africa, simply asking, “What is a woman?” This is a question he considers a defining question of our generation.

Walsh also asked, what is truth? He talks to people on the street, academics who purport to be experts in fields related to gender studies or psychology, medical and psychiatric doctors, elected politicians, transgender people and former transgender or so-called “de-transitioned” people, and counselors, most of whom disagree with his views, along with a couple of key older professionals who share Walsh’s values and concerns.

Since the film was released, predictably, liberal and left-leaning political sources have castigated Walsh and the documentary in harsh, nasty, and angry terms, accusing him of among other things, being a bigot, a hater, and a cheap provocateur. But nowhere in the documentary does Walsh attack anyone, act disrespectfully or dismissively toward them (though some of his interviewees and their supporters do this to him), or otherwise speak down to or angrily at anyone. In interviews, no matter how outrageous the person’s comments, Walsh keeps a straight and serious face.

Only near the end of the documentary, when Walsh gets a couple of minutes to speak to the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia, a district that has experienced sexual assaults on children, and a district one report called the epicenter of the parental rights movement, does Walsh speak forcefully or aggressively from a prepared text. Yet review after review calls him out for perceived bad behavior, and what is this? Walsh dares to ask questions, dares to say he believes in objective truth, dares to wonder aloud if sex surgeries on minors is indeed healthy and moral, and dares to believe those to whom he directs his questions might want to respond. Interestingly, more than one of his interviewees stopped or walked out on the interview.

To those who disagree with him, he produced a “right wing transphobic doc.”  Another reviewer said, the film is “utterly devoid of curiosity or generosity. It’s fueled by anger and fear, and partisan calculation. Walsh poses like a wise man, but he’s a cyberbully.”

I don’t agree. In fact, I recommend you watch this film. It is worth the 90 minutes required, and since it is online, you can watch in segments as you have time if you need to do so. You can find it easily in your search engine, but to aid you I have posted a link to the film in the description of this podcast. (The full documentary is available at this link:

It’s telling, I think, how Walsh is attacked, and I do mean verbally attacked in the abusive vocabulary, for exercising his free speech, not by making arguments, but simply for asking a question. Liberal and left sources decry Walsh’s question as illegitimate, disrespectful, threatening even for making people “feel unsafe,” and do not want to allow him to speak. Liberals and the left preach openness, tolerance, anything goes—unless you disagree with them. Then they become authoritarian in their demand that not simply your argument be refuted but that you be delegitimized, possibly silenced, preferably cancelled.

Several people with whom he talked, asked him, “Why do you care?” They wanted to know why he cared what a transgender person did or became, even a minor, why this should matter to him, because in their worldview, anyone should be permitted or even encouraged to do anything at any time. They see this as compassion and liberation, but this is undiagnosed anarchy. It’s what the Bible said of the days when Israel had no king, “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” (Judges 17:6).

Among other things, what the question, “Why do you care,” assumes is that individual behavior creates no ripple effects and in no way affects others. It assumes that people should be free to do whatever they wish, for by definition, this is “right.” It isa as Proverbs said, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,” (21:2).

But because people want to do something does not make it correct or good or moral. People are not islands. People who jettison personal morality affect everything about the people and culture around them.

Doing sex surgeries on children will affect their own health and well-being, their families, and their community for the rest of their lives. Promoting transgender ideology and actions is not just a matter of meeting the individual desires of a given person, because transgender behavior is fundamentally divisive and destructive to the foundational order of a free society. Why? Because society is binary and has been since creation.

But transgenders, in fact all LGBQ individuals, want what they want, so they reject God, reality, and life itself. Is this surprising? Heterosexuals who wish to sin do the same thing, reject God, reality, and sometimes life itself.

“Whether it’s the idolatry of climate, sexual politics or anything else, this estrangement from God is in keeping with the strategic goals of authoritarians. They do not wish to compete with God for the devotion of the people so it’s necessary to replace Him with something else. The result is ideological idolatry designed to estrange us from God in our personal and civic lives.”

“The ideologies of the left are about more than enacting policies that history has proved to be failures. They’re about dissolving our relationship with God in pursuit of a destructive agenda that cements power among a select group of elites at the expense of individual liberty. We need to understand this because to know and reject this American Idolatry is to reject tyranny.”

Tulsi Gabbard, former Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii, said this about gender politics: "They are asking us to take something that is clearly not real and believe that it is real...Are we going to live in a society of common sense and reality or are we going to buy into this insanity and this fantasy?"

"We have leaders in the Democratic Party unfortunately and those in our society who are pushing this fantasy," she continued. "They are asking us to take something that is clearly not real and believe that it’s real. They're asking us to take something that is very clearly a mental illness that creates this delusion where you have people saying 'why, I’m a man in a woman’s body' and vice versa, and then doctors committing, in the case of children especially, this medical malpractice trying to turn this fantasy into reality and creating incredibly negative short and long-term consequences both physically and psychologically."

"Are we going to live in a society of common sense and reality or are we going buy into this insanity and this fantasy?" she asked rhetorically. "This is one of the reasons why I left the Democratic Party, because we have the Democratic Party today selling this fantasy and catering to it and giving credibility to this fantasy, these mental delusions all because they think it’ll give them more political power, a party that is willing to do anything, especially things that are damaging to children, all for the sake of political power should be frightening to everybody."

Matt Walsh’s question, “What is a woman?” is basic, but it opens a giant philosophic wormhole into which our culture has been drawn.

The entire sexual liberation movement, particularly as now manifested by LGBTQ+ politics with a focus on the point of the spear, transgender ideology, undermines a whole list of Judeo-Christian values that helped American culture flourish:

o   Belief in a Sovereign God, as Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

o   Belief in truth, as the Declaration of Independence began, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

o   Belief in God’s created order, including humanity, as in “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them,” (Gen. 1:27).

o   Belief that children belong to parents, that parents have authority and rights, as in “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him,” (Ps 127:3).

There’s more, but perhaps you get the picture. I know family and friends who do not like to talk about LGBTQ+ or gender issues, much less child sex trafficking, pornography, or similar perversions. I get this, and I respect it.

But I also think we are living in a time when Satan is launching a full-blown onslaught on the very foundations of families, churches, American society, and the potential for individual and religious freedom over and against tyranny. And it seems that many Christians are willingly uninformed and unaware.

Whether you agree with everything Matt Walsh, says or concludes, his What Is a Woman? documentary is worth your time. It is not a diatribe, not a right-wing screed, certainly not religious sermonizing. It just asks a question because it presumes truth exists.

It’s a question no one would have seriously asked just a decade ago. But now, the need to ask it reveals, yes, we’ve come to this.


Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s 

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2023  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at, or connect with me at