Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 20 October 2017

Somehow, we’ve come to a point in our culture where historical figures must be fully aligned with our ideology or they are not worthy of consideration, much less honor. If such people are, from the point of view of current trends, no longer considered worthy, or they failed in some aspect of life, then no matter what their achievement, they must be rejected, condemned, or simply ignored.

The problem with this all-or-none, you’ve-got-to-love-me-AND-love-my-dog approach is that virtually no one qualifies. So, no achievement, irrespective of its value to humankind, can be lauded because, well, the achievers were flawed, meaning most often that they didn’t agree with me or I don’t agree with everything they said or did.

But let’s do a reality check. No human leader or scholar or philosopher or hero or inventor or change agent or world class athlete or beauty queen or artist or politician, preacher, or professor, much less celebrity, has it all together and is without flaw. None.

The Scripture puts it this way: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10-12). Yet God loves us all: “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God understands the tug-of-war of good and evil in every human heart.

In the current cultural zeitgeist, it seems no historical figure, despite considerable laudable achievement, like Columbus or Martin Luther, the until recently properly appreciated Founding Fathers, the revered Washington or Lincoln or TR, or latter day MLK Jr, not even the earlier day Moses, David, or chief of sinners the Apostle Paul, is truly worthy of recognition if they are perceived as imperfect per our ideology, e.g., they owned slaves, they were a womanizer, they were rich…

I am not, of course, defending wrong-doing or misjudgments or outright sin. I am simply saying no person is perfect, no one fully and completely aligns with all other people’s ideological perspectives, which by definition are many, distinct, and perhaps contradictory.

Certainly, I am not perfect, nor is the person who lives for a time in the White House or sits on the throne of the United Kingdom. In fact, the only human being who lived a perfect life is God-Incarnate Jesus Christ.

So pulling down statues might be appropriate or it might not—either way, the decision should be made by duly elected representatives, not mobs—but this, along with sanitizing history books or museums of the presence of certain people, don’t accomplish much, unless indeed a serious review has taken place that can demonstrate the figure’s bad outweighs the good. I’m not closing the door on this, just saying kneejerk social media reactions aren’t the best way to determine who should or should not be honored.

This discussion brings to mind one of my highly-respected grandfathers, who served as a wise deacon for 40 years, and was regularly sought out for counsel by young and old from several counties around. He is the spiritual patriarch of our family. Yet when I was very young I twice heard him make comments about race or Catholicism that in contrast to the rest of his gracious life and jovial personality were and remain rather shocking. But I understand these comments as representing areas of his life that his well-developed Christian worldview and the Spirit of God had not yet penetrated. Had not yet convicted. Had not yet transformed. They do not discount all else that he did. And the memory makes me consider, what will my grandchildren remember about me?

It is possible to give honor to whom honor is due without lifting the person(s) to a godlike pedestal. It is possible to appreciate and value human achievement and legacies without certifying the person(s) who gave us these gifts as perfect. It is certainly possible and admirable to recognize and appreciate people whose contributions blessed the world, even if those people did not necessarily, even in fact likely did not, align with yours or my views. To reject such people is to miss the opportunity to demonstrate grace, perspective, and nuanced understanding of the interplay of good and evil in the heart of every human being since Adam and Eve.

*This 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 www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 16 October 2017

Soon after we got married at 21, I decided to wash the car and discovered I had no rags. Back home, we just went to the bottomless “rag barrel” in the basement. Now, everything Good (Brand New) Wife and I owned was also new. Wasn’t long, though, before rag-less-ness wasn’t a problem. Nor is it now after 43 yrs of marital bliss.

Today I discovered one can buy rags. But who wants to use a soulless “rag”? No, this is just cloth. A rag is a long worn, beloved, and promoted T-shirt or even towel that continues to be part of the family story. As you work, you remember. Can’t do this w/new material.

Seems to me buying “rags” robs young marrieds of a key life experience.

*This 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 www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 13 October 2017

I like watching old couples (define “old” as you wish).

In a mall coffee shop a while back, I watched a late-70s couple. Wife helped positioned Husband in his motorized chair at a coffee shop table. Then she briefly massaged his ankle because he said it was hurting. After this, she went for his Grande-something.

When Wife returned with Husband’s order, he refused to drink until she got hers and told her he’d wait until she returned. She smiled and patted his shoulder and a bit later came back with her drink. Then they tapped cups, said, "Cheers," and enjoyed their coffee.

Why do I like watching old couples? Because you learn a lot about lasting relationships. I’ve been in malls in south Florida where I was the youngest one in the mall. 80-somethings walk around holding hands. If you haven’t seen this, you don’t know what you’re missing.

I like watching old couples because with my Good Wife I hope to be one of them some day, and that day doesn’t seem as far off as it once did. I want to age well, but more specifically, I want to age well with her, together, not just in the same room, but in the same spirit, mutually respecting and listening and connected.

Old couples can teach us all what love and commitment are all about in what feels like an increasingly unloving and rootless world. The coffee shop couple’s kind of love is one too many people sadly know nothing about.

*This 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 www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 11 October 2017

A Christian's hope is not a "vain wish" regarding something about which you can do nothing, as for example, "I hope my team wins next Friday."

People place their hope in many things: themselves, their “inner strength,” people—who always fail and falter, talent—drive—wealth—education—beauty—success, false gods. But none of these things can ultimately provide hope in the face of hopelessness.

However, a Christian's hope is based not upon earthly and temporal and limited things, not upon what might be, but upon what has been, the already accomplished fact of Christ's sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus Christ conquered sin and death and in this demonstrated the victory of HOPE over hopeless then, now, and forever.

So, when you choose hope based upon the omnipotent Sovereign God, you are not irrational, emotional, or even mystical. You are rational, reasoning and reasonable because you are opting for fact over fiction.

*This 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 www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 10 October 2017

I support the 2nd Amendment. I even support Concealed Carry laws.

If someone at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Jun 12, 2016, had had a CCW the outcome of that tragedy may have been different. Same might be said about the San Bernardino office shootings, December 2, 2015. But, of course, the idea someone on site might have made a difference with a legal weapon cannot be proven.

As to the lone gunman Stephan Paddock who slaughtered 58 and injured 500 more in Las Vegas, October 1, 2017, who can say what, if anything, could have stopped him. A Mandalay Bay Resort security guard tried and took a bullet in his leg for doing so, but it’s all but impossible to thwart a loner who plans, prepares, and acts so methodically and surreptitiously.

I've hunted and I own guns. I’m not an anti-gun person. But I’m not opposed to reasonable discussion of how to limit access to lethal weaponry by certain at-risk categories of people.

For the record, I believe people's hearts are a bigger issue than their weapons. But that said, I don't think an either/or hardline stance regarding sensible gun control vs 2^nd Amendment rights is necessary or productive. The binary that’s currently beleaguering discussion is a product of our ideologically polarized, all-or-nothing political culture, and it doesn’t make for good debate, much less good policy.

Take for example so-called assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. It seems to me that we could make it far more difficult for people—most mass murder perpetrators have some kind of criminal record—on watch lists or struggling with mental disorders to acquire these weapons, and that we could do this without fear of undermining law-abiding citizens' right to own a gun. Why is the Left so bent upon eliminating guns and the Right so bent on opposing all common sense proposals?

People loved liberal Democrat FDR because he tried, he acted. Not everything worked, but he acted. People loved conservative Republican Ronald Regan because he was faithful to his principles, but also because he was eminently practical. He thought half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. He tried, he acted. Current political leaders seem conflicted, paralyzed by analysis, and most of all, afraid to offend some portion of the population who disagree with them, so they do not act.

It seems to me we need enforcement of laws on the books, and maybe a few new laws that reduce the possibility of watch list people or mentally disturbed people, or abusers acquiring certain types of guns, if any guns at all. This seems no more unreasonable to me than saying we should keep ARs out of the hands of children. Meanwhile, though, politicians on both Left and Right just talk, demonizing the opposition, and sadly, such talk will not curtail or stop evil.

*This 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 www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 06 October 2017

October 1, 2017, presumably-lone-gunman Stephan Paddock sprayed rifle fire, thousands of rounds in about 10 minutes, from his 32^nd floor Mandalay Bay Resort corner room into an unsuspecting crowd of thousands, enjoying the weather and a country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada. Latest count, he killed 58 people and injured close to 500.

News anchors are understandably distraught, asking, Why? How could a person do this? One even said, "But he was a multi-millionaire," incredulous someone with money could slaughter others. But money, education, talent, success, beauty, age do not produce moral uprightness.

Media pundits ask, Why? The answer is not easy even if it seems too simplistic. Sin is why, a wicked and warped heart, what Calvin called "total depravity," the human condition. Whatever kind of life Stephan Paddock had lived, he had given his heart over to sin. And sin leads to destruction "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23a).

This may sound like religious moralism. But it’s more than that. It’s biblical Christianity, it is an understanding of the Sovereign God, and it is meaningful theology.

So, some say, OK, this is avoidable tragedy. Why did God allow it? This is where theodicy comes into the picture.

Tragedy is a conversational word that means disaster, sadness, or unexpected developments that victimize human happiness, wellbeing, and even lives.

Theodicy is a less often used word that means a vindication of divine justice in allowing evil, suffering, or tragedies to exist.

Tragedies we’ve seen, perhaps experienced, and all-too-painfully understand. Theodicy, the idea that God has a reason for tragedies, the idea that God allows or, even more discomforting, directs tragedies is not so easy to understand.

Yet if we believe in the God of the Bible we must acknowledge his sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence. He is in control. He knows all things. Nothing is a surprise or an accident to him. He is all-powerful, so nothing happens outside of his will or influence. Not 9/11, not this latest senseless mass brutality against innocent concertgoers.

The idea that God could have stopped the carnage seems to beg the question of God’s purported love and compassion for people. In the after-shock of irrational violence and unnecessary death, the thought that God could have prevented the tragedy tests our faith.

So some question God’s existence, some his goodness. Some, like Job’s wife, simply want to curse God and die.

Yet in the Book of Job, the oldest scriptural writings, God does not answer all of Job’s questions. God reminds Job and us that he, God, is great. That he is good. That he is just. That he is love. God is big—bigger than our circumstances, bigger than suicide bombers, terrorists, or lone-wolf killers.

Theodicy, in the end, requires faith—faith in a God whose goal is to reconcile us with him, even through tragedies, even in the face of man’s inhumanity to man. This, in turn, requires a right understanding of theology. To interpret properly the world and its volatile events we must know who God is, what comprises his character, and what he wills for the world in which we live.

Tragedy is abrupt and often life altering. Theodicy can meet our rational need to know why and our emotional need for comfort. Theology provides us with understanding of a God who is not mean, vindictive, arbitrary, or clueless but a God who is love, righteous, and peace.

I cannot answer the question, “Why?” other than to point to sin and its destructive consequences. But I believe God is in charge, he knows, and he will hold accountable not only Stephan Paddock but all others in the world who perpetrate evil upon society.

I also know that sin and death, i.e. hopelessness, are not the end. The rest of Romans 6:23 says, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." God is at work in the world. He is at work in the midst and the aftermath of barbarism. In the days ahead, we may hear some stories of spiritual impact, but then again we may not. Either way, we know God’s providence is still present, as is his peace.

Subcategories