Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 09 August 2011

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors is meeting this week. That’s 54 university presidents and chancellors and 13 school and athletics conference professionals representing big-time athletics. On tap is an agenda fueled by what for a better way of describing it was a year of collegiate sports characterized as much by cheating and non-compliance as by championships.

Some 13 major violations cases were identified involving multiple sports: Last year, University of Southern California received numerous penalties for violations in its football, men's basketball and women's tennis programs. Football accounted for more cases (55%) than any other sport, followed by men's basketball (45%).

Top of the heap: Ohio State University’s scandal that didn’t have to happen. “If only,” if only last spring Coach Jim Tressel would have reported his players’ rules violations, put them on suspension, and let them and the program take their medicine. Had he done this, rather than covering up for them and for his own behavior, had he done this rather than coaching his team to a bowl championship, OSU wouldn’t be at risk today of losing more than its self-vacated 12-1 season including the bowl win, along with a two-year probation.

The question is, will the NCAA Committee on Infractions, also meeting this week, have the backbone to level more sanctions? If I had to guess, I’d say “No.” It has the authority to do this for the integrity of sport, but it hasn’t up to now at least demonstrated it has the grit to do what’s needed. The Board of Directors could demand sanctions, but this isn’t likely either.

I’m not anti-OSU. I’ve watched OSU football for years, and I was grieved along with a lot of others by Jim Tressel’s outing as a cheater. He’s the one primarily responsible, but OSU Athletics knew more than it is letting on and is too easily tossing Coach Tressel under the bus as its sacrificial lamb. In my book the Athletics Department leadership, which unfortunately is to say the university, must also be held accountable—not for retribution but for responsibility and to try to help set a new standard of expectation and integrity in NCAA Division I nationally. It's not a pretty picture, but in the long run, reform and restored integrity will benefit all of sports.

*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; Published: 03 August 2011

Parenting is, I’m afraid, a dying art. At least it seems that way whenever I walk among the masses, watch, listen, and wonder.

I don’t know everything there is to know about rearing children well, and I certainly was not a perfect father; in fact, far from it. But thanks in large measure to a good mother our four children, now up and out, are good, well balanced, thinking young adults who, if I died today, would do well in the world without me. I am grateful to the Lord and my wife and my kids for this. And along the way I learned a little about parenting.

What makes me think parenting is a dying art is what I see and hear just about every time I take a trip. Here are a few wonders just this week:

--Ambling through a store I see a 10-11 year-old boy with his mother. As I walk by I hear the boy use language with and at his mother that blows my hat back. Mother ignores him. Where did this kid learn to talk like that? And why on earth does his mother put up with it? Does she think he’ll simply grow out of the attitudes underlying the vocabulary? Does she think his choice of words is appropriate, good, and good for him? I don’t get it.

--Sitting in a restaurant we see a family approach the counter to order pizza. One teenage son is dressed in jeans so tight you can see every outline of his anatomy. Another perhaps 12 year-old son is wearing a t-shirt proclaiming in large letters “I Love Boobies.” Mom and Dad seem oblivious, which I guess is the problem. Do they really believe how their sons dress is admirable? Do they think how their sons dress is good for them or funny? I don’t get it.

--Walking down the street we’re approached by a family of five, parents probably in their early 40s, three daughters. Each daughter is dressed in a manner prominently exposing, let us say, frontage. Little is left to the imagination. Is this bold immodesty the mother and father’s vision for their girls? Or do the parents believe cutting edge fashion outweighs all other considerations? If the parents don’t like how their daughters are dressing, are they so powerless as to lack any influence upon them at all? I don’t get it.

--Sitting on a ferryboat awaiting departure we watch a family board and sit two rows behind us: mother-now-grandmother, two adult sisters, and four young children belonging to one or both sisters. The younger sister is irate, proclaiming loudly to her sister how she wasn’t awakened soon enough, had not been given any help, was somehow peeved because they were rushed getting on the boat, etc. Mother-Grandmother says, “I’m staying out of this.” Older sister verbally hits back, though not quite so loudly. Younger won’t let it go. This goes on for perhaps five minutes not only in the hearing of everyone near the stern but, more grievously, in the hearing of all the children, who watched with eyes big and mouths, and more importantly, ears open. How could the sister-mothers miss the fact that their kids were getting a lesson in how not to manage anger? Couldn’t their issue have been handled privately? How will the kids act the next time they’re upset? Bigger question: why did Mother-Grandmother let her “kids” do that? I don’t get it.

Not all parents, thankfully, are like this. But in my estimation far too many are abdicating their parental responsibilities, or at least are approaching parenting with a form of presumed powerlessness our grandparents’ generation wouldn’t recognize. I don’t get it.

Children are sponges. They soak up what’s around them. Children are world-class mimics. They imitate whatever is put in front of them. In other words, they'll do what they see and they'll do what parents let them do. Children find security in being given wise and loving instruction, even when they say and act otherwise. In the end, children are best-loved by parents who set good and high standards, model those standards in their own lives, and expect the children to do the same. It works. It’s good for the kids. I get that.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 August 2011

Recently my wife and I biked around Michigan’s Mackinac Island. It’s a beautiful Up North 8.2 mile trip.

Aside from the incredible natural wonders of the shoreline what struck us was the number of rock towers people had built as a testament to their passing. Walking or biking, people stop virtually every day to pile one rock upon the other, sometimes a ways out into the water, then often pose for a picture beside their creation.

Why do they do this? Several reasons: they build rock towers for fun or, along with the pics, as a way to create a souvenir of their visits. Some build rock towers to outdo the next builder—these are the towers painstakingly stacked with larger rocks that’ll weather a few waves before they succumb to the ravages of time. Some are built to say, “I was here. I matter. I have significance.”

Perhaps this sounds too philosophical for a seemingly mundane bit of fun. But I don’t think so. Human beings are created with what some call “a spark of the divine” and God called imago dei. Genesis 1:27 tells us we’re made in the image of God. We have value, and we are eternal beings, even if we don’t know it, even if others, including governments or power-groups don’t recognize it, even if we lack self-esteem and don’t acknowledge it ourselves. Even if the certainty of a death that comes to us all seems to say otherwise.

People give a shout-out to significance in all kinds of ways. While there is nothing per se wrong with any of these things, it’s also true to say that some people create significance for themselves by giving their names to companies, creating nonprofit organizations, giving large donations in return for naming opportunities, or building one kind or another of monument, including large ornate cemetery memorials.

Day to day you can see people assuring in some way you know what makes them special. Have you ever seen a man wear a muscle shirt who didn’t have muscles he wanted to display? Or a woman who, via her choice of fashion, emphasizes some aspect of her appearance, something she wants people to notice because this sets her apart? A youth who drives past, windows down, music blaring—what’s the music saying? I am here; I am significant. Or people who build rock towers to mark their passing?

I readily admit one can’t get too carried away with this sort of “analysis,” because people’s motives are not always what they seem or what we think they may be. But I still contend where there’s smoke there’s fire, and in this scenario, we’re all smoking because there’s a fire inside us all. It’s our inner sense of and desire for significance.

What kind of rock tower are you building?

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 02 August 2011

I don’t think it’s particularly morbid to pause from time to time to remember those who’ve gone before, people we miss and wish still walked among us.

I have friends who think it’s odd. But for me it’s a walk down memory lane as well as a quiet form of respect I can express one more time for those remembered.

Who you miss says something about you, I guess, but I’m not reaching for the philosophical here. Just good thoughts.

Men influence boys. Again, not reaching for the philosophical; just saying something that seems obvious but is often missed or dismissed today. A few men now gone influenced me. This isn’t an attempt at a complete or even a most important list; just a list of a few who come to mind. Here’re a few men I miss:

-My Grandfathers – both men made huge contributions and impact upon my life. I wish I could know them, now that I’m an older adult.

-Dr. Mead Armstrong – he made a lasting contribution to at least one young mind.

-Ronald Reagan – the man was incorrigibly “up.”

-Uncle Bob – he was a good, hilarious, hard-working man, a life-long friend of my father’s and a highly influential uncle for me.

-Johnny Carson – I can’t affirm his lifestyle and may not have liked him if we’d met. But his talent, intelligence, and finesse as a late-night comedian far surpassed the dumbed-down drivel we’re presented today.

-Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer – I never knew him, but I got to hear him speak once when he was by then weakening and sitting down for the presentation. Few can claim a greater impact on whatever understanding I possess of a Christian worldview. I’ve read all his books long since and still draw upon them. I’ll be forever glad for that one session.

-Jimmy Stewart, James Arness, and Gregory Peck – real men all.

-Herb Corum, Ed Daverman, and Richard Stewart – elder statesmen on the Board when I was a young college president, men who loved the Lord and the school and taught me much.

-Louis L’Amour – who can write a better short Western?

Who do you miss?

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 July 2011

Mainline and online news agencies are still enamored of social media. For example, articles reporting the death of singer Amy Winehouse gave as much space to reporting how many Tweets were posted worldwide as they did discussing the woman’s passing.

This has happened before. During Japan’s earthquake and tsunami tragedy, as well as Haiti’s earthquake months earlier, Twitter trending and Facebook posts garnered ample shares of the coverage. When the Obama Administration makes an announcement social media action is part of the news report. So too with sports: during the Women’s World Cup we were regularly treated to breathless reports about how many Twitter followers Hope Solo or Abby Wambach had gained that day. Social media, it seems, are part of the news, at least for now.

This isn’t going to last. Remember when motels used to advertise “Color TV”? Now it’s “Free WiFi,” whatever is the latest and greatest draw. The same will happen for social media. The shine will wear off the rose.

There’s some sign this is already happening, at least in terms of people becoming stressed by how many social media are available, how many accounts they establish, and how often they post or check the stream. One article recommended, among several other things, these ways to avoid social media burnout:

- “Identify different and specific uses for your various social networks. Many use Facebook just for friends or family, Twitter as a public persona and LinkedIn for work relationships. Figure out what your priorities are, and stick to them.

- Use software or Web apps for monitoring multiple social networks simultaneously.

- Set specific times to use (or to stay away from) social networks. Take a day off and go get some sun.

- Don't get obsessed with how many Facebook friends or Twitter or Google+ followers you have. Who cares?

- Don't get stressed out about the content you are missing. You do not have to read every tweet or update. Treat your social-media stream like a river - dip in and get out as your time permits.

- Pick your social networks wisely. Some aren't worth your time. If a social network isn't providing value and relevance, ditch it.”

One could argue that articles reporting how Amy Winehouse’s death trended in social media are offering a legitimate comment about her popularity. Maybe. But it still seemed to me to be superfluous and mundane. A young and highly talented woman had died tragically. By comparison, who cares what’s happening in social media?

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 July 2011

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances…First Amendment of the United States Constitution

We all want religious freedom, right? Of course we do. But we may now be getting more than we once bargained for or ever anticipated possible.

The times, they are a changin’. The Judeo-Christian-based moral consensus that once undergirded the country and culture’s public philosophy, as well as once dominant Christian denominations, is diversifying, declining, or maybe disappearing.

No longer does “religious” mean “Christian” in the broad sense of the term. Now it means any form of devotion to any form of faith in anything.

America is an increasingly religiously pluralistic nation. Recent case in point: Mayor Michael Hancock, newly elected chief executive of the city of Denver, was blessed by five different religious leaders during his inauguration ceremonies Monday, July 18. Among the religious figures was Grace Gillette, a Native American of the Denver Power-Wow Committee, who waved eagle feathers and chanted over the mayor.

I am a proponent of the First Amendment and religious freedom. I am a proponent of an individual’s right to worship as he or she chooses. I am not anti-Native American or for that matter anti- any ethnic or racial group. This does not prevent me, however, from respectfully disagreeing with the Mayor’s decision to ask a Native American shaman to bless him during his inauguration.

Native American religious beliefs do not typically acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Word of God, or Christian teachings. Some traditional Native American beliefs are monotheistic, focusing upon the “Great Spirit,” some are pantheistic, seeing god in all of nature and imputing to nature animate and divine characteristics and powers. Not all Native Americans embrace these traditional religions, perhaps not even most. But some do. I wish them no ill, but I respectfully disagree with their beliefs.

I do not believe that waving feathers and chanting over someone blesses them in any way other than via well wishes of the person waving the feathers. Asking a Native American to bless his mayoral inauguration and coming term was more about politics, multiculturalism, and political correctness than it was about connecting with the Sovereign God of the Universe.

However, though I disagree with the choice I understand that the First Amendment extends to the Mayor the right to make this choice. I also recognize the development of other non-Christian religions in America and the likelihood more odd experiences like this Indian blessing and possibly more tensions will occur in the future.

An average of one new mosque is built every week—now as many as 2,000 in the States. More individuals are demanding their “spirituality” be recognized or at least permitted on university campuses no matter how bizarre. In 2010, for example, an official Wiccan stone prayer circle was installed at the Air Force Academy. All of these developments have been challenged and will continue to be.

The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion is a precious right. But as America becomes even more religiously pluralistic, more friction between fundamentally disagreeing groups is going to occur. I hope we will find a meaningful balance allowing peace and social interaction to occur amongst them all. The alternative is a more than scary breakdown in America’s social fabric resulting in a religiously balkanized, combative, and weakened society like India. No offense to India, but this is a future the United States does not want to contemplate, much less embrace.

How then does a Christian learn to hold and advance his or her views in a post-Christian nation?

Subcategories