Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 November 2010

Hunting is an interesting if frequently controversial subject. The reason it’s interesting is that hunting involves some incredible stories of both human and animal heroics. Hunting is controversial because some people do not consider hunting a legitimate human activity, some people engage in good hunting, and some people engage in bad hunting. My focus here is good hunting vs. bad hunting.

By good and bad, I do not mean available game animals vs. lack of game. By good and bad I’m not making reference to the hunter’s skills. By good and bad hunting I mean hunting that respects and conserves the animal and the environment vs. hunting that is simply about killing, destruction, and bragging rights.

Now I assume that even those individuals who oppose all hunting would prefer good hunting to bad hunting as a lesser of evils.

Good hunting is conducted by people who care about animals and their environs. Good hunting does not slaughter without regard for humane methods or conservation. Good hunting is not characterized by litter, reckless fires, or polluted waters. Good hunting takes only the limit considered best for the game population. Good hunting rejects the selfish and sometimes grievous excesses of bad hunting.

While there is no biblical injunction against hunting, God charges human beings with the stewardship of his creation. No sadistic cruelty, no wanton slaughter to the point of near extinction, no poaching, no harvesting of animal parts while the animal is left to rot (like hunting rhinos to near extinction in the superstitious belief a rhinoceros’s horn is an aphrodisiac), no trashing of the environment can be justified by Scripture.

Bad hunting, because it violates God’s trust, makes us less human. Bad hunting is morally bankrupt. Both good and bad hunting reveal the character of the hunter.

"Good And Bad Hunting," #365 from the Making a Difference program. Originally recorded December 17, 2003.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 November 2010

Some people are born encouragers. But the rest of us have to learn how to be encouraging to others. In the Bible, the word "encouragement" comes from a military term meaning "to strengthen, harden, or uplift." Encouragement means to meet people where they are and help them along to where they want to be or ought to be.

Usually we think of encouraging people who are "down." Friends who are experiencing some difficulty like financial pressures, interpersonal relationship problems, a mid-life crisis, or maybe family troubles. These kinds of problems are what the Apostle James called "divers temptations."

People need encouragement when they're going through tough times, but people also need encouragement when things are seemingly going very well. If you think not many people call or write when things are going poorly, just think how few call or write when everything appears to be on a roll.

The Book of Acts tells us about Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, who the apostles called "Barnabas," which means "Son of Encouragement." Later we read that Barnabas encouraged the Christians at Antioch, and he's described as "a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith" (Acts 11:24). Later still, when Paul and Barnabas have a disagreement, it's Barnabas who stands by the young Mark, who Paul thought spiritually weak but in whom Barnabas saw some good. Barnabas lived up to his name.

I’d like to develop my Barnabas-skills, and I’d encourage each of you to be a Barnabas. Give someone today what I call the "Barnabas Salute." That can be a call, a note, a pat on the back. You can salute people you know or even people you don't know who are standing for biblical ideals.

Giving people a Barnabas Salute is an encouragement to them. But guess what, it's an encouragement to you too.

"The Barnabas Salute," #109 from the Making a Difference program. Originally recorded April 25, 1994.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 16 November 2010

Recently constructed homes are smaller than their predecessors. In fact, they buck a trend that’s been headed toward bigger-is-better since the 1950s.

The average size home in 1950 was 983 square feet. We’re more than twice that today, even with recent cutbacks.

The median size of a home in 2007 was 2,300 square feet. That’s median, the mid-point. A lot of homes topped 10,000 and in celebrity or other show-homes 20,000 plus square feet is common. This has happened despite the fact that the average size family has steadily declined, and these statistics don’t take into account those families that maintain two, three, and even four homes, cottages, condos, or flats.

While there’s nothing intrinsically wrong, as near as I can tell, with building a large home if you can afford it, people even with means are beginning to scale down their McMansions.

In 2010, the median size home being built has dropped to 2,100 square feet. But given the recession, many builders are now responding to consumer desire for even smaller homes between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet.

Sarah Susanka, the author of The Not So Big House, says even multiple bathrooms are passé. At least for the middle class, it seems that, for now, the day of Big Houses has gone the way of Big Hair.

What I find particularly interesting is the return of the front porch. The larger, “sit-able” front porch and detached, hidden garage are now in demand, as opposed to small front stoops and attached garages with two-car doors dominating the house front. For years I’ve watched and wondered what attracted people to houses with minimal-to-no front yards, huge garage doors, and small walkways around corners to almost hidden front doors. You might as well have put a sign on the front of the house saying, “We’re car people and we don’t really want to connect personally with neighbors.”

A lot of variables are encouraging the new trend to smaller homes with front porches: the recession, energy prices, two-worker families who spend relatively little time at home, reconsideration of what suburbia means if it offers cookie-cutter houses hidden behind fences, a nostalgic yearning for the perceived benefits of small town life, and an emerging desire for a return of human scale, an alternative to life in the urban jungle. If one has to work in the alienating rat race maybe at home one can find some sense of meaning and perspective.

In this postmodern age when everything is up for grabs, people are looking for anything that offers them a sense of stability, solace, and meaning. This is true in religion, the related but less defined search for “spirituality,” the professions, marriage and family.

It’s like we’ve rejected—

--the 50s as naïve,

--the 60s as chaotic free-for-all that turned out not to be free after all,

--the 70s as plastic and incoherent,

--the 80s as greedy,

--the 90s as sensitivity run amok, and

--the new millennial 00s as fear, anxiety, and loss of our confidence in who we once were, loss of our way, and loss of hope.

In the extreme, all that’s left is emotional surrender running to nihilism or denial running to hedonism. That sounds like an exaggeration, but I said “in the extreme.” Not everyone is ready to jump off a bridge or bury themselves in bacchanalia.

Still, certain cultural inclinations are visible and they affect our politics. As a nation we seem to have lost faith in our founding values, we don’t know who we are, we don’t agree on who we want to be, and so we don’t know where we’re going, much less how to get there. Doesn’t matter if it’s Democrats or Republicans, no one seems to be able to articulate a clear and resonant vision for the future.

I know this is a lot to glean from trends toward smaller houses with larger front porches. But rather than become morose I prefer to look for signs of renewal in the human spirit. I'm hoping we're trying to right ourselves, re-centering the bubble in our cultural level.

I like the trend toward smaller houses with larger front porches and detached, somewhat hidden garages. Along the way, I hope we rediscover and recover a lot more worthy small town, uniquely American values.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 15 November 2010

Traveling is fun—for a while. Or, if your sweetie is with you. But go away from home too long and you start hallucinating. And you become adept at all manner of travel folkways, tricks, and weasely moves to better your position.

You learn to identify seats in airports where it’s least likely someone will sit near you while initiating unnaturally loud cell phone conversations. You know which hotel chain has the best Internet service. You know which flights to book a window seat and which to be sure you get the aisle—and you never book a middle seat.

You know in which region of the country, or for that matter which country, to say “pop,” which to say “soda,” and which to say “Coke Lite” rather than “Diet Coke.” Same goes for “cream” in your coffee—the rest of the world says “milk” and doesn’t know what you mean if you say “cream.”

I find it ironic and amusing that as I write this in a Starbucks in Cupertino, California, the Bee Gees' "Lonely Days, Lonely Nights, Where Would I Be Without My Woman?" is playing in the background.

Well, when you’ve been on the road too long, one or more of these 12 signals suggest it’s over-time to go home:

*You understand more about registration check-in/out than the average hotel clerk.

*Your collection of little shampoos, conditioners, and lotions rivals Procter & Gamble.

*You finally figure out how the shower really works.

*You don’t mind sitting on hold for an hour with an airline to change a flight to get home a day sooner.

*You’re recognized by the teenage sub-meister at Subway.

*You actually miss that silly cat.

*You can’t remember state laws pertaining to cell-phone-use-while-driving because you can’t remember what state you’re in, and whatever state it is, the law’s different from the state you were in yesterday.

*You get tired of drinking coffee from a cardboard cup.

*You have to install a new roll of toilet paper in your hotel bathroom.

*You call and say, “It’s me,” and your wife says “Who?”

*Your list of states where you’ve gotten a speeding or other traffic violation just got longer.

*You run out of clean underwear.

Homeward bound
I wish I was
Homeward bound
Home, where my thought's escaping
Home, where my music's playing
Home, where my love lies waiting
Silently for me

--Lyrics by Simon and Garfunkel.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 13 November 2010

Some things learned at the Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding 25^th Anniversary and the Global Faith Forum (sponsored by Northwood Church, Keller, TX), November 10-13, 2010:

-Lifetime effort in Bible study “to rescue truth from familiarity” ~ Dr. Kenneth E. Bailey.

-Any current interpretation of the text must be held “tentatively final,” meaning we’re always open to learning more ~ Dr. Kenneth E. Bailey.

-Being “Pro-Palestinian” is not the same as being “Anti-Israeli”—Evangelical Christians need to be visible and supportive on both sides of this national-ethnic divide.

-We need to include in the dialogue the whole family of Abraham.

-We need to create a non-polarizing language about being “Pro-Jesus,” “Pro-Palestinian” or “Pro-Arab,” “Pro-Jewish,” “Pro-Nonviolence,” and “Pro-Peace.”

-Some suggested that American Christians need a primer on the Middle East – we don’t get it.

-Or we need a “Pastors’ Toolkit” for leading discussions about the Middle East.

-There are 15 million Latino Evangelicals in the United States – their issue is immigration.

-We live in the “golden age of advocacy” in that one person can reach one million instantly online.

-It’s easy for internationals to become dependent upon the West for help, but this is not always best for them or the West. Need to help develop leadership in the Church in the Middle East.

-Jesus must be the center of all our work. He means more than conversion. He is hope for the hopeless. He is the only one who can create a future for humanity that’s worth living. He can bring real justice, real peace.

-Christians need to speak up more often and more pointedly challenging fellow-Christians who advocate violence or other negative responses to people in the Middle East and elsewhere.

-God said, “Love your enemy,” so we must not ever reinforce violence in any form.

-The media focuses upon the loudest and often the most extreme voices within a movement, thus creating and perpetuating stereotypes, which can create grossly inaccurate perspectives within the public.

-Negative stereotypes foster a toxicity across divisions.

-WASP = "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" or "Wealthy, Alienated, Separated, Protected"?

-Young people want authenticity, faith reality, living-out faith, service…they want to see real faith in action.

-“The right to believe anything does not mean anything people believe is right” ~ Os Guinness.

-“The art of after-dinner speaking is the act of speaking in someone else’s sleep” ~ Os Guinness.

-Os Guinness: Key question—“How will we live with the deep differences in the world?” – 3 corollary questions”-

1--Will Islam modernize peacefully and be a force for peace?

2--Which faith will replace Marxism/Communism?

3--Will the West recover its foundations?

-Guinness: There will never be one way fits all for relating religion to public life. Each country and culture has to figure it out, but there are three types--

--Sacred Public Square – Established churches or dominating religious participation…Religious Right, England and Anglican Church, Europe.

--Naked Public Square – Secular, all religions excluded as private or as a problem…France, Soviets, Communist Countries, Ataturk in Turkey, US leaning toward French model.

--Civil Public Square – Public life where everyone of every faith free to engage on basis of faith with clear understanding of rights, respect, and responsibility toward all faiths…Guinness’s view.

-Civil Public Square not a way to compromise faith, very different from “inter-faith dialogue,” which promotes unity over all religious differences. But there is no common denominator. There never will be; there are irreducible religious differences in beliefs and these need not be compromised in a free society in free discourse.

-Freedom of Speech is a right of believers, not a right of certain beliefs that must be protected above all others with special political correctness or tolerance measures or hate speech legislation. Freedom of conscience protects believers, not all ideas as sacrosanct or untouchable. Ironically, the Left supports restrictive, protective legislation that undermine the freedom of conscience they believe in. The Right argue in ways that do not align with the Founding Fathers and also tend to undermine a truly free society.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 13 November 2010

News from France this week is a noticeable increase in advertisements offering home repair or other similar services in return for “hugs.” What this really means, of course, is trading or bartering work for sex.

The idea is that because of the global recession people have less discretionary income to care for necessary home or related upgrades. So enterprising skilled workers are offering home fixes for “tender moments,” “saucy evenings,” etc. Why wouldn’t women jump at this great deal? Apparently some do.

Pundits are debating whether this new online trend is a form of prostitution or just an old practice made more widely available and openly evident over the Internet. Others consider it simply another form of entrepreneurship, tapping into ones “sexual capital” in order to “purchase” what one needs.

Of course the basic idea of people trading or leveraging sex in return for something, or vice versa, is as old as humanity. It’s not new. Online ads are just a new application of an old transaction, whether fully willing or not on the part of both parties involved.

Morally and socially, though, there’s much to critique. Nothing in religious let alone Christian teaching would suggest sex bartering is acceptable or wise. Socially, the practice indicates once again the degree to which particularly Western culture has turned sex into a commodity. The human body and its sexual capacity are merely things to be used for personal gain. Relationships aren’t relationships at all, just encounters. And another worry: whether moral turpitude or social shallowness or both these transactions open the door to more STDs.

Morally speaking from a Christian perspective, whether monetized or bartered, sex for hire or compensation cannot be justified. It makes no difference how sex is traded or sold, if it’s outside the bounds of monogamous marriage, it violates God’s moral will.

One is tempted to say something like, “Well, it’s the French. Enough said." But this isn’t fair to the French or accurate regarding the rest of the world. Sexual commodification is now a global problem. Witness huge worldwide increases, including in the United States, of sex trafficking. Bartering sex for services is just another way for contemporary culture to commit sexual suicide.

Subcategories