Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 22 August 2010

Len Galloway went to be with the Lord last evening. I’ll miss him because Sarah and I count Len and Orpha among our best of friends.

The Lord blessed Len with a very long and good life, an especially good wife, and three sons and their families, all of whom live nearby. Near the end he did not suffer and he slipped away as quietly and easily as perhaps one can. This, too, is a gift of God.

I will always remember Len in a quite personal way. Len and I talked at length about Christian decision-making, worldview, religion and politics, and culture. Because of those conversations he kept after me for years to write a book about Christian liberty. I finally did. In the book’s Acknowledgements I cited Len’s persistence, saying “In our relationship over more than ten years, every time I saw the man—and I do mean every time—he asked me about the status of this book. Then he’d encourage, beg, cajole, and “threaten” me to get it completed because he so deeply believed the Christian community is being needlessly torn apart by disagreements in the culture wars. Len, your confidence and dogged determination were something I needed. Thank you.” I appreciated Len then and I still appreciate him now for that support.

While we are a generation younger, age never seemed to make much difference in our friendship, partly because for many years Orpha served as Dr. Galloway at Cornerstone University where I also worked. And Sarah and Orpha became walking buddies and confidantes. We were privileged to travel together to exotic places like Hawaii and Cancun, and Sarah traveled additional times with them when Orpha led Chancel Singers tours or the two of them led university friends’ bus trips to various parts of the country.

Len will be missed by a wonderful and faithful wife and his extended family and friends. But it’s good to know he’s with the Lord and to have experienced Len’s one final good example. As his time neared, and he knew it, Len showed us how to wait for the Lord’s timing, trust Him, and then meet Him in faith and peace.

You were a good man and a good friend, Len. We’ll see you again someday.

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: 24 August 2010

I am pleased to announce that God has blessed me with the appointment as President of SAT-7 USA, based in Easton, Maryland, which is the American promotion and fundraising arm of SAT-7, based in Nicosia, Cyprus, a Christian satellite television ministry producing quality indigenous programming by and for people of the Middle East and North Africa. I will begin full-time with SAT-7 USA August 24, 2009.

Sat-7 was founded in 1995 by veteran British missions expert Mr. Terry Ascott, who continues as International CEO. SAT-7 is governed by an International Board of Directors comprised of individuals from more than ten countries and SAT-7 USA is governed by an affiliated U.S. Board of Directors. About 100 employees work for the ministry, located primarily in the Middle East. Approximately twelve staff members work for SAT-7 USA and some staff members work in Europe and specifically in the United Kingdom.

SAT-7 supports four 24/7 channels in three languages: SAT-7 Arabic, SAT-7 Kids (Arabic), SAT-7 PARS (Farsi), and most recently, TURK-7. SAT-7 maintains studios in Beirut, Lebanon and Cairo, Egypt.

Programming is Christian, culturally sensitive, non-political and non-partisan, and non-denominational. Amazingly, SAT-7 has been able to produce its programming at an annual cost of about $1 per viewer. More than 50% of people in the Middle East and North Africa have access to satellite television, and the broadcast signal cannot be economically or in most cases technologically blocked. In some countries covering 7 time zones in the SAT-7 viewing area, satellite access is much higher. A conservative estimate suggests 10-12 million viewers watch SAT-7 on a regular basis. Countries reached by SAT-7 include: Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and more.

I will travel extensively with the ministry throughout the United States and generally several times per year to the Middle East, either to participate in staff and board meetings or to host donors supporting the ministry. Sarah and I are not planning to move from Grand Rapids, Michigan at this time.

During the past six months, on behalf of The Timothy Group, I was privileged to serve as Interim Executive Director for SAT-7 USA. My new email address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 August 2010

Dr. Michael E. Wittmer’s new book, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough, Zondervan (2008), is a well-written examination and evaluation of the frontiers of evangelical Christian thought. Wittmer tackles questions emerging from those who yearn for a “new kind of Christian,” among them pastor/writers like Brian McLaren. To avoid confusion with other terms, Wittmer calls these individuals “postmodern innovators,” yet demonstrates a profound respect throughout his book for those with whom he disagrees.

Wittmer’s chapters are developed from these questions, which he answers, making the deeper theological and philosophical topics presented easier to grasp. Wittmer notes how the pendulum on the perimeter of evangelicalism is swinging from a concern for right doctrine to a concern for right living. Then he asks, Why does one have to replace the other? He demonstrates why belief is still critical to the Christian faith and argues that while faith without works is dead, so works without faith do not work.

Wittmer is Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and is a bright, young star on the conservative evangelical horizon. His first book, Heaven Is A Place On Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters To God, Zondervan (2004), is still doing well and both books call Christians to an understanding of the Bible and life practice more faithful to God’s Word. Both books are well worth the cost and the time to read them.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 August 2010

For the next few months, I will serve as the Interim Executive Director of SAT-7 USA, a satellite television ministry producing quality Christian programming for Arabic peoples in the Middle East and North Africa.

This means The Timothy Group, for whom I work as Vice President, has developed a consulting relationship with SAT-7 USA (actually, TTG, via my friend and fellow consultant Derric Bakker, has been working with SAT-7 USA in fund development for the past year and one-half) wherein we provide the ministry with short-term leadership. SAT-7 USA’s full-time Executive Director recently departed. My role as Interim will be to assist the fine professionals working at SAT-7 in maintaining momentum and preparing the organization for an anticipated search for a new, permanent Executive Director. I’ll serve in this capacity for as long as the SAT-7 USA Board and The Timothy Group deem it helpful.

If you click this link: http://www.sat7usa.org/, then click “News and Events,” then “News,” you’ll find an announcement about my work with SAT-7 USA. This is the U.S. website. SAT-7 offers several other websites, including in Arabic, which you may discover if you Google SAT-7 (sometimes listed as SAT7).

Founded in 1995, SAT-7’s U.S. headquarters is located in Easton, Maryland and the ministry maintains production studios in Cyprus, Egypt, and Lebanon. SAT-7’s mission is to share the person and message of Christ via satellite television with Arabic peoples in the 10-40 window. SAT-7 produces quality content that is evangelical and evangelistic. God has blessed the ministry with hundreds, even thousands, of contacts with Arabic people who have learned about Christianity, been encouraged, or accepted Christ because they heard the truth in their homes on satellite television.

During the last week of January, I’ll travel to North Carolina to meet with Derric and SAT-7 USA board members, then to Maryland to meet staff members. During the last week of February, I’ll likely fly to Cyprus for SAT-7’s annual international management meeting. I’d appreciate, and I’m sure SAT-7 USA would value, your prayers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 August 2010

Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards’s admitted affair reintroduces a recurring pattern—political leaders trying to recoup their public reputations in the wake of poor personal choices.

Edwards, like several who’ve gone before him, lied repeatedly before owning his indiscretions. Now he’s making the familiar round of talk shows and news outlets purportedly “coming clean” with a series of mea culpas.

New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevy and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both lost their public office because of sexual scandals. The Reverend Jesse Jackson lost some of his moral credibility as a social activist because he fathered a child in an extra-marital affair. President John F. Kennedy didn’t live to see his extra-marital White House affairs exposed to the public, but his legacy suffers because of them.

When it comes to questionable character in a leader President Bill Clinton is Exhibit A. During his second term he endured the nation’s second presidential impeachment trial, racked up millions in legal fees, and was disbarred because he lied under oath—which all started in the scandal of his “inappropriate relationship” with a White House intern.

President Clinton’s hubris in conducting an affair in or near the Oval Office, ambiguous definitions of words like “sexual relations” and “is,” glib lies to the American people, and squandered political leadership opportunities presented us once again with a leadership question.

Do a leader’s private choices inevitably affect his or her public actions? Politicians, pundits, and professors debated whether it’s possible for a leader to act with such mind-bogglingly questionable judgment privately while acting with astute judgment publicly.

In the United States historically, private character and public action were considered inextricably linked. Yet at the time of President Clinton’s impeachment, some 70% of the American people did not want Congress to pursue the matter. So the Senate’s vote during the trial fell short of conviction and President Clinton was spared the ignominy of being bounced from office.

Whatever your thoughts on the outcome of this trial, we can say that the American people’s inclination to separate private from public character is a choice with consequences not yet fully understood. The lasting ripple effects of the Clinton affair only history will tell. But it’s neither a partisan comment nor a cheap shot to say that the impact of one leader’s poor character choices can greatly and negatively affect a nation—or an organization.

But what kind of poor character choices should cause us to disqualify a person from leadership? Where do you draw the line? According to the present American mindset private sexual immorality is apparently O.K., but what private character choices are not O.K. for a leader or potential leader, particularly in public office?

President Clinton, for example, was not a traitorous man. He was not an autocrat or a murderer. He did good things in office, even as a sexually immoral man. He is charismatic and many people like him. Some people seem to like him because he’s a rogue. So his “not-so-bad-just-like-the-rest-of-us” immorality tends to be written off with softer words like antics or peccadilloes. But still, the problem remains. Which character fault lines in a leader’s heart should give us pause? What about a candidate for office who’s known or shown to be a congenital liar?

What about a leadership candidate who admits to illegal behavior but explains it away as one of his or her “youthful indiscretions”? Allow me to say it again, where do you draw the line? Should private morality be ignored? How does a political leader (or you or me) separate his or her moral being into private and public personas?

From a Christian perspective, the short answer is “You can’t.” Yet that’s what our culture now seems to believe. You see? It’s tough. We’re all sinners. Any of us who are leaders or leader-aspirants have already established a record of wrong choices in our lives. We’re human. We were born in sin and we’ve committed varying levels of wrong-doing ever since.

We know it’s impossible to select perfect leaders because there are no perfect people, so we work with a sliding scale. We place character choices (often subconsciously) on a continuum running from Acceptable-to-Unacceptable. Where a character choice sits on that continuum varies based upon our cultural values at a given point in time. Before President Ronald Reagan, for example, candidates for the highest office in the land were not taken seriously if they’d ever been divorced. Now it doesn’t seem to matter.

We know that good and bad behavior exists and, consequently, we know that good and bad leaders exist. But as a culture we sometimes struggle with where one fades into the other.

How do you recognize bad leaders? They lack integrity. They allow fundamental flaws to fester in their character. These flaws are not the vague “He’s struggling with his demons” you read about in the press, as if something or someone else is responsible. No, these flaws are sinful attitudes and behaviors sprung from the leader’s own hearts.

There’s generally a pattern of wrong moral choices in a bad leader’s character. Bad leaders don’t tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Bad leaders live for their own self-aggrandizement. They take from rather than grow with the people. Bad leaders’ lives and leadership are a running story of ethical lapses and duplicity.

Bad leaders always exact a price from their nation or their organization. They can destroy in a matter of months what took years to build.

In the Old Testament book of Proverbs, God reminds us that, “when the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (29:2). Good leaders and good leadership are a blessing. Bad leaders and bad leadership are a curse.

Long after President Gerald R. Ford’s administration, former Senator Alan Simpson summarized well the importance of a leader’s character when he introduced Mr. Ford at Harvard University. Simpson said, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”

The continuum of Acceptable to Unacceptable character choices we tolerate in our leaders is a picture of how Americans think about values, character, and leadership. It’s not necessarily a trustworthy guide for how God thinks about these matters. Nor should it be our standard because in Christian terms good enough is not good enough.

God’s moral standard for leadership is high. He said, “from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

*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 him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 24 August 2010

The Shack, by William P. Young, has taken the country by storm – to date selling more than one million copies largely on the strength of word-of-mouth marketing. It’s a novel about a man’s encounter with God while he attempts to deal with “The Great Sadness” that has entered his life. The sadness is the loss of his child.

The Shack is a publishing phenomenon (beginning with a $200 marketing budget and books shipped from a friend’s garage) and has so far generated more than one thousand book reviews on Amazon’s website, and probably as many critiques, both positive and negative. The latter range from reviews citing a few questions about the book to reviews alleging new age conspiracies, or worse. Clearly, many evangelical theologians are genuinely concerned about whether the book promotes universalism in terms of salvation, false views of the Trinity, under-developed views of God, and several other theological issues.

I’ll offer a few comments, but first, a reminder. Remember that the act of publishing is an act inviting response. You may write and never publish, so your writing remains private and personal. But to publish is by definition to make known, to share, to broadcast, and to invite readers and responders. So if you’re thin-skinned, don’t publish.

In a lofty but important sense, the opportunity to publish is an exercise of freedom of speech. We live, God be praised, in a free country, so we may speak openly, freely, and often. In addition, The Shack is a publication dealing with religious ideas, so the author not only benefits from freedom of speech but also freedom of religion.

Consequently, to discuss or even possibly to disagree with content in The Shack is not a threatening or unwarranted action. To discuss The Shack is an opportunity to participate in the exercise of the most precious ideals of a free, pluralistic, and democratic society. This we should celebrate even as we critique not the person but the merits of his ideas.

Comment One: Now, what do I think of The Shack? I was not offended by the book, but I didn’t like it much either. This admission says more about my reading preferences than it does the merits of this book. Though my reading habits are eclectic this kind of fiction is not what I typically enjoy reading.

Comment Two: The book is an allegory, a fictional metaphor, like Aesop’s Fables, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, or C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia. It’s an attempt to help people understand something about God via a story written from an angle and featuring characters that are, to say the least, not traditional, common, or expected.

Since this book is fiction, and unlike authors of The DaVinci Code or The Celestine Prophecy, Young never claims The Shack is anything other than fiction, we might try to lighten up. In other words, jeremiads are not in order. A number of Christians are over-reacting. The Shack will follow a pattern, here for a little while then fade. Certainly The Shack is less spiritually or theologically threatening than books like Mitch Albom’s The Five People You Meet in Heaven, which is spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

Comment Three: The Shack is a theodicy, an examination of the problem of evil, an attempt to convey a theology of pain and suffering relative to the existence of a just God, like the Old Testament Book of Job. One of the reasons Young’s book has sold so many copies is that it strikes a chord with people who’ve suffered loss – and who, if they’ve lived long enough, hasn’t suffered loss? The book also strikes a chord via its interesting and engaging story in a time when people are looking for something soothing in the face of global terror, economic volatility, and numerous social pathologies, from random violence to rampant substance abuse and more.

Comment Four: But I have some quibbles with the book, for example, the legend of the beautiful Indian maid, the Multnomah Princess (pp. 27-31). In the book you’ll find the following (slightly abridged here) dialogue:

“Is the story true?”

“I don’t know, Kate. It’s a legend and sometimes legends are stories that teach a lesson.”

“So, it didn’t really happen?”

“It might have sweetie. Sometimes legends are built on real stories, things that really happen.”

“So is Jesus dying a legend?”

“No, honey, that’s a true story; and do you know what? I think the Indian princess story is probably true too.”

I know this book is fiction, but I do not like the fact that the author equates the redemption story of Scripture with pagan ideas about human sacrifice. No human being, no matter his or her noble motive, can sacrifice himself or herself for the sins of others. To believe this is to embrace paganism.

Sure, we know many stories of heroic self-sacrifice, to the point of giving life for one’s loved ones, but these stories do not result in someone’s eternal soul salvation. And they only involve physical healing in the sense that the hero was able to reach some form of essential medical help necessary to spare the afflicted.

No, human beings cannot sacrifice themselves for the sins of others and to place the Bible’s redemptive story on an equivalent level with a legend is not accurate or wise. This is one reason The Shack is not a good book for the theologically uninitiated, for new Christians, or for non-believers seeking spiritual truth. Young’s portrayal of Christ and of God is incomplete and at best inconsistent.

Comment Five: I also did not agree with characterization of politics, economics, religion, religious activity, and patriotism as just so many humanly-devised systems that control and trap us (thus bad, evil, or to be avoided?), while freedom in Christ liberates us from all these things (pp. 179-181). This is the author’s way of explaining “in the world, not of the world,” but he offers the old sacred/secular dichotomy. A biblical worldview encompasses all these systems, which God ordained and which are no more evil in themselves than money is evil. People’s sin is what taints these systems. People’s right actions before God are what can develop them for God’s glory. Young’s perspective sounds like the traditional-but-theologically erroneous campfire song, “This world is not my home. I’m just a passin’ through…”

Comment Six: I especially did not like the Jesus character’s rejection of the word “Christian” (p. 182). This is problematic at best and makes no sense to me. It is confusing, biblically askew in its conjecture, and simply unnecessary. The followers of Christ were first called Christians at Antioch and it is a worthy and still-accurate term.

Comment Seven: The Shack is questionable in other ways as well. It suggests we can see the afterlife and talk with the dead, that uncertainty is preferable to certainty (a key element of postmodern thought but one human beings simply cannot live with or live by), that what really matters is God loves everyone—not who God is, what he expects of us, who we are in sin, how we must confess, and how we may be redeemed. In the end, the story is warm and fuzzy but it’s not biblical Christianity, not genuine theodicy, and not an allegory worthy of listing alongside Pilgrim’s Progress or The Chronicles of Narnia.

Concluding Comment: All this said, I am not apoplectic about this book. You can find compelling thoughts about God and humanity in this book, ones from which we can learn. But this book is not one I’d recommend to a person unfamiliar with the Bible, at least not implying this book presents a full or accurate picture of God or biblical Christianity.

I do think that people who have criticized book stores for carrying The Shack are off-base. Conservative Christians too often look for someone else to do their thinking for them. A Christian book store, just like a Christian university or a church, is not and cannot be held accountable (though some may try) for the fact that individual Christians too often abrogate their own responsibility before God to do their own thinking and make spiritually discerning moral choices. Just like with the rest of life, you and I must decide what it means to be “In the World, Not of the World.”

Subcategories