Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 April 2025

Being caught in a bait and switch is not pleasant, so its disconcerting to think many Americans are unaware that they are being duped by climate change, BLM, Planned Parenthood, and other initiatives or organizations.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #204 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.

“Bait and switch” is a regularly used stratagem of the American political experience, poised to mislead the uninformed or unaware. It’s happening in the climate change hysteria, it happened with the organization BLM, it’s happened with Planned Parenthood, and a lot more.

“Bait and switch” is a term for a deceptive tactic, usually in sales or marketing, where someone advertises a product or service at a very attractive price (the "bait") to draw people in, but then, once they are interested, tries to sell them something more expensive or different (the "switch").

"Bait and switch" can also describe situations where someone's expectations are intentionally set one way but then changed — like in relationships, politics, or even storytelling. For example: A store advertises a TV for $100, but when you go there, they say that model is "sold out" and pressure you to buy a $500 TV instead. Or someone creates an online dating profile presenting themselves very differently (using flattering or fake pictures and descriptions) to attract attention.

Some people consider “bait and switch” false advertising. The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act empowers the FTC to take action against businesses that advertise a product or service with no real intention of providing it or an intent to push customers toward a different (more expensive) option.

Companies can be hit with huge fines, reputation damage, and forced refunds. For example, in 2016, Volkswagen advertised its diesel cars as "clean" and "environmentally friendly," baiting eco-conscious buyers. But it was later discovered they had installed software to cheat emissions tests — the cars were actually polluting way more than advertised. VW eventually paid billions in fines, buybacks, and compensation.

But in politics, at least recently, it seems like tolerance for misleading narratives is higher or even accepting and intentional. Borrowed from sociology, the old maxim still applies: “things are not always what they seem.”

My fear is that many people do not know what’s under the surface of given political initiatives, so they end up supporting or defending something for apparent values while the initiative proponents move forward with entirely different purposes.

Climate Change is one of the worst wolves in sheep’s clothing being touted by the left, liberal elites, and major media and entertainment. I’ve addressed climate change before in this podcast, or rather what’s now called “climate porn,” irrationality regularly pedaled by major news networks and many of the world’s leading politicians and celebrities.

In those podcasts, Climate Change: The Sky is Falling, Climate Change Now a Culture of Death, and Climate Change Threats to Freedom, I noted that certain political initiatives are embedded in the climate change movement, which feature values that run counter either to a Christian worldview or to traditional American values, among them,

Anti-humanity.
God is irrelevant, unless the earth is the deity.
Anti-truth or genuine science.
Anti-free enterprise or anti-capitalism.
Look to government as the source salvation and utopia.

The irony is in their grab for power climate change activists are now saying, in essence, to save the earth for humanity, we have to get rid of a lot of human beings. This is what I meant when I called climate change a culture of death.

The so-called U.S. “Climate Czar,” John Kerry, “tipped his hand, saying, ‘The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’ Kerry is giving us a peak at the anti-family, anti-human culture of death now motivating climate elites.”

Climate change activists channel the old Malthusian idea “the theory that population growth is potentially exponential…while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline.” Never mind that Malthusianism has long been discredited, climate change activists are now calling for the depopulation of the earth.

What we need to understand is that “climate change is the Left's religion.”

People like paid activist Greta Thunberg, the likes of Bill Gates, Joe Biden, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, King Charles III, the UN General Secretary, and the ever-opportunist Al Gore all promote climate change policies that trade liberty for globalist government.

But if indeed the Sovereign God is in charge, and he is, what should we think about life on planet earth? The shepherd psalmist told us: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging” Ps. 46:2-3.

Under the guise of combating climate change, proponents of globalism seek to impose restrictions on personal behavior, curtail freedom of speech, and expand the reach of government into every facet of our lives. In this brave new world envisioned by globalist ideologues, the rights of the individual are sacrificed on the altar of collective salvation.

BLM, meaning “Black Lives Matter” the organization, is another bait and switch. Now it is important to note here that I am talking about the organization, not the concept cited in the ingenious name of the organization. Who but a hater is going to say they do not think black people’s lives matter? Of course, black people’s lives matter because they are human beings created in the image of God and, like all lives matter, certainly black lives matter too.

But BLM the organization is anti-nuclear family, promotes abortion, is anti-Christian, promotes LGBTQ+, and at bottom propagates a racial view of history and racist attitude toward all who are not black, especially those who are white. And there are several cases alleging fraud in the use of donated funds.

BLM sucked in a lot of unsuspecting people who genuinely care about racial justice or non-discrimination, but this organization is a long way from what Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

BLM is a charade, bilking people in the name of justice while using funds to divide, sow racial animus, and attack the American values that made liberty and justice for all a possibility in the first place.

Planned Parenthood is another bait and switch organization. In the name of healthcare for women, it promotes, indeed it makes tens of millions of dollars, conducting abortions, selling body parts, destroying black culture, and undermining the American family.

Historical data indicates that Planned Parenthood affiliates received approximately $1.54 billion in Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP payments from 2019 through 2021. This suggests that Medicaid reimbursements continue to be a significant source of funding for the organization.

Also, in 2022, non-Hispanic Black women accounted for 39.5% of all reported abortions in the United States. This is notably disproportionate, considering that Black individuals comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population. The abortion rate for Black women was 24.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, the highest among all racial groups.

So, I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, that this organization should receive no government funds whatsoever.

Other bait and switch frauds are at work in our society: until recently, the DEI or “woke” tsunamis inundated schools and much of corporate and government America under the guise of racial social justice. But what we got was more racism and division and a destruction of meritocracy.

Some consider the United Nations a bait and switch, that is a purported organization dedicated to the promotion of cooperation internationally. But what it has been in recent decades is more often anti-Israel, anti-capitalism, anti-American leftist initiatives, which meanwhile is presented to us as the last bastion of hope for peace and prosperity. But in reality, not so much.

“Bait and switch” is a long-standing if not time-honored practice because deception is rooted in the heart of every human being. It’s one reason in economics we’re warned by the old maxim, “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware.

We need to think, to discern, to identify values and initiatives that operate contrary to a healthy, realistic, rational Christian or perhaps conservative worldview.

We need to be like the Old Testament men “Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” 1 Chron 12:32.

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 rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

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

*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 www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 21 April 2025

If anything proves human beings are not omniscient, it’s the questions civilizations debated for centuries, like, are tomatoes poisonous or passion-inducing?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #203 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.

Human history is replete with scores of arcane, often inane questions that have caused debates and arguments, fear, and fights leading to death. No human culture, subgroup, or nationality is without a list of what we now often consider laughable, idiotic, or irrational questions that once created controversy for decades, even centuries. Let’s list a few.

Did Adam have a belly button? This is rooted in theological debates about whether God created the first man and woman, who had no prior need for a belly button, or whether he created them with bodily realism as all human beings would be thereafter. A similar question: will resurrected bodies in heaven have belly buttons?

Are tomatoes poisonous? For nearly three hundred years people in most of Europe avoided tomatoes, except in Italy where tomatoes were considered an aphrodisiac called “love apples” capable of stirring dangerous lusts, so rather than avoid tomatoes, Italians just said, “Pass the sauce.”

Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?

Is God inside time or outside of it, meaning is time linear for God such that he cannot foretell the future?

A medieval favorite – how many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

If you replace every part of a ship, piece by piece, is it still the same ship?

How big are fairies?

Did the Virgin Mary experience labor pains?

Is infinity a real, usable concept, or a paradoxical mess? Mathematicians literally lost their minds over this. One troubled mathematician, Cantor, ended up institutionalized, partly due to the strain.

Is white bread better than or morally superior to brown bread? This was not just culinary — it became a moral and class issue. Eighteenth–Nineteenth Century philosophers argued over whether refined white bread was luxurious and corrupting, or whether it was the “ideal” food of the elite. White bread was considered rich, refined, elegant. Brown bread was considered coarse, peasant, “earthy.”

But some reformers flipped the script: White bread was called “devitalized” and dangerous. Brown bread became a moral virtue food. Result of all this: “bread-shaming,” class snobbery, and health fads. Aspects of this debate continue in dining rooms yet today.

What if you're not dead when they bury you? Solution? "Safety coffins" with bells, flags, breathing tubes, and windows. One doctor suggested a hammer should be used to deliver a fatal blow to the body prior to closing the casket, so they could be sure, just in case.

Should you put a comma (the so-called Oxford Comma) before the last item in a list, e.g., eggs, toast, and ham vs. eggs, toast and ham? Style guides, lawsuits, and grammatical warfare have all been waged over this. For the record, I’ve always been a use-the-Oxford Comma-guy.

In the 17^th Century, do dogs understand Latin better than the vernacular? If you train a dog with Latin commands, does it understand you better than if you use English or French? At that time, Latin was considered a "noble" or "divine" language, so maybe dogs would respond better? But alas, dogs didn’t seem interested in this theological debate.

Can laundry day affect the weather? This question motivated people in the 1700s–1800s. Some people genuinely believed hanging laundry could cause it to rain — either as a form of bad luck or as a type of magical-meteorological provocation. Others swore laundry was guaranteed to bring sun — thus causing turf wars among neighbors.

Do socks have a natural foot (Left/Right)? As machine-made clothing became popular in the 1800s industrial era, people debated: should socks be symmetrical, or should they have specific left and right designs? Some swore that undifferentiated socks were “an insult to the foot’s divine architecture.” This escalated into patent fights and sock manifestos.

Another one from the 18th–19th centuries: Can you become sick from reading novels? Doctors and moralists thought excessive novel-reading (especially by women) caused hysteria, fainting, disobedience, “overheating of the imagination” Their recommended treatment: more housework and less fiction. Yes, really. Clearly, more men were debating this than women.

More for women: can women be rational? In other words, are women capable of reason or are they governed by emotion? This argument runs from antiquity through the Enlightenment. Many early philosophers argued that women had weaker souls or that their uterus clouded their judgment.

Should women be educated? Does educating women improve society or destroy the social order? Arguments against: it would make them uppity; it would ruin marriage; their brains were too delicate.
Arguments for: it makes them better wives/mothers; it helps pass on culture.

Is it moral or proper for a woman to appear publicly as a stage performer? In England, women weren’t allowed to act on stage until the 1660s — female parts were played by boys. The hidden anxiety: fear women would gain public voices and agency.

"To Lace or Not to Lace?" Many women, fashion designers, etiquette writers, some doctors argued "Corsets are elegant, necessary, and morally correct." Women wore corsets to support the spine and improve posture, to create the ideal feminine silhouette, i.e., a tiny waist = high status.

Loose clothing was sometimes seen as morally suspect or “slovenly.” Corsets symbolized modesty by smoothing the figure and preventing jiggle. Opponents—early feminists, reformers, doctors, dress reform advocates—argued "corsets are dangerous, oppressive, and a literal squeeze on women's lives." Corsets were said to be health risks leading to crushed ribs, displaced organs, restricted breathing, fainting, or digestive issues. Tight lacing led to deformed pelvises and complicated pregnancies. Corsets were labeled symbols of oppression; a physical manifestation of women being shaped for the male gaze.

Post WWI when women went to the factories and by the 1920s with the emergence of the Flapper Era of loose clothing, as well as the development of other women’s undergarments, corsets largely faded into history. Flappers wore knee-length dresses (which were shocking at the time), bobbed hair and heavy makeup, danced, drank, smoked in public, often remained unmarried, independent, and working. They embodied youth, rebellion, and a desire for fun. But when the Great Depression hit in 1929, the Flapper Era also faded into history.

Can sex determine a baby’s gender? People debated this in Ancient Greece → Middle Ages → Renaissance.

Can women conceive from wind, water, or dreams? Some believed that pregnancy could result from hot baths, river spirits, or erotic dreams, especially for unmarried women.

Can too much sex make you dumb? A lot of speculation here but very little biology.

Is coffee Satanic or sacred? This question bothered people in the 1600s. Coffee was considered an energizing elixir of productivity or a demonic stimulant that corrupted souls. Some Christians called it the “Devil’s drink.” Others said it should be baptized by the Pope, which he allegedly did! The Ottoman sultans banned coffeehouses… for fomenting revolutionary thought.

Are Dragons real or metaphorical? Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden have legs? Did other snakes in the Garden of Eden, walk? Should adults drink milk? This worried the Romans to the Victorians.

How many eggs can a human safely eat in one sitting? I don’t know. Watch the first Rocky movie and ask Rocky Balboa.

What are your arcane and inane questions?

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 16 April 2025

Ever meet someone who could not seem to speak a sentence without using profanity, and then wonder why they speak this way?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #202 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.

Profanity, swearing, cussing, cursing, obscenity, vulgarity, expletives and epithets have likely existed since the dawn of time. In ancient Sumerian (one of the earliest known written languages, c. 2400 BCE), there are inscriptions that contain insults and crude language. Ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman texts include examples of vulgar or profane language. Roman graffiti in Pompeii is famously full of crude jokes, insults, and explicit language.

So, using “bad language” is nothing new. But social researchers, and our own sense of what’s happening, tell us the use of rude and crude language is increasing in American culture.

“Society norms towards profanity (sometimes referred to as vulgar, foul, or “street” language) have changed significantly since the initial audience shock of hearing Clark Gable say, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” in the 1939 film, Gone with the Wind.”

Profanity in all its taboo-breaking rebellion has now gone mainstream. And certainly, far worse than the standard “Four-letter” words, bad language now publicly features vulgarity, obscenity, scatological terms, and religious references to Jesus, Mary, and maybe the most-often used, “Oh my God,” an all-purpose phrase for shock, anger, happiness, startle reflex, or excitement.

And lazy language has become one of the “acceptable sins” in the Church. Christian people can be heard using the B-word, the S-word, and the A-word, along with a host of other crudities.

Years ago, men, especially around women, would attempt to mask verbal missteps with silly statements like, “Pardon my French.” I even heard that on Johnny Carson, but I don’t hear it anymore.

But I have heard Christians using what we used to call “bad language” on the golf course and at fancy dinners, or from the podium no less. I’ve heard it at church events, professional settings, and in restaurants and coffee cafes.

And please help me understand why some Christians, particularly from the South—sorry Southerners, but I've heard it too often—think it's OK to say "Lordy," "Oh God," "Oh my God," “Oh my Lord,” even "Jesus"? Or in case you missed it: “Lordy, Lordy, Lordy”?

One Southern friend of mine quite pointedly said “Jesus” when our mutual friend driving the car slammed the brakes at an intersection. I turned and said, “How can you say that?” His answer, “It was like a prayer.” Really? Maybe Grandma’s washing our mouth out with soap wasn’t such a bad idea.

I've challenged a couple of others along the way, and they say they "didn't mean it that way”; it’s just cultural. But sorry, I can't buy this. They use the words just like everyone else.

I’ve done a lot of media interviews. What I get in public settings never surprises me. But what I sometimes get in Christian radio and television settings still surprises me. I was talking to a Christian radio interviewer when he used God’s name in vain live on air.

Meanwhile, the Apostle Paul told us to avoid “obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place” and said, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths” (Ephesians 5:4; 4:29). Certainly, the Scripture says we should never use God’s name in vain, swearing or otherwise (Exodus 20:7; Matthew 5:34-37).

Social research and the experience of adults working with children indicate children are swearing more today than children swore in days gone by. “Cussing” is now an everyday, nearly every conversation experience, common to adolescents in all demographic subgroups.

And the intensity of children’s cussing also seems to be ramping up. “Hells” and “damns” are mundane. Elementary school children now casually and regularly use words far beyond entry-level profanity, words once voiced only by men—invective, graphic sexual imagery, scatological verbiage, expletives.

I understand why immature kids on social media input terms like OMG, meaning “Oh my God,” but I don’t understand when I see this abbreviation used in adult Christian blogs, texts, tweets, or social media. Does an abbreviation make the reference more palatable? That logic is lost on me.

Periodically, when I was a university president, I attended conferences for presidents and other upper-level academic administrators, usually held in nice hotels in other states. What never ceased to amaze me, and I witnessed it many, many times, is that the persons who used the most profanity were, sorry to say this, Catholic college and university presidents, mostly nuns but a few priests too. They even regularly used God’s name, not as prayers but as coarse, colorful emphasis that, I guess, supposedly made their comment more forceful. But how do you work for years to become a nun, then use God’s name as a curse word? I don’t get it.

A few years ago, I joined an all-male foursome playing the famed Pebble Beach golf course in California. Thinking it would please us and result in larger tips, halfway down the first fairway one of our caddies began telling really raw sex jokes. He continued onto the second green until one of our foursome pointed to me and said, “He’s a preacher.” Well, though I enjoy speaking periodically I’m not a preacher in the sense implied. But in the minds of the caddies, I apparently became the resident holy man. Because for the remaining sixteen holes I was called “Preacher,” and the caddies never told another off-color joke.

On a personal level I took language seriously years ago. It first hit me as a senior in college standing in front of an 8th grade class as a student teacher. I didn’t use harsh four-letter words or cursing, but I caught myself saying "Heck" and that was it. No more. That very day, I began to weed what some have called surrogate swear words out of my vocabulary because I wanted to model something else to students. This doesn’t make me holier-than-thou, but I’m glad I did it. There are too many good words in the English language to stoop to dumbed down pop culture.

Since then, I’ve heard Christians use other substitute coarse language, saying "Frickin" or "Freaking” or “Friggin.” They use these words in similar contexts as the real thing, even while cinema employs them as placeholders for the thus-far, X-rated term. Who are we fooling?

We all learned in 5th grade science class that water seeks its own level. Later in life we learned that people seek their own level too. With language, it can mean we pursue the lowest common denominator of communication until we sink into a verbal swamp, often just to fit into a peer group.

Cultural observation suggests that swearing in American culture has generally increased over the past several decades.

Movies and TV shows have gradually pushed the boundaries on profanity, a clear uptick in swearing.
Music, particularly in genres like hip-hop, punk, and rock, often includes explicit language—and while that's not new, it’s more mainstream now.
Streaming services (e.g., Netflix, HBO) have fewer content restrictions than network TV, allowing more profanity without censorship. “Netflix even has a series called The History of Swearing that premiered in 2021.”
The internet and social media have normalized more casual, explicit, and unfiltered language.
Society is more tolerant of informal or taboo language, especially in non-professional settings.

To be clear, using profanity is not what sends a person to hell and keeps them out of heaven. Only rejection of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ will do that.

But I suggest to you that in a culture given to coarseness, “not swearing” or “not using crude language” is one of the most powerful testimonies of faith available to us.

Our speech literally fills the air around us. If we speak differently, people will quickly recognize it.

Stating the obvious, language communicates. It speaks volumes about who we are and what we believe.

If you want to speak French, learn the real thing.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 09 April 2025

Have you ever pondered the kind of music you hear in your church, why it is used and are there other kinds of music that could or should be used?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #200 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.

As noted in the podcast, Music in Church History, music, singing, and instrumentation have varied and been debated since the days of the Early Church.

Church leaders and worshipers struggled to determine which, if any, music, singing, and instruments, were suitable for church worship, glorified God, holy or unholy in the sense of what emotions, spiritual expressions, thoughts and physical response they promoted.

In the decades and centuries following Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven, and the establishment of the Church, no instruments were permitted in church worship, and singing was limited to voices chanting Scripture in unison.

With the passage of centuries, call and response, multiple voice harmony, vernacular languages, and instrumentation were added.

More recently, we’ve experienced the so-called “Worship Wars” wherein churches divided between those who favored “traditional” hymns, most written in the last 300 years, and “contemporary Christian music,” most written since I was in high school in the late 1960s.

My service in the past 40+ years has taken me into many churches, and I grew up the son of a church pianist/organist who is still playing for our home church. Some churches position their music as strictly "contemporary," which may be OK but could deny the fellowship the opportunity for edification and enjoyment drawn from the rich, diverse, and beautiful music developed throughout the history of the Christian Church. In fact, this can perpetuate a certain ignorance among young believers regarding the musical heritage of the Church.

On the other hand, some churches still position their music as strictly non- contemporary or "traditional," usually meaning what’s called “the great hymns of the faith,” which may be OK as far as it goes but can also limit worship expression or signal lack of dynamism in the worship experience.

And this approach often fails to tap the incredible wealth of developing music in the Church universal yet today. Christian church music is not static. It is not standing still. New forms, songs, and musical expressions are being written let’s say every month.

While the so-called “Worship Wars” debating traditional and contemporary styles still persist, still other churches schedule what’s called “blended services” that combine elements of both traditional and contemporary styles. The goal is to bridge the gap between different generations or preferences within a congregation and create a unified worship experience.

In music, you’ll hear hymns played on piano, maybe even an organ, alongside contemporary worship songs led by a praise band with guitars, drums, and keyboards.
The liturgy may retain some traditional liturgical elements (like the Lord’s Prayer, responsive readings, or creeds) while also incorporating casual, modern elements like multimedia presentations or informal prayers.
Preaching styles tend to vary too, featuring a mix of expository or liturgical preaching with a more conversational, story-driven approach common in contemporary services.
Even the informal dress code may be blended, a mix of attire—some folks in suits, others in jeans—reflecting the cultural blend.

Why Churches Do Blended Services?

To honor tradition while also appealing to younger or newer generations.
To unite congregations with diverse preferences, especially in churches that have limited resources for separate services.

Is there a biblical formula, one way we must sing, use instruments, make music unto the Lord? I’d say, no, because the Word of God does not specify one kind of singing or praise, type of instrument, or form of music. But the Word most certainly says to offer praise to God with music:

“Oh, sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises! Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody! With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord” Ps 98:1,4-6.

Years ago I wrote a book entitled, Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture” (2003) – also available as an ebook, Living for God in Changing Times.

Christian liberty is summarized in 1 Cor. 6:12, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything.” And again in 1 Cor. 10:23, “All things are lawful, but not all things build up.”

In my book, I asserted that Christian liberty might be the least understood and least practiced doctrine in the Bible. I cannot prove this, but what I meant was, God gives us biblical absolutes by which we are to live our lives, and we ignore these at our own peril, like do not kill, do not commit adultery. But the Lord does not address every eventuality that can occur in our lives, because the Bible is written for all times, countries, and cultures, so he gives us principles to apply so that we can discern and make decisions that glorify God.

Music is one of those non-absolute concepts. God never said, here is the one and only holy music or instrument. Rather, he created us in his image, gave us reason and imagination, then he allowed us—actually, he commanded us—to develop culture, i.e., our way of life, again, hopefully in a manner that glorifies him.

Now, it’s sadly true, many people use their God-given gifts to develop all manner of evil things, including in and through music, but this does not make music evil.

In churches, God allows us to apply our Christian liberty in our preferences and convictions relating to music. There is nothing wrong with preferences – meaning what we like simply because we like it, and nothing wrong with convictions – meaning what we embrace because we believe Scripture directs or commands it.

There is nothing wrong with given churches holding to their music preferences or even that church developing certain music convictions. They must realize, however, that if some people do not agree, they may move on, and if done in a good spirit, there is nothing wrong with this choice either.

However, churches divide over controversy, the get in trouble, and fight among themselves when various churchgoers or leaders elevate a given style of music to a kind of holy list – in other words, this is it, any other kind of music is bad, wrong, of the Devil.

And since we are human beings, we tend to transpose that belief about a concept like music choice onto the other person – that is, we don’t simply not like that other kind of music, we don’t like that other person. This devolution into internecine culture wars has split churches, even denominations. When this happens, the church is right where the Devil, the father of deception and division, wants it to be, embroiled in a morass of conflict destroying its testimony and effectiveness in the world.

Christians would do well to recognize and apply the following principles:

God gave us music and the ability to make music, but he did not say make only this kind of music.
Christians do not answer to each other but are accountable to God for our choices.
It’s OK to hold music preferences, even convictions, and it’s OK to be different from others, but we are called upon by God to exercise our liberty in love for God and respect for others.
Music is a fine art, a preference, a universal language, a means of communication and of worshipping God, and a mirror to the soul.

Because philosophic values, time, place, culture, event, and individual mood can all cause variations in it, music is highly idiosyncratic. Our attitude toward and opinion of certain kinds of music or specific music expressions, like all the arts, must be spiritually discerned on the basis of biblical principle and Christian liberty.

Music not only can but should be discussed and debated in the church, but music should not divide the church. Informed discussion and even debate is a product of the Cultural Mandate. Division is a product of sin and a tool of Satan.

We must avoid “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” Matt 23:24.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 07 April 2025

Has it occurred to you that the music you hear today in church is not the music that churchgoers heard a millennium ago, or a century ago, or maybe a few decades ago when you were a kid?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #199 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.

"Music, like all artistic expression, is a gift of God to mankind.”

Throughout Scripture there are hundreds of references to music, instruments, praise, singing, dance, or a joyful noise.

Some specific examples include: "Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with timbrel and dancing, praise him with the strings and pipe, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!" Ps 150:3-6

"Speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord." Eph 5:19

"Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts." Col 3:16

"The trumpeters and musicians joined in unison to give praise and thanks to the Lord. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the Lord and sang: 'He is good; his love endures forever.' Then the temple of the Lord was filled with the cloud of God’s glory." 2 Chron 5:13-14

“Like any of God's gifts, music can be used for good or used for bad; it can be used in holy ways or in unholy ways; it can be a power for virtue or for vice.”

God's people in both the Old and New Testaments played musical instruments and sang in a variety of ways so that God would be praise.

Types of music, types of instruments and whether or how they are used, and the themes or focus of music in the church has varied throughout the history of the Church. And various Christian tug-o-wars if not outright battles over music have occurred throughout the history of the Church.

“Early centuries church music was quite simple, probably following some of the practices of the Jewish synagogues. Psalms were mainly sung; perhaps a few early Christian hymns and ‘spiritual songs’ outlining the basic beliefs about Jesus were added later.”

How the applications of music in the Church have progressed throughout the history of the Church is fascinating, and as I said, almost always with disagreement or controversy.

During the Early Church centuries, acapella, and “plain chanting,” were prominent. Christians sang during worship services but used no instruments. Most church fathers saw the use of instruments in worship as a ‘childish’ weakness and saw it as less glorifying to God that words of praise.

From the 1^st to 4^th Centuries, antiphonic hymns with its call-and-response technique, began to be used. Often the verses were Psalm singing or short, sung sentences such as ‘Lord, have mercy’ and ‘We lift up our hearts.’” Such call and response continues today in various church liturgies.

During the 5^th – 9^th Centuries, the Gregorian Chant became popular. This is a form of monophonic sound, meaning a single melodic line sang without accompaniment. These tranquil yet profound melodies designed to enhance the spiritual experience.

As Protestantism emerged during the Reformation, congregational singing became more important as a means of expressing faith together. Exclusive use of Latin gave way to the vernacular languages in part due to the work of the Reformers who wanted to be not-Catholic if not anti-Catholic in their practices.

By the 9^th to 12^th Centuries, polyphonic music made its way into the Church. This is two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody that we would recognize today. Harmony emerged, layers of complexity with multiple voices singing together.

Organs were, like all instruments, initially banned, then gradually they were introduced and integrated, eventually becoming synonymous with church and sacred music. Some of the greatest church music ever written and presented was played on enormous, rich, and complex pipe organs in European cathedrals.

In America, for a time organs dominated the church music scene, but the instruments were heavier, more expensive, and in some sense more challenging to learn to play than pianos. And ironically, as organs faded from church, for a time, their music found new expression in roller skating rinks, or even in rock and roll.

Today, organs have all but disappeared from church worship services. And the number of people who can actually play an organ has dwindled to a handful. In fact, if you really want to hear big-sound organs, you’ll need to go to a major league baseball park or perhaps a hockey arena.

Great Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) saw the church separate from society, so he wanted congregational singing limited to words of Scripture.

Great Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) saw the church as part of society, so he rejected formalism, urged use of vernacular, melodies, chorales of the people.

Protestant denominations, by definition being different and new and other compared to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, tended to embrace distinct musical styles, often reflective of their doctrinal emphasis and cultural context.

To get a feel for how people in the Middle Ages struggled with the place and appropriateness of music and musical instruments in the church, consider this dictum from Pope Benedict XIV (d. 1758), who declared that "ecclesiastical music must be composed in a style which differs from that of the theatre. The solo, the duet, the trio, are forbidden. While the organ was "acceptable" and stringed instruments "tolerated," the "forbidden instruments included timpani, trumpets, oboes, flutes, mandolins" and "in general, all instruments which are theatrical in character."

This illustrates how seriously the Church took the issue of music and worship and how it struggled with what God would consider worshipful and what God would bless.

What we know as the hymn movement flourished in the 16^th-19^th Centuries with composers like Isaac Watts (“When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”) and Charles Wesley (“O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing”) shaping Protestant worship.

The Second Great Awakening – 18^th-19^th C – gave rise of Gospel music, with its simple, emotional melodies aimed at evangelism, e.g., Fanny Crosby, “Blessed Assurance.” This vigorous and healthy spiritual movement continued to influence church music throughout the 19th Century, adding revival songs to church repertoires.

By the 20th-21st Centuries, praise bands, contemporary worship, and diverse musical styles made their presence known in the church – even country, pop, rock and roll, jazz, and hip hop – setting up what’s come to be called the “Worship Wars,” conflict in the church between so-called traditional and so-called contemporary worship preferences.

Disputes centered around use of Contemporary Christian Music, featuring lyrics not necessarily featuring Scripture and energetic music styles involving a lot of physical movement whether or not dance was involved, as opposed to, for example, classic hymns. Interpretive dance arrived in churches too.

In the midst of this, churchgoers debated whether guitars, keyboards, and drums should be used in church, and should special lighting effects and other theatrical or “stage effects” be used? One of my sons as a teenager played drums in church and came home to say, “Dad, when I’m up there playing drums, the old people frown at me.” I joked with him that the Plexiglas sound barriers around a drum set was actually protective bullet proof glass.

But seriously, remember the pope worrying about similar things back in the 1700s We’re still fussing about music in the church.

Today, it seems that most churches, even denominations, develop a list of favorite worship songs they use in their services. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this because the choices are generally rooted in that church or denomination’s doctrine, traditions, preferences, and perhaps ethnic, national, or linguistic heritage and culture.

But I’ve also wondered whether some intentional exposure to church music developed at other times in church history might broaden our appreciation for the diversity and quality of music in the history of Christianity and may even deepen our understanding of the richness of this history.

Maybe we could meditate on these thoughts for a while:

The Bible does not dictate one type of music, instrument, or mode of singing.
It is OK to have preferences, just not elevate your preference to holy.
We should learn to appreciate different types of Christian music.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 31 March 2025

Have you ever prayed in public or ducked low to avoid being asked to pray in public?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #198 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.

Those who’ve attended church and church gatherings most of their lives will recognize this common experience: sitting in a small group about to pray, the facilitator says, “We’ll ask a few people to pray as they feel led, and I will close.” Then, silence, as no one prays.

The silence can be painfully long.

Adults, longtime believers, populate the group; still, no one prays. Maybe the group is in part comprised of leaders in the church, yet no one prays. People begin to squirm, cringing in their seats. Maybe someone peeks, thinking, somebody, please, please pray and deliver us from this dreadfully awkward tension? Still, no one prays. Discomfort continues to grow as everyone waits for someone else to lead the prayer.

Have you experienced this socially unpleasant situation? Are you the person who perhaps is reluctant to pray in public?

Are you afraid to pray in public? Are you embarrassed at praying out loud?

The Scripture provides us with a few examples of individuals who were reluctant to speak and at times to pray publicly. In Exodus, when God called Moses through the burning bush to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses was hesitant and expressed self-doubt. He even doubted his ability to lead and speak to Pharaoh, saying, "I am not eloquent" (Exodus 4:10). While Moses did not refuse to pray, his reluctance to lead in public can be seen as an indirect hesitation to take on a public role of intercession or prayer.

Gideon is another example of a man who hesitated to pursue the opportunities God presented him. When God called him to save Israel from the Midianites, he expressed fear and insecurity. In Judges 6:36-40, Gideon asked God for signs, even laying out a fleece to test God's will. While Gideon’s reluctance was more about taking action, it also reflects a hesitance to openly engage in God's work in a public, bold way.

Though Elijah was bold in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal, his prayers were sometimes expressed privately and with humility. In 1 Kings 19:4, Elijah fled into the wilderness after Jezebel threatened his life. He prayed privately, saying, “I have had enough, Lord. Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” He did not pray in front of others in this moment of despair. His reluctance to pray in public here reflects a vulnerability and a retreat from public engagement in prayer.

Each of these men were later used mightily by the Lord, but their public service began with reluctance, hesitation, anxiety, maybe even fear. Yet God enabled them to overcome their own sense of personal shortcomings.

So, then what about those who may be reluctant or afraid to pray publicly? This is far more common that you might think. People are often reluctant to pray publicly for a variety of personal, social, and spiritual reasons. Public prayer can feel intimidating because it involves openly expressing one's faith, thoughts, and emotions in front of others.

In fact, it is related to peoples’ general fear of speaking in front of groups, something clinically termed Glossophobia, “the fear of public speaking.” No similar term has thus far been developed for “the fear of public praying.” About 77% of adults in the U.S. experience “glossophobia” — the fear of public speaking. It's one of the most common social fears. What’s called “stage fright” is a similar social fear.

But why are people afraid? People fear judgment or criticism, maybe saying the “wrong” think or not being eloquent enough. Some people apparently feel inadequate, believing their prayers are not as “good” or worthy as those with more experience. Some think of Jesus’ reminder and fear they might inadvertently come across as showy and hypocritical. Others are perhaps spiritually insecure, doubting their own relationship with God and whether their prayers are effective. Still others simply yield to social anxiety, general discomfort with speaking in front of a group, fearing they will make a mistake or stumble over words.

Meanwhile, the Bible records several examples of public prayer:

Solomon's Prayer at Temple Dedication, 1 K 8:22-53; 2 Chron 6:12-42
Elijah on Mount Carmel, 1 K 18:36-39
Jehoshaphat's Prayer for Deliverance, 2 Chron 20:5-12
Ezra's Prayer of Confession, Ezra 9:5-15
Nehemiah's Prayer of Confession and Petition, Neh. 9:1-38
Daniel's Prayer for the Nation, Dan 9:3-19
Jesus' Prayer before Raising Lazarus, Jn 11:41-42
Early Church Praying Together, Acts 4:24-31

Now what lessons can we learn from these biblical examples of public prayer?

Motive Matters: Prayer should seek God's presence and glory, not public admiration.
Humility is essential: Self-righteousness, judgmental attitudes, self-promotion, boasting corrupt purpose of prayer, whereas repentance is always appropriate.
Sincerity is valued more than Show: Genuine connection with and devotion to God, worship prioritized over performance or manipulation.
We learn we must avoid hypocrisy or formulaic, thoughtless repetition.
We note that we must never pray publicly in a manner that pressures others or that uses public prayer to push an agenda or manipulate others.

Public prayer reinforces the Christian Church. Public corporate prayer unites believers in communal faith and supplication, Acts 2:42. Intercessory Prayer, when believers pray together for others, reflects biblical teachings on bearing one another’s burdens, James 5:16. Praying publicly, e.g., meals, before an event, can be a way to encourage fellow believers and acknowledge dependence on God, 1 Thess 5:16-18.

So, after all this, what if you are still reluctant, hesitant, or afraid to pray publicly?

Well, you could consider these remedies:

Focus on God, not people: remember that prayer is communication with God, not a performance for others.
Pray from the heart: authentic, simple prayers are valued by God more than eloquent words, Matt 6:7-8.
Look for community support: participating in group prayer with trusted friends or mentors can build confidence.
Practice in private, which strengthens confidence in public prayer.

Everyone gets better with practice. And I confess that it helps to have role models. That’s where the community support comes in.

My wife and I were blessed with Christian parents who were active in the local church. I can remember my father and grandfather praying publicly on many occasions. My wife’s mother was active in local garden clubs, often speaking and presenting, and then my wife and her three older sisters grew up learning, planning, and presenting in Bible clubs and other church activities. They were all speaking and praying up front from the time they were kids.

I began taking my turn up front as a teenager, encouraged by a mother who said, that I should step up, and a father who was a deacon, SS teacher, and every other role, speaking regularly to small groups at church – this from a man who grew up a farmer, became a factory worker and a barber, then served the Lord in every capacity when the church doors opened.

My Dad cut his teeth on the King James Version of the Bible, so when he prayed, he used lots of “thees” and “thous.” His son—me—liked to tease him about this, but he was sincere, spoke to the Lord not me, and prayed fervently.

You don’t have to use the “King’s English,” as in the King James language. Nor do you have to be long-winded. Abraham Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” contained 272 words and took about 2 minutes to deliver, yet it is regarded as one of the greatest speeches in American history. God isn’t awarding points for eloquence or hot air.

Just pray. Pray in private first. Tell God your desire to grow more confident in praying publicly—to honor him not to self-promote—and ask the Lord to help you learn how to pray.

We need more men and women who pray, who lead, who serve, who live out their faith as unto the Lord in the presence of the younger generation.

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