Are we happy when our enemies get what we consider their “just desserts”? How do we square this with the biblical command to love our enemies?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #176 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.
When I was a kid, I remember times when I came home from school and started telling my mother about some other kid who had annoyed, bothered, upset me, or otherwise got under my skin. Mom would listen to this for a while, then invariably would say, “Well, have you prayed for him?” Prayed for him? No, Mom. I was thinking more about punching him.
This is a simple illustration of the human inclination and experience to react against other humans, to dislike them, maybe to hold them in contempt. Adults may not talk to their mothers that often, but they still react to others like I did back when. It’s in our nature, our sin nature.
On a much larger, sensitive, and dangerous level, individuals, people groups, and countries get at odds, then think, speak, and act badly, often-times violently toward others. Such is happening today in the Middle East where rockets are flying, pagers are blowing up, military units are advancing on ground, and each of several antagonists is trying to kill their enemy.
It is in this context of real-life war and danger that my SAT-7 Lebanese colleagues at our studios in Beirut recently held their weekly devotions focused on the question, “Are we happy when our enemies die?”
The fact that they did this got my attention. They are living real-life, not a parlor game. They are concerned about their safety and even more the physical safety and emotional well-being of their children. They are Christian believers now living, literally, in the midst of a war zone that is none of their doing or choosing.
Hezbollah has been launching rockets into Israel almost daily since October 2023, and Israel is now responding, surgically targeting and killing Hezbollah leaders.
Rockets hit specific buildings within the city of Beirut, not very far from our studios or where our staff live, and these rockets have killed the Hezbollah leaders at which they were aimed, but also, they’ve killed nearby civilians, innocent noncombatants. These unintended victims, so-called “collateral damage,” could be anyone.
Our SAT-7 Christian staff wanted to apply their Christian faith to their fears, concerns, and attitudes, wanting to respond as Jesus told us to respond: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’” Matt. 5:43-44.
We are to love and pray for our enemies. This is not easy to do.
I have never been in combat, but I’ve spoken with several who have survived combat, including my late father-in-law, James B. Stone, who was a U.S. Marines in the second wave of troops to beach on Guadalcanal, engaged in some of the most difficult fighting. He suffered shrapnel wounds and damaged hearing that eventually caused him to go deaf, and he came home with a Silver Star. He was a war hero who later became a Christian.
Once or twice, he talked about how he and his fellows were taught to think of the Japanese during WWII, including insulting nicknames and ethnic slurs, forms of hate. Remember, the Japanese at that time were the quite capable and threatening enemy. Then he talked about how years later it was difficult to give over those deeply embedded feelings to the Lord, to not hate or not even think poorly of Japanese people, rather, to pray for them.
If we are to pray for our enemies, we first need to define what or who is an enemy. Then there are other considerations, like self-defense, war, what is a Just War, and the meaning of the Imprecatory prayers in the book of Psalms.
Our natural response to enemies is often to fight back, get even, put them in their place, work to assure they get their “just desserts,” or to demand justice. But when we obey Jesus and respond to our enemieswith love, prayer, forgiveness and blessing, we take ourselves out of Satan’s line of fire and make room for God to handle justice as only He can. We don’t have to worry about our enemies.
This includes those among the enemy people group who are loveable, like children, but also those who are by their attitudes and actions decidedly “unlovely,” like radicals, extremists, and terrorists. And certainly, this includes enemies who persecute others, like al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Hamas, Houthi, Hezbollah, and the Iran red guard.
In “Ezekiel 33:11, God said, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.’ God is not even happy even when an evil person dies. As Christians, we should reflect the mourning and love of our Lord, who grieves the loss of lives on both sides of the conflict.”
Ultimately, our “enemies” are just people, just wayward individuals trapped in an “ism.” Can we then model the Lord and pray for our enemies, whatever the nature of their evil ideologies?
This does not mean we surrender our responsibility to make judgments about right and wrong, or that we wink at wrong in some warped definition of love. No, with St. Augustine, we still “hate the sin and love the sinner.”
For me, it’s amazing to think: God cares about the “worst kind of sinner.” He can even draw people to himself who are involved in wicked aggression, for even this malevolence is not the unpardonable sin.
The most compelling example of praying for one’s enemy was the prayer of Jesus on the cross. Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” Luke 23:34. This prayer draws together three acts of the heart involved in loving our enemies: prayer, forgiveness, and mercy.
What about the other considerations? It is true that the Bible leaves room for self-defense, condemns murder but does not say, never kill, never use weapons, never go to war. There is a place in this fallen world for legitimate use of coercive force as noted in Rom 13:1-7. God says of legitimate government authority, “For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.” This teaching is not in conflict with love your enemy.
Then there is Just War theory – the right to go to war, the right conduct within a war. For Christians, Just War theory dates to St. Augustine. Thinking about when a war is just and justifiable and when it is not is one way we can love our enemies.
In the Old Testament we find what’s called imprecatory prayers. To imprecate means “to invoke evil upon or curse” one’s enemies. King David, the psalmist most associated with imprecatory verses, often used phrases like, “may their path be dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing them” (Psalm 35:6) and “O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!” (Psalm 58:6).
But the Psalms that include imprecations are not filled with only imprecatory prayers. In fact, there is not a single Psalm that ONLY has imprecatory prayers.
Rather each Psalm is filled with multiple subjects that usually combine these imprecatory prayers with the hope that the psalmist has in the Lord. They do not conflict with the command to love our enemies.
How then should we pray for our enemies?
Loving and praying for our enemies, whether personal and social or international and political is a very “un-human” thing to do, meaning our human inclination is to not love but to promote ourselves against others. But this is the point: we cannot simply decide to love our enemies and thus make it so. Rather, we need God’s love in us. “We love because he first loved us” 1 Jn. 4:19.
Finally, “may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” 1 Thess. 3:12.
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.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024
*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 LinkedIn or X accounts.
Have you ever tried to discuss a controversial issue with someone and, given their horrified reaction, simply given up?
Are there certain issues or points of view that you know to avoid – don’t go there – whenever you are with certain family or friends?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #175 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.
During the U.S. Presidential campaign, back in February 2016, I stopped posting political content on social media. I just quit cold turkey.
Before then I’d tried to post about issues. I didn’t mention just one but always several candidates, attempted to be non-partisan, and in no way attacked Democrat or Republican candidates or otherwise use my social media to campaign. In retrospect, I guess I was naïve. I actually tried to conduct a discussion about important issues. Usually, it didn’t happen.
I found that people didn’t read the nuances of what I said, and they didn’t discuss the issue. Mostly, they reacted emotionally, defending their partisan view and/or candidate—who I had often not mentioned—and frequently did so with rancor not found in my posts. People used my nonpartisan social media post as a platform to rant or to proclaim the virtues of their candidate, even when this had nothing directly to do with the issue content of my post.
I also noticed that my comments about political issues, in part because they got hi-jacked for candidate campaigning or negative campaigning, divided my family, friends, and colleagues. People just couldn’t hang together for an issue discussion without quickly voting each other off the island.
At that point I decided political posting wasn’t worth dividing or losing friends. So, I stopped.
But recently, a friend said to me in a private exchange that while he had reached the same conclusion regarding no-more-political-posts, he felt badly because he struggled with knowing that silence in the face of evil (he was referring to an especially egregious issue) can make one an accessory.
My friend didn’t make the reference, but I will, a la the famous quote attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Perhaps not all political debates are good vs evil and not all issues, thankfully, involve evil as such, but some do, so where does that leave us?
A while back I broke my pattern. I didn’t use social media but privately texted several friends about the children at the border issue. I did not attack then President Trump but later commented in the text chain that I thought the President could alter what was currently taking place at the border. My friends split down the middle, not about whether children were at risk but in regard to the Administration’s responsibility for this issue. That’s OK. Disagreement is part of discussion. But as the text exchange continued, friends started requesting they be dropped from the group text.
I was reminded that even my friends, like the rest of the country are politically divided to the point of polarization. I understand my friends’ desire to opt out.
As I said, in some sense, I have done the same on social media. It wasn’t that they didn’t have opinions or that they didn’t care, though perhaps some may be less politically interested than others, but that they did not want to get into a back-and-forth of hardened positions on opposite ends of the teeter-totter.
Think so-called “panels” on major television news channels. Pretty much they’ve devolved into shout fests about who can talk overtop the other, not who can provide reasoned discourse. Think, for example, the “guns” vs. “gun control” issue. Pretty much this debate is a non-starter because people on all sides are loudly talking past each other, usually citing the extremes of whatever they consider the other position.
This same kind of phenomenon showed up when my wife and I attended an after-church home-gathering comprised of people from the same church—middle class Midwesterners, most of whom who’d grown up locally and graduated from the same high school and who otherwise had much in common.
It was a very nice evening. Then someone mentioned Trump, or maybe it was just a given political issue. Just like that the group divided, incredibly, to the point of yielding a couple of prickly comments and a few negative facial expressions that stayed that way until someone changed the subject. Amazing. Good friends suddenly turn edgy when politics came up. So, the old maxim stands: “Never talk about politics or religion in polite company.”
Years ago, I wrote a book called “Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture” (Baker, 2003). I talked about God’s moral absolutes—not a long list by the way— for all times, countries, and cultures, which we ignore at our own peril. Things like don’t lie, murder, steal, worship idols.
In that book I talked about the enormous room for discretion, or better, discernment with which God charged us as a way of making good decisions about cultural matters (Phil. 1:9-11). As long as our attitudes, viewpoints, and actions do not violate the moral will of God—as revealed in the Bible—he gave us the liberty to decide and to be different.
But I said then and I still believe it today, Christian liberty is the least understood and least practiced doctrine of the Bible. I cannot prove this, but I experience it regularly.
I started this podcast referencing year 2016. It’s now several years later, and if anything, the polarization of American culture to the point of threatening e Pluribus Unum has gotten decidedly worse. We have woke activists pressing their divisive, anti-reality, anti-science race, class, and gender ideas upon us, including our school children. These are the ones who form the core of the “cancel culture” movement, meaning if you don’t agree with them, you have no right to speak, or maybe even to keep your job. How can we discuss if expressing our values and views leads to social ostracizing, or professional punishments of varying kinds?
The abortion debate has gone from one side saying pro-life and the other side saying, “Safe, legal, and rare” (remember Bill Clinton?) to the other side now saying abortion on demand all the way to birth and, for some, even after a birth.
For the pro-abortion view, abortion is now typically equated with women’s rights. Many consider abortion a human right. A human right, to kill your children? Where in this divide is there room for discussion?
We experienced the pandemic, which was a real disease and a real threat, but in the midst of it we had elected government officials dictating what was “misinformation” or “disinformation” and working with Big Social Media to silence any disagreement with the prevailing acceptable narrative. How can we discuss if we’re not allowed to discuss?
Growing numbers of people in our country and culture do not want people to speak if their views diverge from what the dominant group considers correct.
The answer to opposing views is not a free and open debate on the merits of the argument but to silence, somehow to keep the other view from being heard.
If it is heard, then the solution is to react with emotional diatribe, victim-claiming, accusations of political incorrectness, or attacks on the character of others who hold the “wrong view.” The First Amendment’s guarantee of Freedom of Speech is itself, dishearteningly, no longer considered a sacred political ideal for whom men and women have given the last full measure of devotion to protect.
We’ve come to a point in a so-called post-truth or fake news culture in which polarization is so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without becoming defensively partisan, ideological, or upset.
Don’t get me wrong. Social media is loaded with political commentary, but it’s usually one-sided, a way to get one’s view out there. OK, but is there room for consideration? Discussion, at least public discourse, is still dead-on-arrival.
One positive way to try to address this problem is to ask questions. Ask others what they believe and why? Do not make your own assertions, which invites pushback. Just ask questions, which signals respect. Then wait. Be quiet, which is hard for me to do, and see what comes back. This may open the door to a genuine discussion.
This said, I think the death of discussion is a real and a sad phenomenon, a capitulation to a disappearing understanding among the public of what Freedom of Speech means in a constitutional republic. The trend, whether from Left or Right, is not good for the future of this country.
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. 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.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2024.
*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 YouTube @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or x.com/RexMRogers.
When you’ve marveled at the Ancient Egyptians, the Pyramids, the incredible architecture, still here thousands of years later—have you thought, if their civilization can disappear, what will become of my civilization?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #174 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.
Civilizations come and go. It’s a historically demonstrable fact.
“Possible causes of a societal collapse include natural catastrophe, war, pestilence, famine, economic collapse, population decline or overshoot, mass migration, incompetent leaders, and sabotage by rival civilizations. A collapsed society may revert to a more primitive state, be absorbed into a stronger society, or completely disappear. Virtually all civilizations have suffered such a fate, regardless of their size or complexity. Most never recovered, such as the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, the Maya civilization, and the Easter Island civilization. However, some of them later revived and transformed, such as China, Greece, and Egypt.”
It’s interesting that none of this list of dire reasons civilizations can collapse mentions religion or worldview or values, but this is the problem we now face.
“For many years now, prominent voices have claimed that Western civilization is foundering.” By Western Civilization, they mean Western Europe and North America where “commonly held beliefs such as individualism, democracy, and rationalism,” were embraced as the foundation stones of culture. While Western Civilization borrows from Ancient Greece and Rome, it also drew on the Renaissance, (14th-17th Century), and Enlightenment (17th-19th Century), which opened the doors to critical thinking. Much of its growth and vibrancy must also be attributed to the Reformation (16th-17th Century) and Christianity, which liberated the natural world from control of the church and empowered human reason, science, enterprise, and what became known as the Protestant Work Ethic.
For all it historical and current problems, Western Civilization built the most bountiful, free, economically successful, and future-oriented cultures in history. With all that going for it, why would it be declining?
Short answer, religion. Long answer, a gradual rejection of the Christian worldview that has undergirded Western culture, including belief in God to whom we are accountable, and belief in absolute truth and then also a parallel embrace of moral relativism, rejection of the biblical teaching that mankind is created in the image of God yet a sinner in need of grace, and a consequent loss of aspiration or belief in progress.
In his masterful, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, the late Francis A. Schaeffer said, “The flow of history is determined by the world-view people hold.”
Schaeffer noted that “in the south, the Reformation was giving an opposite answer in the north: man could not begin with himself, he must start with the Bible. There, man could find ‘true things about God’ and ‘many true things about nature.’ It is Schaeffer’s thesis that this base led to a broad Christian consensus which produced the finest fruits of western civilization: the art of Rembrandt and Bach, the political freedoms consequent to the English and American Revolutions, and the rise of modern science.”
“The breakdown of this Christian consensus has brought western culture to its present crisis.”
Beginning in the late 20th Century, “all the signs, (Schaeffer) warns, are pointing in the direction of totalitarian rule, either by one man or an elite of savants.”
What in the 20th Century scholars thought to be an inexorable march toward secularization in modernity became a period of worldwide resurgence of ideological religion, particularly Islam, mixed with postmodernity’s religious apathy in the West. This new mix has yielded polarization, hate, extremism, nihilism.
This nihilism, this belief that life is meaningless has produced cynicism, pessimism, distrust, alienation, social disintegration, anxiety, anger, hopelessness, and most recently, violence.
It has also produced what might be called a “culture of death.”
We see this in the celebration of abortion—killing one’s children and thus one’s future—as “reproductive health,” when ironically it is neither reproductive nor healthy.
We see this culture of death in sexual libertinism qua deviancy, the pursuit of personal significance in perverted sexuality, which yields disaffection, disease, destruction, and in more cases than may be realized, death.
We see a culture of death in the sexualization of children. Why by all that’s common sense, do Kindergarten children need to be given sex toys, read to by drag queens, encouraged to question their sex, and pushed toward made-up hybrid genders?
Why by all that’s common sense can’t our culture provide a definition of woman?
We see this culture of death in population decline. Some have observed, “population collapse is the biggest threat to civilization.” “The U.S.’ fertility rate for 2022 sits well below the level needed for the current generation to replace itself. Birth rates have consistently fallen beneath that threshold, termed the replacement rate, since 2007, the CDC said, and have generally been below it since 1971…2.1. That’s the replacement rate, meaning each woman would, on average, need to have 2.1 children for a generation to exactly replace itself. In 2022, the U.S.’ fertility rate (the average number of children a woman would have during her lifetime) was around 1.7 children per woman.”
“Europe is the continent with the oldest population. This is creating problems for healthcare and pensions.”
Not having children is not simply a biological phenomenon. People are choosing not to have children. In other words, they are making value choices.
Why?
We also see civilizational decline in massive global debt, rejection of democracy and capitalism, and promotion of unsubstantiated climate alarmism by globalist, socialist, totalitarians like those at the annual World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland. This includes Americans like Bill Gates, John Kerry, Al Gore, Jane Fonda, Meryl Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, and many more.
These same people promote de-population of the earth in the name of climate alarmism. I am serious. Climate alarmists or global elitists like gorilla-lady Jane Goodall say the earth can best support maybe 1 billion people. According to them, this is the goal we should attain.
But wait, aren’t there 8 billion people in the world today? Yes? Then they are suggesting about 7 billion people need to be eradicated? Yes. Why? Well, to save the earth. For whom? People. So, we save the earth for people by killing off people?
And who and how are we going to accomplish this? Which of the climate change radicals will volunteer to be the first to get eliminated?
It’s an irrational culture of death, exactly what one would predict, Satan, the father of lies, to develop. People are willingly deluded. They celebrate lies – just like people in the streets and on university campuses who chant support for Hamas.
Even LGBTQ people do this? Really, do they not realize that Islam rejects homosexuality and related sexual perversion? Do they not realize that if they identified as queer in an Islamic society they would be killed? Are these people willingly deluded? Yes. They celebrate a culture of death.
We see civilizational decline in the irrational, hysterical promotion of “race absolutism,” identity politics, and mass immigration. Seeing the world through racial or gender or class lens is Marxism, and there is plenty of this on the Left today. They promote victimhood, chaos, and division because these conditions seem to beg for more government, which the Left worships.
Western Civilization still stands, but there are serious cracks in its foundation, particularly with respect to dismissing the Judeo-Christian moral consensus upon which it was founded and flourished.
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 You Tube @DrRexRogers for more video and prodcasts.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M Rogers, All Rights Reserved, 2024.
*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 rexmrogers.com or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at linkedin.com/rexmrogers or x.com/RexMRogers.
With the Middle East on fire, how should we be praying and acting?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #173 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.
It’s been one year since the surprise 10/7 Hamas massacre of innocent Israeli citizens just across the border with the Gaza Strip, and the Middle East now stands on the brink of regional war.
You will recall 1,139 people were killed. “About 250 Israeli civilians and soldiers were taken as hostages to the Gaza Strip, alive or dead, and including 30 children, with the stated goal to force Israel to exchange them for imprisoned Palestinians, including women and children.”
In the history of man’s inhumanity to man, the massacre was notable for its soulless brutality, sexual assault as an act of war, and premeditated terror, like filming atrocities with GoPro cameras.
Since this time, “during a ceasefire at the end of November, Hamas released 105 hostages. In return, Israel released 240 Palestinian prisoners.” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he believes about 50 of the remaining roughly 100 hostages held are still alive.
War in Gaza has now killed tens of thousands of Palestinians with some Hamas still active. In the West Bank some terror attacks have occurred and sporadic fighting results. Iran’s proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen are launching missile and drone attacks on Israel, and Israel has responded against the Houthis. From Lebanon, Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis near the border to leave their homes.
Israel pulled off high-precision targeted assassinations using weaponized pagers and walkie-talkies, killing the Hezbollah men using them, with, as inevitable, some civilians nearby dying as collateral damage. Israel then surgically destroyed Hezbollah’s central headquarters in downtown Beirut, killing several top leaders. Iran then fired about 180 ballistic missiles into Israel, most of which were destroyed by Israel’s air defenses.
Israel has now moved militarily into southern Lebanon seeking to destroy Hezbollah’s capability to launch an invasion like Hamas did 10/7. Meanwhile, some one million Lebanese citizens in southern Lebanon have been displaced from their homes.
How are Christians processing 10/7 and the year since?
Have we demonstrated moral clarity on this issue, or are we reacting based upon emotion and maybe limited information? Or are we aligning with “our side,” people we think we should back, e.g., Israel, and then expressing indifference in the face of legitimate moral concerns for suffering people on what we call the “other side,” e.g., Gazans or Palestinians?
Here are a few different Christian perspectives:
“The Israel-Hamas conflict is a deeply complex and tragic issue with no easy solutions, but our call as Christians is to have a response rooted in love, empathy and prayer. Even in the darkest of times, hope and compassion can prevail.”
We can ask our Sovereign God to work through this violence to open doors for both just and lasting peace, and open doors for the development of free, democratic nations that protect human life and religious liberty.
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.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024
*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.
Few people would argue with the statement Pete Rose was one of the best baseball players to ever play the game, but he’s not in the Hall of Fame because of gambling. So, what is right and just in this matter?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #172 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.
I grew up in Ohio watching Pete Rose, a la “Charlie Hustle,” probably the first Major League Baseball player with whom I connected. I always appreciated his hard charging, run everything out, never give up, headfirst slide (which he invented) style of play.
As I came of age in the mid-1070s, Pete Rose was a primary engine in what was called the Big Red Machine, the Cincinnati Reds at the top of baseball. In the 1970s, they “won six National League West Division titles, four National League pennants, and two World Series titles.”
Meanwhile, Pete Rose played from 1963 to 1986, as member of the Cincinnati Reds, later the Philadelphia Phillies, where he won his third World Series championship, and briefly with the Montreal Expos. He managed the Reds from 1984 to 1989.
“Rose was a switch hitter, and is MLB's all-time leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053), singles (3,215) and outs (10,328). He won three World Series championships, three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Glove Awards, and the Rookie of the Year Award. He made 17 All-Star appearances in an unequaled five positions (second baseman, left fielder, right fielder, third baseman, and first baseman).
As I said, few people argue with the idea Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players we’ve ever been privileged to watch. By every measure, if Pete is not a Hall of Famer, no one is.
So why is he not in the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY?
“In August 1989 (his last year as a manager and three years after retiring as a player), Rose was penalized with permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he gambled on baseball games while he played for and managed the Reds; the charges of wrongdoing included claims that he bet on his own team.
In 1991, the Baseball Hall of Fame formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction, after previously excluding such players by informal agreement among voters. After years of public denial, he admitted in 2004 that he bet on baseball and on the Reds.”
I liked watching Rose play. He was truly outstanding and entertaining at the same time, an athletic superstar before the phrase was coined.
Ironically, while I later wrote a book called Gambling: Don’t Bet On It (1997, revised, 2005), as I just noted, it was foolish betting on his own team that damaged Pete’s legacy and to date has kept the greatest hitter in baseball out of the Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose not in the Hall of Fame is sad. No question. It grieves me as a sports fan.
And given where professional sports have gone—investing in gambling apps and promoting sports gambling on TV game coverage—I could be moved to say, Pete should be “forgiven” and inducted into the Hall of Fame.
But there are still moral dilemmas and questions about what is best for the game.
Pete didn’t just gamble on sports, he gambled on his own team, i.e., games over which he exercised influence, thus theoretically increasing the opportunity for cheating and reducing the integrity—meaning level playing field—of competition. The usual come back is, yes, but Pete always bet on his own team to win, not throw a game to lose so he’d win at gambling. So, his gambling was inconsequential.
Add another major wrinkle. In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door for legalized sports wagering in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018). With the Supreme Court’s Murphy decision, resistance to sports wagering rapidly collapsed in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL.
In an earlier podcast called “Opening Floodgates of Sports Betting,” I noted that the leagues began opening their businesses to legalized sports betting at the speed of light, including professional leagues investing in online gambling or fantasy sports websites.
But have the rules for gambling by professional players changed? Not much. Common themes regarding across professional leagues regarding gambling include:
1 - Zero tolerance for betting on own sport: Regardless of the league, players are universally prohibited from betting on their own sport, especially games in which they or their teams are involved.
2 - Protection of integrity: Leagues want to avoid any potential influence on the outcome of games that could arise from gambling.
3 - Use of inside information: Sharing inside information, like injury updates or game plans, with gamblers is a violation.
4 - Location and timing restrictions: In many cases, players can gamble on other sports, but not while on team property or while participating in team activities.
Now, despite the fact nearly all professional sports leagues have investments in sites like FanDuel or DraftKings etc., rules for players still prohibit them gambling on their teams and games. In other words, rules protecting the fairness of competition are still maintained similar to what existed for Pete.
Think about it this way. Pete violated one of the cardinal rules of sport, especially in the MLB that lives with the memory of the Black Sox scandal, a game-fixing effort in which eight Chicago White Sox players were accused of intentionally losing the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds in exchange for payment from a gambling syndicate.
Despite acquittals in a public trial in 1921 (though most of the players later admitted involvement), the first MLB Commissioner permanently banned all eight players from professional baseball. He did this, he said, to “save baseball.”
Fast forward a few decades.
What about Performance Enhancing Drug users? Didn’t they cheat? Yes, players who are known to have used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) have faced significant challenges getting into the Baseball Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame voting process, conducted primarily by the Baseball Writers' Association of America, has been influenced by PED controversies, and voters have often withheld their votes from players linked to PED use.For example, players like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa, who had Hall of Fame-caliber careers but were connected to PED use, have been repeatedly passed over despite their significant statistical accomplishments.
Bonds and Clemens were dominant during their eras, but their association with steroids has left their Hall of Fame candidacy in limbo for years. The voters' stance on PEDs reflects a broader desire to maintain the integrity of the Hall of Fame as a place that honors not just on-field success but also sportsmanship. As of now, known PED users have not been widely inducted into the Hall of Fame.
One could make a case that many players in the Hall of Fame had a boatload of character problems in their lives. But the thing is, their character problems didn’t involve cheating at the game of baseball. They were outstanding athletes who earned amazing career statistics and thus a shot to be voted into the Hall of Fame. In this sense, their personalities and personal lives are irrelevant.
So, a lot of emotion, which is not necessarily bad, can lead one to argue that Pete should have been inducted into the Hall of Fame. And now with his recent death, a lot more emotion will be brought to bear arguing the same. Some say that Pete’s gambling never affected a game the way PED users’ actions definitely did, so what he did was not really cheating, not as bad, and worthy of mercy. One could also argue that a lifetime ban is punishment that doesn’t fit the crime. Even Rose observed, “There are guys who get life sentences in prison and they’re set free before I am.’’
But to preserve baseball for our posterity, the integrity of the game of baseball must be inviolable.
If Pete is put in the Hall, does it signal rules don’t matter? Does it require the Black Sox be admitted to the Hall? Should PED abusers be admitted to the Hall? Moral dilemmas abound.
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 //www.youtube.com/@DrRexRogers" style="color: #96607d; text-decoration: underline;">my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024
*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.
Perhaps some of you have experienced war, so you know how to pray during times of war, but for the rest of us, how should we pray in violent times?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #171 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.
“War is hell,” so said Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, and who would disagree with him? War damages, destroys, wounds, scars, maims, kills.
Awful though it is, war is a fact of life in a fallen world because it is rooted in the sinful, deceitful heart of man.
How then should we pray in times of war? Should we always pray for an immediate cessation of violence? Should we pray for peace when injustice remains? Can we pray for evil actors?
There is much in Scripture to guide us. We are commanded and expected to pray.
The book of James says, “You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.” James 4:2
In the Lord’s prayer, we’re taught to acknowledge God’s will, saying “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Matt. 6:10
Scripture recognizes that war and conflict and trials and tribulations will happen in this fallen world, so we are reminded, “The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.” Prov. 21:31
Perhaps surprisingly, nowhere in Scripture are we told never to go to war or that all war is evil, unjust, or wrong. As I’ve mentioned before talking about weapons, while God says, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13), nowhere does Scripture tell us not to own weapons, that weapons are ipso facto evil, or that we should not use them for self-defense.
So, war happens, and it may be that we find ourselves in war for just reasons. But whatever the motivation of the actors in war, how should we as Christian believers pray during such times?
Let’s consider the obvious first: Just War theory refers to noncombatants. So, we should pray for innocent children – physically and emotionally endangered, living in fear and panic, ill, suffering, hungry, unable to attend school, orphaned. Innocent children may be found on all sides of a conflict.
Think how difficult it must be for Christian parents in a war zone to explain to their young children what’s happening, and to explain this in a way that is truthful yet does not raise their fears and anxieties.
Other ways to pray for in innocents in war who suffer, including civilians, children, and especially hostages:
Scripture enjoins caring Christian believers to weep with those who weep or experience lamentation, pain, or suffering. How can we do this?
My friend, John, reminds us we should take care to pray without “telling God what to do.” In other words, //medium.com/@andrewhayes/try-praying-without-saying-i-pray-that-a74ef49f17d3" style="color: #96607d; text-decoration: underline;">pray without saying, “I pray that” or “Lord, please do this or that.”
Jesus prayed for the Lord’s will, as in “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,’” Jn. 17:1
And King David, “But you, O God my Lord, deal on my behalf for your name's sake; because your steadfast love is good, deliver me! For I am poor and needy, and my heart is stricken within me.”Ps. 109:21–22
We should pray by asking, not by directing. This means, of course, that we must trust the Sovereign God for his will and the results, for those in war as well as for our loved ones near us.
Sometimes it is difficult to know how to pray for a given violent conflict. What if at least one side are evil aggressors who act based on greed, ethnic hatred, or desire for power? What if they will not respond to pleas for ceasefire or negotiation, and in fact, without unconditional surrender, declare they will fight and kill until the last among them live?
Evil, violent groups like this may only respond to military power and destruction, meaning that exercise of violence as legitimate coercive force, as noted in Romans 13, may be the only way to end violence. It is ironic, perhaps, but it is the fallen world again. It is the character of sin.
So, in this case perhaps we pray for the Lord’s intervention according to his will.
We pray that evil actors will be restrained and brought to submission to what is right and just. We pray not just for a cessation of violence, not just for peace, but for a peace that is just and therefore potentially lasting.
Scripture tells us to pray for the opposition, evil actors. God said, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” Matt. 5:44. We are commanded to pray for the Taliban, for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. We are commanded to pray for any human being we consider enemies of moral right, good, and peace.
We may also pray specifically for Christians on all sides of a conflict or war. In the Holy Land, that is, Israel—yes, Israeli Christian believers or Messianic Jews, and in the West Bank, Gaza—yes, Palestinian Christian believers—there are Christians right now caught in the crossfires of this violence. In Lebanon, there are Christians fearing for their families as violence edges closer to where they live and must work.
I think it is particularly appropriate and important to pray for the next generation. Pray for those whose hearts are bent on hatred and violence, that the Sovereign God will pour out His Spirit upon them, such that they see the futility of generational, ethnic or religious hatred, that they will come to see each human being as precious in the sight of God, that they will “turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it,” Ps 34:14.
Finally, pray for the global Church, especially the Western Church, that our eyes will be open to what God would have us do, and that we will be renewed in wisdom, faith, and hope. Pray the Church will see helpless and harassed human beings in the midst of the smoke of violence, that we will care for the hurting of all nationalities, ethnicities, ideologies, and politics, that we would think God’s thoughts after him.
Pray “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God,” 2 Cor. 1:3-4.
Jesus said, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world,” Jn. 16:33.
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 //www.youtube.com/@DrRexRogers" style="color: #96607d; text-decoration: underline;">my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024
*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.