Recent Articles | Reformed Perspective

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

Mina and Marco in Egypt

Open Doors is a non-denominational mission working in over 60 countries where Christianity is socially or legally discouraged or oppressed. The mission recently reported that last year during Ramadan, two young boys from Egypt watched in horror as their father and other faithful believers were brutally murdered because of their faith in Jesus. The children were passengers on a bus carrying pilgrims on their way to the monastery of St. Samuel. Their father, a security guard at the monastery, was also on the bus. "Deny Jesus, or die," was the choice given to each person.

The younger boy, Mina, said:

They forced our father to get out of the bus first. The terrorists shouted that he had to convert to Islam. But my father said “no.” Then they shot him.

Although the lives of both of the brothers were miraculously spared, the tragic death of their father still plays through their minds on a daily basis. The older son, Marco, vividly recalled his last moments of his father:

My father was still breathing. He couldn’t talk anymore, but he wiggled his fingers, signing us to go away. But we didn’t want to leave him there. I leaned my father against my chest. Soon my clothes were soaked with his blood, but I didn’t care.

The father of Mina and Marco was a persevering father, a father training his children in the way they should go.

It is not at all unusual for parents in North America, or anywhere else in the world, to be concerned about their children’s physical welfare. Moms and dads want their little ones to be warmly dressed, and to have nutritious meals. It is not unusual either for parents to want children to have things to which they themselves did not have access when they were little. These might include piano, flute or violin lessons, or swimming, karate, and soccer practice.

As well, and most importantly, parents can, or should be, concerned about the spiritual welfare of their offspring. This encompasses teaching a child to pray, to have personal devotions and to participate in family devotions, to attend church, to understand and practice fasting and to have discussions on, and knowledge of, life after death.

Siao-Mei in China

Sometimes, strangely enough, it is the other way around – sometimes children encourage parents to be faithful. There is a story told by a man named Amelio Crotti, about the persecution of Christians in China in the 1960s. A mother and her daughter, a child of five, were imprisoned by the Chinese authorities because the mother had protested the arrest of her pastor. Other prisoners in the jail were indignant at seeing a little five-year-old within the confines of the prison especially because the little girl often cried because she was cold and hungry. “Have pity on your small daughter,” they reprimanded the poor mother, “It is quite reasonable for you at this point to agree that you will not go to church any more. There is no doubt in our minds that you must say that you will stop being a Christian so that your child will not have to suffer the degradations which are imposed upon all of us here in prison.”

The mother, after listening to the other prisoners for days on end, and beginning to feel very guilty at depriving her child of food, clothing and proper shelter, finally gave in to them. She recanted her faith and was released.

Two weeks after her release, however, she was forced by the authorities to stand on a stage in front of some 10,000 people and shout, “I am no longer a Christian.” The little daughter was in the audience when she shouted this denial.

Afterwards, on their way home from this horrific and humiliating public confession, the little girl spoke to her mother. “Mother, today I think that Jesus was not too happy with what you said.” Her mother replied, “I only said those words because I love you. You wept in prison because you were hungry and cold. I wanted you to be warm. I wanted to take you away from that misery.” The little girl, whose name was Siao-Mei, smiled as she answered at her mother, “I promise you that if we go to jail again for Jesus’ sake, that I will not weep.”

Ashamed that she had denied her Savior, the mother went back to the prison and told the people who had arrested her that she had acted wrongly, that her love for Jesus was greater than anything the earth could offer, and that her daughter had more courage and strength of character than she herself had. As a result, both mother and child were imprisoned again. Only this time the little girl did not cry at the cold and the hunger.

Both mother and child persevered and trusted God.

Leah Sharibu in Nigeria

There are other stories.

On the evening of February 19, 2018, just a few short months back, more than one hundred girls were sitting down together for a meal at a secondary school in the town of Dapchi, Nigeria. As they sat around the dining table, gunshots were heard outside. It was very frightening for the young girls, especially when a bullet hit the front of their building. As the sound of the gunshots increased in volume and frequency, the Christians among the girls decided to hold hands and run away. They were very aware that they were probable targets. Teachers saw them running and tried to stop and reassure the frightened girls. But the sound of the gunshots was growing closer.

Continuing their escape, the girls made for the dormitory of a Christian friend – a girl named Leah Sharibu. Upon reaching her building, they called out loudly for her to come. Leah was caring for a sick roommate. Aware of the danger, however, both for herself and the roommate, she heeded her friends’ warning. Not willing to leave her sick friend alone, Leah tried to carry the girl. Running with her burden as best she could towards the fence surrounding the school, she often tripped and fell. The sick girl eventually persuaded Leah to put her down, and managed to make it to the staff quarters on her own. But Leah herself, and some of the other students, continued to head for the fence gate through which they hope to obtain safety. Unfortunately, this was precisely the place where the Boko Haram truck was parked.

Leah was one of the girls captured and put on the truck. Many of the other girls hid in the thick bushes behind the school. They hid throughout the night until a teacher found them the following day. By then the terrorists, with Leah and other young captured women, were gone.

Many parents arrived to ascertain the safety of their children that morning. There were both tears of happiness when parents embraced the daughters who were at school, and tears of anguish for those parents whose daughters had been taken prisoner by Boko Haram. Leah’s mother, Rebecca Sharibu had also come. Rebecca lived in the town of Dapchi. It had been a very long night for her as she had been informed by a friend that some of the students had been abducted. As soon as she was able in the early morning hours, by the light of a torch, she walked to the school. And she prayed as she walked.

When she came to the school, she stood among a crowd of other parents. She silently watched ecstatic reunions as girls who had hidden were joyfully embraced. Leah was not one of those girls. The school chaplain took roll call and Leah was the only Christian girl missing. At this point, mixed messages began to come in and government officials confessed that they were really not sure where exactly the kidnapped girls had been taken.

It was not until about a month later, on March 21, 2018, that Rebekah was told that Boko Haram had returned the girls they had stolen from the school. But at the hospital where the released girls had been taken for treatment, Rebekah could not find her daughter. Speaking to some of Leah’s classmates, she learned what had happened. Knowing she was a Christian, the terrorists had ordered Leah to recite some Islamic incantations before she would be allowed onto the truck to be taken home. The girl adamantly refused and said: “I will never say these things because I am not a Muslim.” Becoming angry, the captors had threatened Leah that if she wouldn’t denounce Christ, she would remain a prisoner. This threat did not daunt her faith. She steadfastly refused to deny Christ. The other girls watched as Leah was left behind, a prisoner of Boko Haram. They cried and waved to her until they could not see her any longer.

When Rebekah heard how her daughter had been left behind, she fainted and was taken to the hospital. Yet there was a joy in her as she recovered from the shock. For years she had led Leah in devotions each morning, instructing her daughter in the Word of God. Her daughter was now bearing the fruit of these devotions – fruit for the Lord. Rebekah consequently said:

I am so proud of my Leah because she did not denounce Christ. And because of that, I know God will never forsake her. When she went away to school, I gave her a copy of the Bible so she could have personal devotions even when I am not there. As her mother, I know her to be an obedient daughter, respectful and someone who puts others before herself.

Leah surely epitomizes Proverbs 22:6 made flesh. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

There are, and due to God's grace there always will be, many persevering fathers, mothers and children – many who cause us to remember that:

…. since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider Him Who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Hebrews 12:1-3)

As of May 11, 2026, Leah continues to be a captive in the hands of cruel Boko Haram. Please pray for her.

This article was first published in the July/Aug 2018 issue of the magazine.

Homosexuality, News

Opposing rainbow crosswalk results in human rights trial

Contests

RP’s "Log out and look up" screen-fast challenge is July 13-22

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one...

Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism project

Church history, People we should know

There was a man: Ulrich Zwingli

“Many men are like unto sausages: Whatever you stuff them with, that they will bear in them.” – Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old, they will not turn from it.” – Proverbs 22:6 **** There was a man. But first there was a child. This particular child was born on New Year’s Day in 1484 in the small village of Wildhaus. He lived in a cottage whose roof was weighed down with stones to protect it from gusty winds traveling down from surrounding mountains. Wildhaus lay in a valley and was located in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen. This canton was one of the eight cantons, or territorial divisions, in Switzerland, and was noted for its textile production. Respected for their amazing output of stunning embroidery, many women of the village were expert needleworkers. It is easy to imagine that the child saw his mother embroider intricate and beautiful patterns on cloth and that his eyes were fascinated by the detailed stitching and designs that flourished under her hands. But the strange truth was that when the child stood in the doorway of his home in Wildhaus, his father instructed him in embroidery as well – embroidery, not worked at by his mother, but fashioned and created by the Lord God. There were mountains decorated with glaciers, embellished with gorges, fashioned with meadows and flowers, and flowing with streams and rivulets. “Look,” said the father, “look and see what God has made.” And the child was shown incredible illustrations of the majesty of God. And a wonderful awe for the Creator was planted in the heart of the child. Quite the family The child’s father was the bailiff, the magistrate, of the parish of Wildhaus. He was an upright man and had the respect of everyone in his community. As well as being the bailiff, the father’s calling was that of a shepherd. The child saw his father leave in the spring, together with two older brothers, as they drove a flock of sheep up the mountains to the high pastures. He watched them climb until they disappeared from his sight. When summer began to decline and lengthening nights began, the child anticipated their return and daily watched for them to come back home to the cottage. He knew that a time of village companionship would begin – a time when neighbors would gather together in one another’s homes and fill the evenings with stories and songs. Perhaps they would speak of the Pied Piper, who in the year of the child’s birth, it was said, had carried away 130 children who were never seen again. It was speculated that this piper was the devil. Or perhaps the villagers who were gathered together, spoke of the Inquisition in faraway Spain and shuddered at the tortures being inflicted on those who disagreed with the church. It is also possible that they spoke of long-ago heroes who had defended the Swiss mountains from enemies. And everyone, including the child, would feel patriotism surge through them. The child also had a grandmother. She was a pious woman. At times the child would sit on her knee, and she would tell him stories about heroes of a different kind. Into his small ears, she recited tales of saints in church history – and she told him about heroes in the Bible, heroes who had climbed hills in Judah and who had defended their homeland. She spoke of Jesus, born in a cradle in a stall in Bethlehem; she narrated the story of Calvary; and she took him to the Resurrection. Having no Bible, she could only recount what she had learned from priests but the first seeds of truth were imbedded in the heart of the child. From one school to the next The child had a name. He was baptized Ulrich. Of the eight sons his mother bore his father, he stood out in ability to learn. His parents recognized this as a special gift and sent him to board with his uncle, Bartholomew who lived in nearby Wesen. An earnest and honest priest, Bartholomew sent his nephew to the village school. Soon, however, the child had learned all there was to know in the Wesen village school. Consequently, his father and his uncle arranged for Ulrich to go to a school in Basel. He was now ten years of age. Again, it soon became apparent that the boy outshone his classmates and from Basel he was transferred to a school in Bern when he was twelve years of age. In Bern, Ulrich excelled in debating, poetry, philosophy and music. Indeed, he was so talented in all the subjects he was taught, that the Dominicans of Bern asked him to join their order, young as he was. However, Ulrich’s father and uncle, who had been salted with Reformation ideas, were averse to this. Aware of the child’s potential, they determined they would educate him for the church, but under the tutelage of those acquainted with the new ideas. Consequently, they enrolled Ulrich in the University of Vienna. From Vienna, Ulrich went back to Basel from whose university he graduated in 1506 with a Master of Arts. He was now twenty-two years of age and obtained the position of parish priest in the village of Glarus. Started on the right path, time would prove that he would not diverge from it. Ulrich’s last name was Zwingli. It is said of him that at no time did he use the title “Master of Arts,” but was quick to say: “One is our Master, even Christ.” 67 Articles History records many things about Ulrich Zwingli. Even as Luther wrote ninety-five theses, Zwingli penned sixty-seven. Even as he had seen his earthly father guide sheep up to highland pasture, so he wanted to lead the Swiss people up to the mountain of God, up to the truth of the heavenly Father. Some of Zwingli’s theses read: The sum and substance of the Gospel is that our Lord Christ Jesus, the true son of God, has made known to us the will of His heavenly Father, and has with His sinlessness released us from death and reconciled us to God. Hence Christ is the only way to salvation for all who ever were, are and shall be. He who seeks or shows another way errs, and, indeed, he is a murderer of souls and a thief. The true holy scriptures know nothing of purgatory after this life. Christ is the only mediator between God and ourselves. When the position of leut-priest (preacher and pastor) in the Great Minster (monastery church) in Zurich became vacant in the latter part of 1518, Zwingli became its spiritual guide. Seven years later, in 1525, Zurich’s great council adopted many of his suggestions. The Latin mass was replaced by a simple communion service; a German-language Bible was introduced; the clergy were allowed to marry; the church’s land property was secularized and its jurisdiction heavily restricted; and images were destroyed or withdrawn from the churches. Grace where God allows Mandatory fasting became Ulrich’s first public controversy. The dispute began on the first Sunday of Lent, which meant it was the onset of forty days of mandatory penitential fasting before Easter. During these forty days only one meal a day was allowed in the evening – meat, eggs, and butter were strictly forbidden. It so happened that, on this initial Sunday, a few months after Ulrich’s thirty-eighth birthday, some citizens of Zurich prepared to meet together. In Grabengasse, in a home just a hop, skip, and jump away from Zurich’s city walls, these men knocked on the door of Christoph Froschauer. It was late afternoon, the time folks prepared to eat, and the sun was setting. Christoph Froschauer was a printer and a man of some note in Zurich. He was in charge of all the printing for the city government. Christoph himself answered the door, heartily welcomed the men and ushered them into his parlor. They all sat down. It was a varied group of men in that parlor. Two of them were priests, and one of these was Ulrich Zwingli. Reclining next to the priests was Hans, a tailor, Laurenz, a weaver, Niklaus, a shoemaker, two unnamed printing employees, and Heinrich, a baker. They had these matters in common: they were all tradesmen, they all loved the reforming ideas which Ulrich was preaching, and all were willing to be part of the change they were about to stir up. As the men were talking amongst themselves, Elise, Christoph’s wife, walked in with serving platters. The platters held sausages. Crispy and golden, juicy and flavorful, they smelled and looked good. They tickled the appetite. Everyone (with the exception of Ulrich, who tacitly approved of the events by being present), ate the meat with great relish. Celebrating Christian freedom in the matter of eating and drinking, the men enjoyed their fellowship and then, bidding one another farewell, returned to their homes. Subsequently, after the news of their meal leaked out, all, with the exception of Ulrich, were jailed. As the men sat behind bars, Ulrich took to the pulpit and preached. He exegeted New Testament passages that pertained to fasting, to keeping traditions, and to abstaining from certain foods. He argued that although fasting served a valuable purpose, especially as an act of personal or corporate piety, there was no biblical basis for making fasting obligatory for all Christians. Some of his words were: “…abstinence from meat and drink is an old custom, which, however, later by the wickedness of some of the clergy, came to be viewed as a command.” He summarized by saying, “…if you will fast, do so; if you do not wish to eat meat, eat it not; but leave Christians a free choice in the matter.” The consequence was that the Bishop of Constance sent a delegation to investigate the matter. The Zurich Council called for a debate between Zwingli and a representative of the bishop. In that debate the representative could not refute Zwingli’s scriptural defense and both the Council and the people of Zurich cheered. All sided with Zwingli. Consequently, the child who was now a man, was free to continue his preaching. One year after the gathering in Grabengasse, all mandatory fasting was officially abolished in Zurich. The Council followed, not only Zwingli’s lead in “sola scriptura” as opposed to tradition instituted by men, but also began abolishing other traditions of the Catholic church. Zwingli lived and preached in Zurich until his death in 1531. He was killed in battle during the Second War of Kappel – a battle fought between Catholic and Protestant forces. He was 47 years old. After the Second War of Kappel, Swiss cantons were given the freedom to choose Catholicism or Protestantism and an uneasy peace rested between them. Zwingli believed that a united Protestant Switzerland would represent God's true will for the Church on earth and that Catholics who refused to recognize this were not only standing against Zwingli and his teachings but against God himself. Not the same church Today there is a Swiss Reformed Church. It was begun in 1920. In 2024 it had a total membership of approximately 1.78 million with 982 congregations in various cantons. It allows the ordination of women and has embraced inclusivity by permitting blessings for same-sex civil unions. The rather sad 2000 census in Wildhaus recorded that in Zwingli’s birthplace 468 people were Catholic, while 572 belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 17 individuals who belonged to the Orthodox Church, and there were 17 individuals who belonged to another Christian church. There were 49 who were Islamic. There were 3 individuals who belonged to another church (not listed on the census), 88 belonged to no church, were agnostic or atheist, and 46 individuals did not answer the question. Done for the Lord We might automatically surmise that Zwingli would be disappointed in the modern day apparent disintegration of his life’s work. Add to this, he did not live to see the amazing results that followed soon after his passing. Yet this Swiss child, who became a man, knew a wonderful surety. He was a child of God. Through the Holy Spirit, he had stood up for Truth; he had faithfully exegeted God’s Word; and he had daily turned to his Father. He had used the time allotted to him well and, consequently, was given contentment. Hebrews 6:10 echoes his reason for living and his hope for the future: “God is not unjust; He will not forget your work and the love you have shown Him as you have helped His people and continue to help them.” Zwingli’s life and his death encourage us to work, to work in these days which often seem rather hopeless in results. They point us to 1 Corinthians 15:58: "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast and immovable. Always excel in the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain." Christine Farenhorst has written for Reformed Perspective going back 35 years. Her most recent book is “Upheld: A widow’s story of love, grief, & the constancy of God.” The picture of Zwingli is adapted from a painting by Hans Asper in 1549....

Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

"I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Based on "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll (to whom I apologize for what follows ...) ***** As Alice rode in the carriage with the Queen through the streets of Blunderland, she couldn't help but remark upon the carefree attitude of the people. "Of course they're optimistic and lighthearted," sniffed the Queen, rather condescendingly, "And with good reason. Many of them have completely shelved the silly notion that there is a real God. Others who used to hold high positions in churches - when churches were still fashionable - managed, through various clever devices, to reduce their congregations to the point where Church doors had to be closed and property sold to other interests. "But by far the greater part constitute those who have finally accepted the sublime principle of compromise - you know, those who found out how to mix what remained of their faith with secular ideologies so as to hammer out a lifestyle they could be comfortable with. Thanks to them we still have a church of sorts but one which can easily be controlled by an astute administrator such as myself!" "But how on earth did all this happen?" cried Alice, aghast, "Isn't this a Christian country?" "It was," remarked the Queen, "until enlightened theologians managed to take control of church courts and other key offices and substitute the gospel of Man for the Gospel of Christ. Then the people themselves, spoiled by an impossibly high standard of living which gave them everything and demanded nothing, were easily diverted down the broad road of liberalism. Final victory was assured, of course, when their morals degenerated past the point of no return. "Still, I'm rather uneasy about a handful of diehards who, rumor has it, dare to insist that the Bible is of prime importance in the scheme of things - more important even than being politically correct! That is absurd, of course! As I understand it, they actually believe it to be God's own Word. Anyway, they're impeding real progress and need to be taught a sharp lesson. It may come sooner than they think!" "That seems to be a rather harsh attitude," said Alice in dismay. "Well, the best medicine isn't always the tastiest," snapped the Queen. "Still, it does seem rather unfair," murmured Alice. "Not at all," said the Queen self righteously, "Look at the bulk of the people. You were the one who remarked on how carefree and contented they seem to be." "That's true," admitted Alice. "But I don't understand. Under the circumstances, I would have expected them to be just the opposite." "That's because you know nothing about blunderthink," announced the Queen imperiously. "In this land, the people don't believe in pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by; they believe in social-evolution-in-the-here-and-now. They're happy because they know that the more they perceive themselves as self-realizing people, the better off the world will be somewhere down the road." "I see," said Alice, but she didn't really. "I daresay they look at things differently in your country," said the Queen disdainfully. "Quite," said Alice humbly. "Well," said the Queen, displaying more than her usual degree of tolerance, "what is the term you would use to describe the erosion of old-fashioned faith?" "I don't know very much about theology," said Alice uncertainly, "but I believe it would be called apostasy." "Exactly," said the Queen triumphantly, "that's just the kind of primitive reasoning one has come to expect from a foreigner these days! In Blunderland we are more intellectually astute. For example, when we were faced with what you call 'apostasy', we simply redefined its apparent heresies as a victory over narrow sectarianism." "But how can that be?" asked Alice, now thoroughly confused. "By applying the basic principles of blunderthink," explained the Queen, barely disguising her contempt. "In essence, blunderthink is a form of mental discipline by which we are enabled to rise above mere facts, through the application of selective moral reasoning. If, for instance, we choose to consider sin as a triumph over excessive religiosity rather than rebellion against God, and convey this idea to the people through every means at our disposal; and if we consistently scoff at the 'traditional' Biblical definition and those who take it, the people will soon begin to come around to our viewpoint. Now, if the majority accepts something we tell them, why then it's true, isn't it?" "In politics it seems to be true," said Alice carefully, "but I'm not as sure about religion." "Very well then, let me give you another example," said the Queen doggedly. "No doubt in your country when Christians are inclined to follow current, popular trends rather than the teachings of the Bible, you assume they're compromising the faith." "Of course," said Alice. "Nonsense!" said the Queen testily. "Here in Blunderland we would simply construe the acceptance of current trends as part and parcel of getting on with the Christian mandate." "And the people would believe it?" blurted Alice, astonished. "Certainly they would believe it!" snorted the Queen, "if we told it to them often enough and their scholars and theologians were more terrified of being out of step with the times than with God. The fact is, they unhesitatingly champion every popular viewpoint these days, particularly if it contradicts what used to be held as plain Biblical teaching! Why? Because they yearn to be recognized as intellectuals rather than 'primitives' - it's the nametag that scares them!" "I think I'm beginning to understand," said Alice, "blunderthink is what is called brain-washing in my country." "How dare you?" shrieked the Queen, "Off with her head!!" But the guards were used to the Queen's tantrums and wearily reminded her that capital punishment in Blunderland, even for the most monstrous crimes, was a thing of the past. "I'm sorry," said the Queen, when she had regained her composure, "I can't bear to be contradicted." "Well then," said Alice, trying to remember what the Queen had told her, "let me see if I understand it correctly. Apostasy is simply a victory over narrow sectarianism. Sin is triumph over excessive religiosity. Current social mores are simply a new way of expressing the Christian mandate. Is that it?" "Dear girl," said the Queen, "that's just the beginning of blunderthink - it's such an adaptable concept. Let me run a few more ideas past you. For instance, when Christians embrace other religions as equal inheritors with Christianity, this broader-based faith will have much more political whack than any single religious organization ever had before. And when all belief systems are joined into one ecumenical World-Church, religion will indeed be a formidable force to reckon with. More importantly, when the brotherhood-of-all-men concept finally gains universal acceptance, wars will cease and we will finally have succeeded in the ambition of the ages - bringing the Kingdom of God into being through our own efforts!" "Bringing the Kingdom of God into being through our own efforts," echoed Alice. "That's wonderful! Why, all of society's problems could be solved this way, not just religious ones. Think of the time and effort that could be saved by looking at everything the blunderthink way ... Immorality is moral. Poverty is wealth. Sickness is health. Hell is heaven. Death is life and ... socialism is the Kingdom of God. Why, there's a positive side to everything!" "You're on to something big, young lady," smiled the Queen fondly. And giving Alice a conspiratorial pat on the knee, she confided, "I'll convene Cabinet right away and get the show on the road!" ..BUT the Lord said, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ... Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isa 5:20,23,24 Folks, the 'show' isn't destined to make it very far down the road... Bruce Pringle is a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Smith Falls, Ontario. This was published in the July/August 1999 issue...

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Welcome to the Information Age. With apps like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, we now have a window into the lives of our friends, family, acquaintances and even complete strangers. Business owners can now Google prospective employees, parents can check Instagram to vet new friends of their children, and a woman can search Facebook about a potential boyfriend. We can track down long lost friends from high school and keep in touch with family around the world. The benefits are evident in our churches too, in how we can share information about prayer requests, children’s illnesses, bus routes being late, weather conditions, and new study groups. Via these social media forums, users are connected together in an online virtual world where our interests and ideas can be shared at the speed of light to our online peers. We can share articles that we deem interesting or important, and we can take political stands on issues. With a click of the button, we can friend and follow almost anyone we want. We like or dislike our way through thousands of gigabytes of information, telling everyone our favorite TV shows, games, authors, preachers, speakers and much more. But how does our online presence reflect our allegiance? Do our likes match up with God’s own? Many brothers and sisters seem to disconnect the online version of themselves from the real (or maybe their social media presence is their true self?). Christians will watch horrific godless shows and discuss them and like them on Facebook. Some may share photos of themselves in provocative poses with minimal clothing, or share pictures of drunken partying. We’ll fight with others online, speaking wrathfully, and assume the worst of whomever we’re arguing with. Disputes with our consistory, or our spouse, will be aired publicly and captured for all eternity. We’ll speak derisively about our employers, or our minister, family members, or friends. Online Christians will use filthy language, or casually take God’s name in vain in ways that they would not in the offline world. The Bible calls this disconnect an unstable “double-mindedness” (James 1:8, 22-25) – we are trying to be two people, each serving a different master (Matthew 6:24). Not only are we responsible for how we present ourselves online, we’re responsible for what we like and follow. When we see pictures of brothers and sisters sinning and like them, when we click thumbs up to a godless show, or blasphemous musician do we understand what we are telling everyone? Though it may take little thought – just a quick click of the mouse and a friendly like or thumbs up – what we are saying is I agree, I like this, I love this, this is good. Though it seems harmless, this is encouragement. When I sin and someone says good job,they are enabling me. That is not love. That is sinful. It is wicked. We should not condone sin whether online or off. In fact, we should love one another enough to be willing to privately approach and hold our brothers and sisters accountable. Maybe we think this a task better suited to elders. But not all consistory members are on these online forums. They don’t always know what is happening on Facebook or Instagram. And it is not their job to follow every one of us everywhere we go. As brothers and sisters in the Lord, we need to hold each other accountable out of love for each other (Eccl. 4:9-12). And we need to do so out of love for our Lord – the world will get their ideas of Who He is based in large part on how we, his ambassadors, act. Finally, whether we sin in daily life or online, God sees. In a world of both hate and tolerance, filth and fanaticism, we need to be careful not only in how we behave online, but also in what we like, share and post and therefore condone, as well. This article was first published in the Mar/Apr 2019 issue of the magazine....

Contests, Photos 2026

RP's 2026 Summer Photo Contest: Let's get real!

The fascination with AI media creation, be it pictures, videos, and music, has turned sour for many of us. AI images are increasingly felt to be easy, cheap, and too often deceitful. In contrast to this AI gloss, God’s creation stands before us as a witness to just how real and powerful He is, so that everyone is without excuse (Rom. 1:20). It’s anything but artificial. Our challenge for you this year is to take photos that capture what reality looks like on this side of eternity. There is brokenness, but there is also hope, darkness but now light, strength and fragility, complexity and order… God’s fingerprints are everywhere. As always, the themes are meant as a springboard for your creativity and not any sort of limitation on it. Just try things, have fun, and share what you capture with all of us! So get clicking... and don't forget to include a line or two explaining what your photo is all about! Categories: Children and youth (under 18) Adults (18+) Rules: Maximum 2 entries per person Must be an original photo, taken in the last 12 months Include a line to explain how the photo relates to the theme (max. 100 words) Provide permission to RP to publish your photo online and/or in print if selected Include the name of the photographer and photo title, and for the under 18 entries, the photographer's age. Prizes: Winner and runner-up, and a selection of other entries, for both categories will be printed in Reformed Perspective this Winter. Winner of each category will receive a $150 gift certificate from Reformed Book Services or Providence Books and Press; runner-up will receive a $75 gift certificate. Deadline: Send your photo (high-resolution) to [email protected] before Sept 1, 2026 ...

Economics

Why family businesses still matter (and why the Church should care)

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

Was there death before the fall into sin? It all depends on what you mean by "death" ***** Fall in America and throughout much of the Northern Hemi...

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Step 1. Figure out what you’re really trying to say Step 2. Don’t let anyone or anything distract you from saying it ***** Scott Klusendorf is ...

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be sober-minded." – Titus 2:6 ***** In Titus 2 Paul gives instructions to older women, younger women, older men...

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

A quick survey of X or the top YouTube-influencer-content on the Right reveals that conspiracy theories have never been so widely spread or fervently believed. You can hear Tucker Carlson claiming that the atomic bomb was literally (not figuratively) created by demons; Candace Owens attempting to claim that Erika Kirk is tied to the assassination of her husband, and that Owens herself was the subject of an apparently shockingly inept assassination attempt commissioned personally by the Macrons (Israel was involved somehow, of course); and plenty more. The phrase “conspiracy theory” itself is, naturally, controversial. Originating in the 1860s and popularized in political theory circles by Karl Popper in 1945, it has been (wrongly) attributed to the CIA as an attempt to deflect questions surrounding the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK after the already-common term was used in a 1967 memo discussing theories about the president’s murder. Nonetheless, the phrase has been used to dismiss anyone asking serious questions about powerful movements, ideologies, and politicians. Provable vs. theory There is, of course, such a thing as a conspiracy – legally speaking, “a secret agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.” A conspiracy theory is the suspicion or belief that multiple parties have conspired to some nefarious end. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true as we acquire evidence. Some remain merely theories, which is to say, the evidence is weak, circumstantial, or non-existent. Distinguishing between provable conspiracies and conspiracy theories is, in our chaotic, addictive digital age, essential. Many find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two; others, because of the loyalty they have for certain influencers, are merely unwilling. Lack of trust is warranted It must be noted that the rise of conspiracy theories was made inevitable by the collapse of trust in institutions. There were the widespread deceits from governments and medical institutions during Covid. As I wrote for The European Conservative a couple of years ago, the collusion of the press, medical institutions, and governments to push transgender ideology has been another major catalyst for the collapse of trust in institutions. When law enforcement puts out a mugshot of a bearded rapist and tells the public they are hunting for a woman, the effect on public trust is predictably devastating. In short, many conspiracies do turn out to be true. The need to discern, not rebound And how do we know? Because we acquire actual evidence. Our institutions and mainstream press have an evidentiary standard that has been corrupted by pernicious, wicked ideologies that they have adopted, and when we acquire information from those sources, we must factor in that bias and re-interpret (most notably, but not exclusively, with Orwellian reporting on abortion and transgender issues) through that lens. But our solution to this information landscape is not to abandon any evidentiary standard altogether, but to rigorously apply the evidentiary standard abandoned by the institutions and the press. Indeed, the phrase “trust the experts” has become something of a sick joke, after all the provable lies and ideologically motivated mistakes perpetrated by said experts. But many on the Right have not actually abandoned a “trust the experts” approach; they have merely replaced them with new experts, without wondering whether these replacements actually have any expertise at all or whether their own credibility is rooted in a fidelity to truth and an evidentiary standard. Influencers such as Owens and Carlson deliberately play into this, constantly dismissing their critics not by addressing their arguments but by implying that they are members of the discredited expert class. But what is their evidentiary standard? Candace Owens, of course, has quite famously claimed that she has received investigative tips in dreams; that she can just “feel” when things are “off”; that she “doesn’t know, but she know knows.” Anyone genuinely seeking truth should take a moment to actually review her record of blatant historical error and deliberate deceit; if that record does not bother you, then you should recognize that it is not truth or a genuine evidentiary standard that matters to you. If someone can be proven so consistently wrong and maintain your loyalty, you are doing precisely what the Left does with their own idealogues: Choosing to believe someone for reasons other than their actual track record. Many conservative influencers have proven just as hackish and agenda-driven as their progressive opponents. That should matter to those who care about the truth. Otherwise, we do not have principles—we have preferences. What does it look like when a conservative influencer applies the evidentiary standard to a conspiracy theory? Consider some of Matt Walsh’s recent episodes. As he has pointed out, those seeking the “truth” about Charlie Kirk’s assassination have spent almost no time looking into the LGBT activist actually arrested and charged with his murder – and he laid out precisely why he believes Owens, who is his friend, is dead wrong: Compare Walsh’s method of investigation to what Owens is doing on her show. One has an evidentiary standard; the other does not. (Dreams, feelings, and angry, compelling language do not count and certainly do not add up to truth.) Even more devastating was Walsh’s rebuttal of Owens’ ongoing character assassination of Erika Kirk, which he ended with a powerful and moving plea for moral decency, publicly begging Owens – who, again, is his friend – to stop what she is doing: Unanswered questions doesn’t mean any answer will do Let’s take another major story – the Jeffrey Epstein files. The mysterious sexual predator, connected to countless elite figures, has become a lightning rod for conspiracy theories because there are so many obviously unanswered and open questions. Did he really conveniently die of suicide? Who did he work for, if anyone? How did he get his money? How did he get away with his crimes for so long? Was he running a sexual blackmail operation on behalf of an intelligence service? These are genuine questions. They deserve real answers. But many major influencers are not looking to actually find answers – they are insisting that the files released thus far prove whatever they were saying before the files were released. Where the files do not prove their claims, they move the evidentiary bar, claiming that the most incriminating material has clearly been destroyed, or has yet to be released, or will never be released. In short, the actual evidence is only incidental to the claims they are making. If it appears to support their theories, they wave it about as evidence; if it does not, that, too, is somehow also evidence. In short: Evidence is evidence, but no evidence is also evidence. In a massive analysis published in February, for example, conservative journalists Alex Gutentag and Michael Shellenberger noted that although they had first believed that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to intelligence services (“particularly Mossad and the CIA”), their review led them to a different conclusion. After summarizing the case for intelligence connections and citing the most compelling evidence in favor of that conclusion, they write: But after having spent several weeks reading through the files and related investigations, it’s clear to us that the totality of available evidence does not support the picture of a government-backed sex blackmail operation. Rather, it suggests that Epstein primarily served his own interests. If Epstein was a slave to anything, it was to his passions and perversions. Ward’s claim that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” is not reliable. She said she heard it third-hand from an anonymous source. Her former Vanity Fair editor and colleagues told the New Yorker that her reporting was not trusted, and said that she had provided inaccurate quotations in the past. Long-held feelings shouldn’t be misunderstood as facts If that conclusion makes you instinctively irritated or defensive before you even read their analysis, ask yourself if you have become ideologically invested in a specific conclusion. If the connection or lack thereof of a dead sexual predator to an intelligence agency is something you deeply care about to the point that you will not consider any evidence to the contrary, your view is not based on “truth-seeking,” but something else – loyalty to a podcaster who has captured your attention, loathing for the countries you have been led to believe were involved, belief that no evidence can ever be trusted. The nature of many conspiracy theories also means that the very theory itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example: Of course Epstein was an Israeli asset – that is precisely the sort of thing Israel does. And why do you feel that way? Well, in part because you have been told, for several years, by several prominent podcasters, that Epstein was an Israeli asset. A feeling that has become entrenched based on the theory now becomes a plausibility structure for the theory itself. Those consuming news and content in our chaotic information age must ask themselves a question: Why do I believe what I believe? Rebounding off a liar isn’t a way to the truth Every influencer these days – especially those on the Right – claim to be “truth-seekers,” while insisting that everyone who disagrees with them is lying or “one of them.” We know that progressives have biases, and we know that they lie: About gender ideology, about abortion, about the birth control pill, and countless other issues. But the solution to a corrupted evidentiary standard is not to replace it with a network of podcasters who abandon any evidentiary standard at all and merely replace progressive biases that are impervious to evidence with new biases that are equally impervious to evidence. If truth matters, we should pursue it. If evidence matters, then we should consider it – and the lack of it. If we are being led to conclusions through skillful narrative creation rather than proof, we should stop and consider where we are being led and why – because many influencers who identify as Christian have done more to confuse and corrupt their audiences than progressives ever could....

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

The parables of Jesus teach eternal truths, but they also offer surprising practical lessons for worldly affairs. In the Gospel According to Matthew (chapter 25, verses 14-30) we find Jesus' Parable of the Talents. As with all the biblical parables, it has many layers of meaning. Its essence relates to how we are to use God's gift of grace. As regards the material world, it is a story about capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of scarce economic resources. It is a direct rebuttal to those who see a contradiction between business success and living the Christian life. A rich man who was going on a long journey called his three servants together. He told them they would be caretakers of his property while he was gone. The master had carefully assessed the natural abilities of each servant. He gave five talents to one servant, two to another, and one to the third – to each according to his ability. The master then left on his journey. The servants went forth into a world open to enterprise and investment. The servant who had received five talents went into business and made five more. The servant who received two made two more. But the servant who received one hid the master's property in a hole in the ground. The master returned to settle his accounts. The servant who had received five talents came forth. "My lord," he said, "you entrusted me with five talents; see, I have made five more!" "Well done, good and faithful servant!" the master responded. "You have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your lord!" Then the servant who had been given two talents approached the master. "My lord," he said, "you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have made two talents more!" The master praised the servant in a like manner. Then the one who had been given one talent approached his master. "My lord," he said, "I knew you to be a hard man; you reap where you have not sown, and gather where you have not scattered; and being afraid I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours!" The master's response was swift and harsh: "You wicked and indolent slave! You were aware that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered; you ought for that reason to have invested my money with the bankers; then, on my return, I should have received my own with interest." The master ordered that the talent be taken away from the lazy servant and given to the one with the ten talents. "For to every one who possesses not," said the master, “even that which he has shall be taken away. Cast that useless slave into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and the grinding of teeth!" This is not a story we often hear from the pulpit. Our times still exalt a socialist ethic where making a profit is suspect, and entrepreneurship is frowned upon. Yet the story relays a readily apparent ethical meaning, and even deeper lessons for understanding human accountability in economic life. A closer look The word "talent" in this parable has two meanings. It is a monetary unit: it was the largest denomination of the time. Biblical scholar John R. Donovan tells us a single talent was equivalent to the wage of an ordinary worker for fifteen years. So we know the amount given to each servant was considerable. More broadly interpreted, the talents refer to all of the various gifts God has given us for our use. This definition embraces all gifts - natural, spiritual, and material. It includes our natural abilities and resources our health, education - as well as our possessions, money, and opportunities. One of the simplest lessons from this parable is that it is not immoral to profit from our resources, wit, and labor. The alternative to profit is loss, and surely the loss of wealth, especially when due to a lack of initiative, does not constitute good stewardship. Matthew's parable presupposes a local understanding of the proper stewardship of money. According to rabbinical law, burying was regarded as the best security against theft. If a person entrusted with money buried it as soon as he had it in his possession, he would be free from liability if anything should happen to it. The opposite was true for money that was tied in a cloth. In this case, the person was responsible for covering any loss incurred due to the inadequate care of the deposit. Yet in this story, the master turned this understanding on its head. He considered burying the talent - and thus breaking even - to be a loss, because he thought that capital ought to earn a reasonable rate of return. In this understanding, time is money (or interest). The parable also contains a critical lesson about how we are to use our God-given capacities and resources. In the book of Genesis God gave Adam the Earth with which to mix his labor for his own use. In the parable, in a similar manner, the master expected his servants to seek material gain. Rather than passively preserve what they have been given, they were expected to invest the money. The master was angered at the timidity of the servant who had received the one talent. God commands us to use our talents towards productive ends. The parable emphasizes the need for work and creativity as opposed to idleness. The quest for security Throughout history, people have tried to construct institutions to provide perfect security, as the failed servant did. Such efforts range from the Greco-Roman welfare states, to full-scale Soviet totalitarianism, to the Luddite communes of the 1960s. From time to time, these efforts have been embraced as Christian solutions to future insecurities. Yet in the Parable of the Talents, courage in the face of an unknown future is rewarded in the first servant, who has been given the most. He had traded the five talents, and in doing so, acquired five more. It would have been safer for the servant to have invested the money in the bank to receive interest. For his faith in his master he is allowed to keep what had been entrusted to him and what he earned, and he is invited to rejoice with the master. This implies a moral obligation to confront uncertainty in an enterprising way. No one does this better than the entrepreneur. Long before he knows if there will be a return on his investments or ideas, he risks his time and property. He must pay out wages long before he has any idea if he has accurately predicted future events. He looks to the future with courage and a sense of opportunity. In creating new enterprises he opens up alternatives for workers to choose among in earning a wage and developing skills. Why, then, are entrepreneurs so often castigated as poor servants of God? Many religious leaders speak and act as if the businessman's use of his natural talents and resources to turn a profit is immoral, a notion that should be cast aside in light of the Parable of the Talents. The lazy servant could have avoided his dismal fate by being more entrepreneurial. If he had made an effort to trade with his master's money and came back with less than a talent, he would not have been treated so harshly, for he would have labored on behalf of his master. Entrepreneurship and greed Religion must begin to recognize entrepreneurship for what it is - a vocation. The ability to succeed in business, stock trading, or investment banking is a talent. Like other gifts, it should not be squandered, but used to its fullest for the glory of God. Critics link capitalism with greed, yet the fundamental nature of the entrepreneurial vocation is to focus on the needs of customers. To succeed, the entrepreneur must serve others. Greed is a spiritual hazard that threatens us all, regardless of our wealth or vocation. The term has a proportional element, meaning there is an excessive or insatiable desire for material gain, regardless of financial status. The desire is excessive when, in the depths of a person's being, it outweighs moral and spiritual concerns. This parable makes very clear that wealth as such is not unjust - for the first servant received more than the second and third. And when turning a profit is the goal of using the entrepreneurial talent, it is not greed. It is the proper use of the gift. In addition to condemning profit, religious leaders often favor varieties of social leveling and redistribution of income. Universal health care, greater social welfare spending and higher taxes on the rich are all promoted in the name of Christian ethics. The ultimate goal of such constructs is equality, as if the inequalities that exist among people are somehow inherently unjust. Yet this is not how Jesus tells it in the Parable of the Talents. The master entrusted to each of his servants talents according to his ability. One received five, while another received only one. The one who received the least does not receive sympathy from the master for his lack of resources in comparison to what his colleagues have been given. We can infer from this parable leveling of money or the reallocation of resources is not a proper moral concern. The individual talents and raw materials that each of us has are not inherently unjust; there will always be rampant inequalities among people. A moral system is one which recognizes this and allows each person to use his or her talents to the fullest. We all have the responsibility to employ the faculties with which we have been endowed. We can also apply the lesson of this parable to our nation's social policy. In our existing system, the labor of workers is taxed to provide support for many who do not work. We often hear that there are "no jobs" for many of our poor. Yet there is always work to be done. A man with two working hands can find work for a dollar an hour. He makes a decision not to work. Moreover, our welfare system discourages work. It creates the perverse incentive to go on welfare unless there is a job that will pay at least as much as government relief. God commands all people to use the talents they have been given, yet in the name of charity our welfare system encourages people to let their natural skills atrophy, or keeps them from discovering their talents at all. We encourage sin this way. The Parable of the Talents implies that inactivity - or wasting entrepreneurial talent - incites the wrath of God. After all, the lowly servant had not squandered his lord's money; he just hid it in the ground, something that was permissible in rabbinical law. The rapidity of the master's reaction is surprising. He calls him "wicked and slothful" and banishes him forever. Apparently it is not just the servant's sloth that brings such wrath on his head. He has also shown no contrition, and has blamed the master for his timidity. His excuse for not investing the money is that he viewed the master as a hard and exacting man, though he had been given generous resources. Bible scholar John Meir comments, "Out of fear of failure, he has refused to even try to succeed." This parable also tells us something about macroeconomics. The master went on his journey leaving behind a total of eight talents; upon his return it has become fifteen. The parable is not the story of a zero-sum gain. One person's gain is not another's expense. The successful trading of the first servant does not hinder the prospects for the third servant. So it is true in the economy of today. Unlike what is so often preached from some pulpits, the success of the rich does not come at the expense of the poor. If by becoming rich the most successful servant had hurt others, the master would not have praised him. A wise use of resources in investment and saving at interest is not only right from the individual point of view; it helps others in the economy as well. A rising tide lifts all boats, as John Kennedy used to say. Similarly, the wealth of the developed world is not on the backs of developing nations. The Parable of the Talents implies a free and open economy. Often left-leaning Christians will cite Jesus' words: "How hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to pass through the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." His disciples were taken aback at this, and wondered then who could be saved. Jesus answers their fears, "For man it is impossible, but not for God." This does not mean that our material success will keep us from heaven, yet it does imply the necessity to order our lives properly before all our material concerns. Our concern for God must come just as the servants thought of their master's interest as they pursued profit. It remains true that for all of our worldly goods and deeds, we rely completely on God to attain salvation. But for the conduct of economics, we rely heavily on entrepreneurship, investment, risk taking, and the expansion of wealth and prosperity. We should lend a critical eye to the way our culture treats enterprise. Business magazines carry stories of business success all the time. The hero is often the forward-looking, courageous, and cheerful entrepreneur, who is much like the capable servant given five talents. Yet at the same time popular religious faith continues to extol and promote behavior endemic to the idle servant who was banished by the master. Christianity is often blamed for the failed socialist projects the world over. And in many cases misguided Christians have been involved in building socialist constructs. The lesson of the Parable of the Talents needs to be better understood. The socialist dream is not a moral one. It simply institutionalizes the condemned behavior of the lesser servant. Where God commands creative action, socialism encourages laziness. Where He demands faith and hope in the future, socialism promises a base form of security. Where the Parable of the Talents implies the morality of freedom to trade, invest, and profit, socialism denies it. All people of faith need to work to close the chasm that exists between religion and economic understanding. Jesus' parable is a good place to begin to incorporate the morality of enterprise and the free market into Christian ethics. This article first appeared in the March 2000 issue of the magazine. It is reprinted with permission from the Freeman. Image by Drazen Zigic on Freepik...

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

“Oh, a coffee maker! Just what Peter and I need – thank you so much!” Bridal showers are a fun, valuable tradition. The bride-to-be’s family, friends and acquaintances have the opportunity to celebrate and support the upcoming marriage by providing a few gifts for the new home. The ladies usually enjoy some good cooking, and enjoy laughter from silly games or from anecdotes joyfully shared about the couples’ childhood or their relationship, or perhaps about cooking disasters that others faced as new wives. At my church we have found that a Saturday morning brunch of egg-and-sausage casserole and muffins brings the best attendance. We ask one of the ladies to share Scripture to encourage and instruct the new bride. We often ask everyone who has been married for a while to give their best advice. From a recent bridal shower, here are the tips that came from women who had been married anywhere from three months to fifty-five years. Respect him by never complaining about him to the other women (except maybe one older than you for counsel). It makes you look just as bad, lowers peoples’ opinions of him and does not help the situation. Try to be happy with what makes him happy – don’t let your goals get in the way (example: don’t shun time in the bedroom for a cleaner house – which would he rather have?) Have plenty to do when he is busy. Don’t whine about not seeing him when he has to work/minister to others/study. He has callings from the Lord as husband, church member and employee and sometimes you need to cheerfully stay out of his way. The forty-hour work week is not in the Bible. It’s okay to set some boundaries from the start. Numbers 1-3 above do not mean that he should be lazy or you should be a slave. Be kind, calm, honest and assertive when necessary. Don’t be a Wendy to his Peter Pan. You are his wife, not his mother. Discern when “it’s the hormones talking” and do not bring up bothersome items then. If it wouldn’t bother you the rest of the month, then let it go a few days. Cry, be alone, read Scripture, walk, scrub something! In other words, acknowledge your emotions, but realize that sometimes they are sinful and ought not to be expressed. Think it through from his perspective. Teach him what to do when you are upset. I told my husband that when I cry, I want him to put his arms around me, and not ask me any questions. He does it quite well, but I needed to figure out what I wanted and tell him. Don’t ever expect him to read your mind. He can’t, and most men don’t automatically see the whole picture regarding the home tasks. Make a list of what needs to be done, and, if possible, give him advance notice so he can schedule it (don't just spring it on him). You might also try saying, “Let’s see, the kids have to be put to bed and the kitchen needs to be cleaned – which would you prefer to do?” Besides reading God’s Word together, read excellent books on marriage and child rearing. Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. This does not mean you don’t ever get angry – it means you speak calmly and don’t say things you will regret. For instance, never say “you never” or “you always.” Pray for your husband and talk to the Lord about all aspects of your marriage. Ask Him to give you insight into “him.” Experience is a good teacher – let’s take these suggestions to heart, and remember Proverbs 14:1: “The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.” Sharon L. Bratcher has compiled 15 years of her published articles into a book entitled “Life and Breath and Everything,” available on Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. Her first book, “Soup and Buns,” is available by contacting her at [email protected]....

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Legislatures make laws, the executive enforces them, judges interpret and apply them in specific cases. Three branches, checks and balances – that’s Civics 101. As Calvinists, we get why we need checks and balances. We know that voters, lawmakers, bureaucrats, police, judges, juries – everyone – is fallen. So we don’t want to entrust one sinner or one group of sinners with too much power. And we want to hold people with power accountable. It’s this Calvinistic insight into human nature that contributed to strong checks and balances emerging in the UK and the US. But who checks whom and how, exactly? That’s where things get interesting. Canada currently awaits a ruling from our Supreme Court on whether the legislature or the judiciary has the final say in disputes over Charter rights and freedoms. More specifically, the Court is reviewing the Quebec government’s use of the notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Charter) to shield its secularism law (Bill 21) from being declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by the judiciary. The federal government has intervened in the Quebec case to argue that the Supreme Court should impose certain limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause – limits that do not appear anywhere in the text of the Charter. Various other interveners insist that the clause is dangerous and contrary to the spirit of the Canadian constitution. What is the notwithstanding clause? Prior to 1982, Canada had no constitutional bill of rights, unlike the US, which adopted its Bill of Rights in 1791. Today, Britain and several other Commonwealth countries continue to go without such a constitutional bill of rights, which would authorize judges to strike down legislation. Britain, therefore, is said to maintain legislative or Parliamentary supremacy on rights questions, while the US is said to have judicial supremacy. Canada has a kind of hybrid model. Ordinarily, a judge in Canada can strike down a statute if, in the judge’s opinion, the statute violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, section 33 of the Charter says that a legislature may declare that a law will operate “notwithstanding” certain parts of the Charter, which include the fundamental freedoms listed in section 2, and the legal rights in sections 7-15. Any invocation of the notwithstanding clause expires in five years, though a legislature may re-invoke it limitless times. This five-year-expiry rule ensures voters can have a say, since the constitution requires an election within 5 years of the last election. Judges’ role in lawmaking Returning to the basic notion that legislatures make laws and judges interpret them – well, that’s not the whole story. 1. Judges have been setting precedents of centuries In the nearly 1000-year-old common law tradition, much of the law is judge-made. Their rulings set a precedent that other judges then follow, and it’s these precedents that make up what’s called common law. But common law is subject to statute. Legislatures might choose to codify the existing common law, or they could pass a law that deliberately modifies or overturns it. But the key is, any legislation they pass prevails over common law precedents whenever there is a tension between the two. The maxim that legislatures make law and judges interpret and apply it may lack nuance, but it highlights the supremacy of statute law over common law. 2. Judges interpret the laws Where we have a statute, there is still an important role for judicial interpretation and precedent, since legislators cannot conceive of and cover every possible situation. But for centuries under the common law tradition, judges have recognized that while they have an inherent civic authority to resolve civil disputes, they are also duty-bound to apply any statute that applies to the case before them. 3. Judges can overturn laws when they find a conflict with the Charter When it comes to the Charter, however, it gets a little odd, because there’s always another law involved. Judges recognize that they should not apply the Charter in the abstract. Rather, as with other laws, judges apply the Charter in particular cases with particular facts. But the Charter is normally used to argue that the other law in question in a given case must not be applied. If applying the law – say, a law forbidding noise above a certain decibel level in a park – would violate the Charter in a particular case (e.g. a group gathers in the park and shouts a political slogan), then judges may declare the law itself to be void. The Charter has massively expanded judges’ lawmaking role in Canada. Most Charter rights are stated broadly and abstractly. Consequently, although a judge is supposed to rely on the facts of a particular case and not make rulings about the constitutionality of statutes in the abstract, judges still end up deciding major policy questions via their Charter rulings. Here, the basic principles underlying the differentiation between the legislative and judicial roles are in tension. Judges end up deciding what the law on a given matter will be for the country, or province, or town, based on the evidence and legal arguments presented to them in a particular case. Legislatures vs. courts The legal process is supposed to discover the truth and reach a just outcome in individual cases. The legislative process ideally channels the wisdom and experience of the broader community and persons from various walks of life into formulating generally applicable rules that reflect what society considers just and good. As John Finnis explains, while courts are fundamentally backward-looking (resolving particular, concrete disputes between parties based on pre-existing rules) legislatures are fundamentally forward-looking – deciding what ground rules should govern society in the future. Legislatures are sometimes referred to as majoritarian bodies, in two senses. First, bills become law by majority vote among legislators. Second, legislators are elected, so presumably legislation reflects majority views in society. The fear, then, is that legislators may not care about the rights and interests of minorities. The latter point may be more or less true depending on how elected members conceive of their role. Do they decide their vote based on public opinion polling? Or do they, in line with Edmund Burke and Abraham Kuyper, see themselves as elected to exercise personal judgment, bring their personal knowledge and experience to bear, and seek to enact just laws for all citizens? Legislatures need not be merely majoritarian bodies codifying shifting popular opinion into law. At their best, they are representative and deliberative bodies endeavoring to enact just laws for everyone in society. Meanwhile, we tend to overlook the fact that the judiciary, too, is majoritarian in the former sense – in appellate courts, cases are decided by a majority vote of justices on the bench. Of course, judges in Canada are appointed, not elected. When a judge fulfills his role of carefully deciphering the facts, and faithfully interpreting and applying the law to the facts, he should not be worried about whether his ruling will be popular. Legal training and expertise are most applicable to applying pre-existing laws to specific events that occurred in the past. But what if a judge is not deciding whether Person A violated Law X, but whether Law X (e.g. a law restricting abortion or euthanasia) should even be law? Should the latter be shielded from electoral and legislative accountability (short of amending the constitution)? Of course, a constitutional bill of rights only gives judges final say over laws that affect the rights listed therein. But since such rights tend to be broadly worded (e.g. freedom of expression, liberty, security of the person), and judges often take considerable liberties in interpreting them, the result is that a small group of unelected people – judges, especially on apex courts, who often serve for decades – can decide major political issues for a province or nation. A prominent justification proffered for giving judges the final say on rights matters is that these are matters of principle and courts are better forums for resolving them on principle rather than politics – which supposedly has more to do with negotiating the distribution of material benefits in society. But this is mere question begging. Rights are matters of principle, sure, but so are questions about the just and proper limits on rights, the duties that correspond to rights, the just distribution of benefits in society, and so on. Really, these are all political questions. They all raise competing moral views and involve judgments about how we ought to live together as a community. Against judicial supremacy There’s an instrumental or consequentialist case to be made – in terms of better or worse policy outcomes – against judicial supremacy, to be sure. Canada’s judges invalidated Canada’s abortion restrictions and euthanasia ban, for example. They also struck down various laws that were premised on spouses being opposite-sex, paving the way for same-sex marriage. The same is true in the US, except on euthanasia. A principled, biblical case against judicial supremacy is somewhat more difficult, and necessarily fairly nuanced. I think Christians can make decent principled arguments in defence of the American system over the British or the Canadian system. But allow me to attempt a more principled case against judicial supremacy and explain why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause. The biblical truth that all persons are image bearers of God is the fundamental basis for the equality of all citizens. And while the imago dei admits of distinct, unequal offices (e.g. parent, elder, magistrate), one political implication of imago dei is that each person is God's representative on earth, and together we exercise dominion. We are equal before God, and we all bear some (albeit not equal, depending on our office) responsibility for our political community and the rules that will govern it. Representative legislatures, arguably, best reflect this Christian anthropology as it applies in the political sphere. A nation’s citizens share a common civic responsibility to respect and preserve public justice, the common good, and each other’s individual rights. The body politic, as David Koyzis explains, is by its nature not a private concern, but a community of citizens and their government called by God to do justice. Therefore, it seems appropriate that citizens should bear political responsibility within that community. “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women,” the famous Justice Learned Hand observed. “When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.” By assigning “rights questions” to unelected judges to finally resolve, legislators and citizens effectively wash our hands of this responsibility. Does a person have a “right” to abort a baby, euthanize a patient, or “marry” a person of the same sex? Does a pre-born baby have a right to life? Should people be free to publicly proclaim the gospel? And so on. A system of judicial supremacy obscures if not reduces the responsibility we have as citizens for preserving others’ rights and the common good. “Isn’t it awful that Barry Neufeld was censored so severely by the Human Rights Tribunal?” you might say. “Yeah, let’s hope he wins in court,” your friend might reply. I hope that too, of course. But do we realize, as citizens, that we are responsible for the law that applies in such cases? A constitutional model – in which legislatures remain ultimately responsible for deciding whether we will be a society that will permit abortion, prostitution, euthanasia, and easy access to online pornography – makes our responsibility as Christian citizens more clear. Also, a system in which judges play a predominant law-making role privileges legal rhetoric and “rights talk” while displacing or marginalizing moral and theological language and perspectives. This accelerates secularization and makes the prophetic task of the Church in politics more difficult, as there is more translating to do. Outstanding opportunity? Functionally, outside of Quebec, Canada has had a system of judicial supremacy since 1982. Cracks have started to show recently in some provinces, as Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have all used the notwithstanding clause in the last three years. Alberta and Saskatchewan have used it to protect parental authority. Alberta has also used it to preserve its law against medically transitioning minors. Federally, it has never been used, though Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has, notably, endorsed its use. I think this represents an opportunity for us as Reformed Christians. While biblical truth is generally ignored in Canadian society, it is systemically ignored in our highly secularized legal system. Canada’s courts are a uniquely challenging forum to make biblical arguments – in fact, if arguments are explicitly biblical, a judge will likely reject them outright. The notwithstanding clause could offer Christians opportunities to advance more just laws by persuading their fellow citizens instead. “Who will guard the guardians?” has been a classic question in politics throughout the ages. Reformed political thought, Koyzis explains, posits various checks, including those built into government itself, such as separation of powers, recurrent elections, limited jurisdiction of government agencies and ministers, federalism, and so on. But within such a system, some body must bear primary responsibility for resolving great public problems. It is best, I believe, for that body to be a representative and deliberative one, one for which each and every citizen bears some responsibility. The Charter has greatly obscured the sense of citizens’ responsibility to preserve fundamental rights and freedoms. The notwithstanding clause offers an opportunity to recover it....

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

or why we gave two years to bringing the Heidelberg Catechism to video… and more ***** There is something disarming about the Heidelberg Catechism...

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

Some might assume that, as they grow older, they will grow in wisdom. But the Bible tells us that’s hardly a given. One of the themes of the book of...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Some is better than none “There is nothing wrong with starting a hefty book like Calvin’s Institutes and only getting a hundred pages read. Think...

Assorted

When there is smoke…

You think you know someone. Five years – truly, has it already been five years that we have spent morning, noon and night working side by side? How many meals, how much laughter, how many truly delicious accomplishments we have achieved together only to arrive at this Easter morning and have you, the oven I’ve grown to trust, inexplicably burn the bacon beyond recognition?!! The betrayal runs deep. Now, hopefully there aren’t any readers who are questioning the underlying necessity of bacon in the life of the believer. If so, go read Nehemiah 8 and then come back. I’ll wait. A large platter of bacon, crisped to perfection, is my weekly gift to my people, the reminder of all the wondrous things we mortals can experience this side of paradise. Over the years, I have moved through many different seasons and methods of bacon prep. In the newlywed years, I attempted bacon on a paper-towel-ensconced plate in the microwave. This works better, I admit, if you hadn’t thought it a brilliant idea to register for large, square dinner plates that, when placed in the microwave, aggressively prohibit the rotation mechanism, thus producing bacon that is highly, almost toxically cooked on one end and raw on the other. I then spent multiple years employing the electric skillet on the countertop method, which was largely fine but had two predictable problems I never seemed to entirely stay ahead of: I buy cheap griddles (yes, that technically makes me the problem, so make it three predictable problems) and they always seem to have large dead spots in the center, thus requiring a complicated mosaic of fatty meat scattered about that can cook approximately three pieces at a time, and the grease catch always has a tendency to break, which I consistently fail to notice until the grease has dripped all across the counter and floor, leaving an exciting patch for walking on days after the bacon has been consumed. Then I was introduced to cooking bacon in the oven and, dare I have the hubris to say, I shall never go back? It has now become a part of my own personal Sunday morning liturgy. To get the family up and out to worship without a stressed atmosphere, I wake up an hour or so before the rest and go cook bacon. Later, when everyone is up, I pop the already cooked bacon back into the now cooling oven to warm it back to perfection and voilà – eat the fat! This was my plan on Easter morning... And then the oven betrayed me. Now, if ovens could speak, mine would probably say (and for some reason, I hear this in an Australian accent), Whoa now, Missy, I am not the one who broke the pattern, you did! You acted the dingo (again, Australian) and left the oven on for too long and you did not pay close attention when you warmed the bacon back up, which is why your family had to eat LIMP TURKEY BACON on Resurrection Sunday! At this point, obviously, I would push random buttons on the oven that would make it stop talking and probably clean itself. Ha, and so there. But then... I would have to acknowledge that the oven, while unnecessarily preening and self-righteous and sporting a cooler accent than mine, was correct – I assumed the bacon was safe. I stopped paying attention. Smoke always ensues when we stop paying attention. It is really no different in our daily walks with Christ. We have areas that we let our guard down (you know the one, that guard we are told to keep up with unceasing vigilance because our adversary the devil roams about like a lion seeking one to destroy?). We feel safe, spiritually, and fail to pay attention to the faint aroma of singed flesh that is beginning to permeate our relationships, our thoughts, our homes. One such example that leaps to mind for me is that brief window of time at the end of a long day when you and your spouse finally get to go to bed. How many thoughtless words have been spoken in those last moments of the waking hours? How many misunderstandings could have been avoided, how many apologies would not have become necessary, if we were to go to bed, spiritually, with a knife under our pillow, ready to spring to the cross at the first sign of temptation? Because that is the only recourse when you light God’s good gifts on fire: Christ. He is your only protection, your true security, the only place you can and must turn again and again in the midst of temptation, of failure, of opposition, of smoke. Some kitchen fires... some relational fires... leave an aroma in the air that lasts for days. I spent a solid 48 hours haunted by the Easter bacon. But with each acrid whiff, I am given the choice to turn, and return, to the Gospel and put my hope in His unfailing protection. He is not done handing out bacon. So, I cannot be done standing guard, in His grace alone....

Science - General

Wild about beetles

From a young age some people are fascinated by beetles. For example, English author A. A. Milne wrote a delightful poem concerning a boy and his pet. The poem, in Now We are Six (1927), recounts the experiences of a boy who put a beetle in a matchbox for safekeeping. However disaster struck when his nanny, apparently looking for a match, inadvertently let the beetle out of the box. And Nanny let my beetle out - Yes Nanny let my beetle out - She went and let my beetle out - And beetle ran away. A search is set up and, happily, a beetle is discovered. It was Alexander Beetle I'm as certain as can be And he had a sort of look as if he thought it must be ME." So Nanny and the boy quickly shovel their find into the matchbox. This lady is determined not to make the same mistake again. And Nanny's very sorry too for you-know-what-she-did, And she's writing ALEXANDER very blackly on the lid." This delightful scenario has no doubt occurred through many generations in many countries. Even today, some children enjoy beetle pets. And all of us can appreciate beetles for what they tell us about their Designer, even if we are not in the market for a pet. Rhinos The scary looking rhinoceros beetles are among the largest beetles. Although they may grow to more than 150 millimeters, or 6 inches long, they are completely harmless to humans since they do not bite or sting. The claim to fame of these beetles is the horns, one projecting from each side of the thorax (section behind the head), and another one pointing forward from the centre of the thorax. These insects are sort of the Triceratops (horned dinosaur) of the insect world! They are a subgroup of the scarab beetles and, like most scarabs, they have strong legs – some species can lift up to 850 times their own weight! Our interest in this group of insects comes from the fact that children in Japan like to buy or catch these insects for pets. Apparently it is particularly fun to breed these pets. While most scarab beetles are not as showy as the rhinoceros beetles, they nevertheless are a most interesting group of insects. Beetles are a group of insects that exhibit sheathed wings. The front pair of wings (projecting from the back of the middle section or thorax) is hardened for protection. Underneath we find a second pair of wings which look more typical of insect wings. In order to fly, the beetle raises the hardened pair to expose the other pair which do the actual work of flying. In that beetles all exhibit a head, thorax (with three pairs of legs, besides the 2 pairs of wings), and an abdomen (covered by the hardened sheathed wings), they all are basically similar in design. It is in the design of the antennae, mouth parts, leg structure and ornamentation (color, patterns and projections) that we see variety between beetle groups. And variety there is indeed! In total, worldwide, there are about 165 families of beetle. We find most species collected in six extremely diverse families, each with about 20,000 or more described species. The scarabs or Scarabaeidae, are stout-bodied beetles measuring between 2mm long to 17 cm (almost 7 inches). Many scarab beetles exhibit bright metallic colors, especially on the hardened exterior wings (called the elytra). These insects have distinctive club shaped antennae, the component parts of which can fan out like leaves, in order to sense odous. The front legs often are broad and powerful for digging and the hind legs more so. Some of the most famous scarabs include dung beetles, June beetles, rhinoceros beetles, Hercules beetles and Goliath beetles, as well as those ever unpopular rose chafers. The Hercules beetle is the most famous of the rhinoceros beetles. Native to the rainforest of the Americas, this creature's central horn is extremely large and intimidating. Goliath beetles on the other hand, are among the largest insects in terms of body size and weight. Native to Africa, they measure 60-110 mm (2.5 - 4.5 inches) for males. The diets of scarab beetles range from fruit, to fungi, to dead animals and even the slime trails of snails. Dung beetles It is however the dung beetles, which are particularly remarkable. These species feed partly, or exclusively, on animal droppings. Dung, however, can be resource in short supply. The dung beetles have a wonderful sense of smell, based in their antennae, for locating this resource when it is fresh. Cows in a pasture apparently produce about 12 pats per day, per individual animal, but the location of these droppings is hard to predict. Once the odor reaches one beetle, it probably has also attracted many competitors, so speed is essential. One elephant dropping in east Africa was monitored in the 1980s. Four thousand insects arrived within a half hour. It took 16,000 dung beetles only two hours to entirely clear away 1.5 kg (3 lbs) of manure. Some dung beetles roll the dung into round balls which they immediately remove from the scene. They then bury it in a suitable spot in order to use it as food, or as a chamber to shelter and feed their young. Others merely bury dung where they find it. Still other species simply live in the manure where it has been deposited. The true dung beetles roll freshly deposited dung into round balls which may be very heavy compared to the insect. In one study, beetles averaging 2-5 grams in weight, moved dung balls which averaged 6-240 grams and they did this at speeds of up to 20 cm per second. That is fast going! Speed is essential because other dung beetles will steal the ball if they can. The male then pushes the ball in a straight line, despite all obstacles. One can move the farthest and fastest away from point A, when one travels in a straight line. If eggs are to be laid in the resource, the female follows behind, rides along, or helps push the ball. The dung beetles prefer the droppings of grazer animals (herbivores). These droppings are notoriously rich in undigested nutrients and in moisture. The beetles don't need anything else to munch or drink. Mostly the males push the ball backwards, rolling it with their hind legs. An item in the May 2012 National Geographic described how dung beetles may find themselves navigating across sand as hot as 150 degrees F (66 degrees C) during the day in South Africa. To cool their parched feet the beetles frequently climb up on top of the dung which may be only 73 degrees F, or 26 degrees C, compared to the hot sand. When scientists outfitted the beetles with heat resistant silicon booties the beetles did not need to climb up on the dung as frequently. It is evident that dung beetles, while proceeding backward in a straight line, need to orient themselves to prevent their moving in a circle. Features in the landscape will not work as points of reference because the insects are too close to the ground. Obviously the key is to look up to the sky. Previous studies have shown that beetles can navigate using the sun or the moon, or patterns of polarized sunlight or moonlight. Star bugs! Now a study, published in the Feb 18, 2013 issue of Current Biology, documents that dung beetles can also orient themselves by the stars, specifically the Milky Way. Marie Dacke of Lund University declares that her study with dung beetles is the very first demonstration that any creature, other than humans, can orient themselves by the Milky Way. In order to prove her point, she needed to be able to turn the stars on and off. Thus she obtained permission to deploy her beetles in the Johannesburg planetarium. With the "sky" darkened, the beetles went round in circles, but with the sky illuminated by stars, the beetles proceed nicely outward. One commentator remarked that dung beetles achieve a lot with minimal computing power in the brain. It is certainly interesting that this navigational skill is uniquely conferred upon a beetle. Scarab beetles are not exactly obscure insects. There are apparently about 30,000 species in the family, comprising about 10 per cent of all known beetles. The dung rollers were in former times venerated by the ancient Egyptians who compared the emergence of the young beetles from underground to the daily rising of the sun in the east. It is obvious, moreover, that these beetles are important contributors to a clean environment. By removing and burying dung they prevent disease-ridden insects from multiplying, and they also contribute to soil fertility. A project in Australia (1965-1985) involved the introduction of 23 species of dung beetles. There were native species already present, but they were unable to deal with the droppings of cattle, which have a different chemical consistency then the droppings of the native marsupials. This agricultural initiative resulted in improved fertility in pastures, and vastly reduced numbers of insect pests. But the scarab beetles are only one beetle family out of about 165 families. No doubt, the diversity of beetles and their interesting stories could fill many books. Other beetles The weevils (Curculionidae) are a very large family of usually small beetles (less than 6 mm or 1/4 inch long). Their distinctive feature is their long downward curving snout. The mouth parts at the tip are less elaborate than in many other groups. This does not prevent these beetles from damaging many crops. One of their infamous members is the cotton boll weevil. Others of the 60,000 species include those munching on nuts, fruits, stems and roots. The ground beetles (Carabidae) are another large and interesting group. Their claim to fame, besides their beautiful shiny black or metallic ridged hardened wings (elytra), is the pair of glands in the lower back of the abdomen. These glands produce nasty or even burning secretions guaranteed to make any creature threatening the beetle, extremely unhappy. Among the noxious products released by such insects are hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, quinones, esters and acids. Among this infamous group we find the bombardier beetles which combine chemicals in a mixing chamber just prior to explosively releasing quinones at 100 degrees C along with a gas mixture. Most of these ground beetles live under bark of trees or under logs or rocks. Most are carnivores, eating any kind of invertebrate they can overpower. Because they eat many caterpillars which are plant pests, most ground beetles are fairly popular. Many of these beetles too, in former years, were prized by collectors because of their large size and showy color patterns. Many beetle families have unpopular representatives. The small darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) with about 20,000 species, are named for their plain dull bluish black or brown color. Their preferred diet is fresh and decaying vegetation. However some of them make a habit of exploiting processed grain products. This group includes the confused flour beetle, the red flour beetle and mealworms. Such spoilage of food has apparently long been a problem for human societies. May Berenbaum mentions (p. 144) that alabaster vases from Tutankhamen's tomb (dating from about 1350 B.C.) were found to contain Tribolium castaneum, the red flour beetle. Many people feed Tenebrio (mealworms) to various pets, but the mealworms living on their own, are bad news for stored grain products. The leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) include the Colorado potato beetle which has no trouble, once present in any numbers, in eating a potato plant completely to the ground. Another infamous member of this family is the flea beetle. These small dark beetles have very strong hind legs for jumping. Flea beetles are particularly enthusiastic about plants in the mustard of crucifer family. Cabbages, broccoli, cauliflower, radishes and the like are all fair game. And these beetles are a major economic concern on canola crops, also in the same plant family. Ladybugs One of the most delightful beetles however is the Coccinellidae family which includes ladybugs. These are predators of aphids and scale (bad plant pests) among other victims. We have only to consider the ladybugs to derive some appreciation of the diversity among beetles. Ladybugs are small, up to 10 mm long (0.4 inch). They are round, broadly oval or narrowly oval. They can be orange, red, yellow or black. The elytra is decorated with black spots, red spots, white spots or spots stretched into bars. The number of spots varies from 0, 2, 3, 7, 11, 13 or more. Over 5000 species are found worldwide and of these, there are about 450 species native to North America. Ladybugs and indeed all beetles, are wonderful examples of the richness and variety we see in nature. Beetles are quite plain in their basic organization. The amazing diversity in appearance as well as in lifestyle, tells us something about the Creator. God loves variety and He loves beauty! The fancy elaborations on the beetle theme in terms of talents and appearance, can only serve to increase our interest in the creation. Could the various ecosystems survive with plainer looking beetles? No doubt. But isn't it fun to be able to observe and enjoy beetles in all their vast variety? This first appeared in the June 2013 issue. ...

Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom

One of the greatest social theorists of the twentieth century was a libertarian – some would say conservative – economist named Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek spent his life arguing that free enterprise is not only necessary for economic prosperity, but also essential to maintain political liberty. For much of his career, he faced overwhelming opposition to these views, but he did eventually gain some mainstream acceptance, winning the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek’s life and legacy An important book about Hayek has recently been published, written by Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London, England. It’s called Friedrich Hayek: The ideas and influence of the libertarian economist (2012), and it summarizes Hayek’s life and key insights. Hayek was born in 1899 in Vienna, earned a doctorate in law from the University of Vienna in 1921, and a doctorate in political science from the same university in 1923. At the University of Vienna Hayek became a close associate of Ludwig von Mises, the leading figure in the “Austrian School” of economics, which emphasizes the importance of the free market. Hayek and Mises then set up an economic think tank and Hayek undertook economic research. His research demonstrated that bad government policy was the cause of the “boom and bust” cycle of many countries’ economies, and he predicted that the USA was about to experience such a bust. Shortly thereafter, in 1929, his prediction came true, with the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1931 Hayek took up a position teaching economics at the prestigious London School of Economics in England. He became a naturalized British citizen in 1938 after Hitler took over Austria. The Road to Serfdom In April 1945 Readers' Digest released an abridged version of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. While the original is 250+ pages, this version is just 60. It can be read for free online here. There is also an 18-page cartoon summary that was meant to create interest in the longer book. You can find the comic at Mises.org/books/TRTS where you can also download the original, both of them also free to download. Because of World War Two, Hayek began to focus more on political science. He was afraid that totalitarian ideas were going to sweep the world, not just in the more vicious forms of Nazism or Communism, but even in the softer form of socialism. He believed that the moderately socialistic direction of the Western countries in the mid-twentieth century would ultimately lead to authoritarian government. To articulate this view, in 1944 he wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom, which was very controversial and quickly sold out its first print run. Butler notes that this book was: read by the young Margaret Thatcher, who later said she found it "the most powerful critique of socialist planning and the socialist state." It made Hayek’s name in America, too, where tens of thousands of copies were sold, and Reader’s Digest distributed another 600,000 copies of its own condensed version. Due to this publicity, Hayek gave lectures across the USA and became a visiting professor at Stanford University. In order to help spread libertarian ideas, in 1947 Hayek assembled 39 British, European and American scholars who supported individual freedom to found an organization that would promote the intellectual case for the free society. Because this meeting was held at the Swiss resort of Mont Pelerin, it was called the Mont Pelerin Society. This increasingly important organization still exists today to pursue the same goal. Shortly after World War Two, a former Royal Air Force fighter pilot named Antony Fisher went to Hayek to get advice on how to promote free enterprise in the face of popular socialist assumptions. Hayek convinced Fisher that the best thing would be to found a think tank that would generate intellectual arguments for freedom. A few years later, in 1955, Fisher set up the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the first of several free market think tanks that would become very influential by the late 1970s and 1980s. Fisher would later play a role in the creation of Canada’s Fraser Institute, as well as like-minded think tanks in other parts of the world. Rise to prominence In 1950 Hayek became a professor at the University of Chicago. While there he wrote one of his most famous books, The Constitution of Liberty, articulating the foundations and principles of a free society. In 1962 he moved back to Europe to be a professor at the University of Freiburg in West Germany. As mentioned previously, he won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. And over the course of the 1970s he wrote a three-volume set called Law, Legislation and Liberty, once again expressing the intellectual case for the free society, as opposed to socialism. Besides the Nobel Prize, Hayek also received other honors. Butler points out that in 1984, Queen Elizabeth II made him a Companion of Honour (he described it as "the happiest day of my life"), and in 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George H. W. Bush. Hayek died in 1992, after seeing his ideas receive acclaim in many academic circles, as well as influencing the policies of some English-speaking democracies (especially Margaret Thatcher’s Britain) and some newly-liberated Eastern European countries. Freedom versus socialism Among Hayek’s many insights, two are of most significance for Christians. First, he argued that modern societies are much too complex to be centrally planned by government (i.e. socialism doesn’t work). Secondly, he argued that attempts to engineer societies to conform to some concept of “social justice” inevitably lead to authoritarian government (i.e. socialism leads to tyranny). Many people believe that if human societies were completely planned and run by governments, they would be much more efficient and fair. In Western societies today there are so many different kinds of products, of so many different shapes and sizes, that the situation is virtually chaotic. So if the government could decide what is produced, all of the products could be standardized, leading to economic efficiency. As well, there is a considerable amount of inequality in society, because some people benefit much more than others in a free market system. Through central planning, the government could equalize incomes, and thus enhance social justice. 1. Too complex for central planning But Hayek points out that societies are much too complex for any human organization to be able to centrally plan successfully. Societies are spontaneous orders, with millions of people every day making economic decisions of various kinds. How could a government possibly be able to aggregate and apply all of the information that would be necessary to anticipate these economic decisions every day? It’s simply impossible. Any attempt to do so would lead to all kinds of economic problems (think, for example, of the old Soviet Union). Consider one particular example of this problem, namely, the determination of salaries in a centrally planned economy. Should a nurse get paid more than a mathematics professor? Should a butcher get paid more than a coal miner? There are thousands of different occupations, and the central planning authority would have to determine each of their salaries relative to each other. How could they possibly know what was right? Hayek correctly argued that the free market takes care of this efficiently without central planning. People pay us for the goods and services we produce because they value those products. So market rewards do depend, in a very real sense, on the value that we deliver to other members of our society. They also reflect the scarcity and skill of the producers, the numbers of customers who want the service and the urgency or importance that buyers attach to it Therefore a person’s salary reflects a number of economic factors, not the political calculation of a bureaucrat. If there are too many people pursuing a particular occupation, their salaries will go down. If there is a shortage of people in a particular occupation, their salaries will go up. In a free market society, economic information is communicated through prices. Prices are signals that indicate “to everyone where their product is most highly valued, and prompting them to steer their efforts and expertise in those directions.” Say, for example, that there is a shortage of tin. Because there is not enough of it, its price will rise. Due to the price increase, companies that use tin will use less of it or find a substitute for it. The extra demand for the substitute will in turn bid up its price, and prompt those using the substitute to seek yet other materials to substitute for that; and so it goes on. The entire market order adjusts to the shortage of tin, even though hardly anyone knows what caused it. The overall point is that free markets automatically adjust to changing conditions. It’s part of the nature of the free market to process all kinds of information and respond to it spontaneously. Central planners could never hope to know all of this information and to be able to respond to changes in the economy so rapidly and effectively. Besides the fact that socialism doesn’t work, its tendency is to lead inevitably to authoritarian government. A central planning government must determine how labor, land and other productive resources are used in the economy. It has to coordinate all these different factors so that they work towards the completion of the government’s plan. In such a situation, everyone would have to do what the authorities have determined is necessary for the achievement of the government’s objectives. Individuals must expect to be uprooted and deployed at the direction of the authorities, since personal life now counts for nothing compared to the good of the collective – a good that is defined by those same authorities. Butler summarizes the point this way: “When governments believe they can ‘run the country’ just as they might run a factory, our lives and property become a mere input at their disposal.” 2. Inequality can be a good thing A centrally planned economy can redistribute resources between people and therefore lead to a situation of greater material equality. However, the loss of freedom necessary for such an endeavor is quite high. As well, the economic benefits of inequality are lost. In the economic sphere, inequality is not always a bad thing. Yes, you read that right: inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Butler describes Hayek’s insights on the economic importance of inequality this way: Inequality is not just the outcome of the market process: it drives the market process. The high gains made by successful producers act as a magnet, pulling people and resources to where the greatest value can be captured, and away from less productive and less valuable uses. So people and resources are attracted to where they will make the greatest possible contribution to future incomes. And this is a continuous, dynamic, growing process. The inequality that so many people resent is, in fact, the very attraction that steers effort and resources to their most productive applications, pulling up incomes at every level. Hayek argued that the government should have a minimal role in society. Mostly it should be concerned with national defense and enforcing the rules (laws) that protect people from each other. It would also provide public goods such as roads, land registries, organized responses to natural disasters, and other things that governments can do best. He also saw the need for government “to support needy groups such as people with disabilities, those incapable of work, orphans or the elderly.” Needless to say, the government can fulfill these tasks without becoming socialistic. Conclusion Hayek was not a Christian scholar and he was not trying to promote a Christian perspective. Nevertheless, his scholarship dovetails well with Biblical Christianity because he believed in the need for a private property-based economic system. The Bible establishes private property as an essential institution and assumes a private property-based economy. In this respect Hayek’s intellectual work supports an economic system much like what the Bible demands. There are few twentieth century thinkers that were as important and influential as Friedrich Hayek. Whereas so many academics think that mankind is smart enough to re-engineer societies through governmental power, Hayek was humble enough to concede that human beings are very limited in their knowledge and that their efforts to re-engineer any society are bound to be detrimental. While not everything in his thinking can be embraced by Christians, his overall perspective on economics and society provides a powerful intellectual antidote to the socialistic fallacies that are still common in North American colleges and universities today. Hayek and his ideas are featured below in a couple of epic rap battles vs. his economics arch nemesis, John Maynard Keynes. ...

Politics

5 ways God’s providence should impact how we approach politics

This is an edited version of a devotional given at an ARPA Canada “God and Government Conference,” May 4, 2019, in Aldergrove, BC. ***** God is in control. It’s a simple enough truth, but if we understood it, really understood it, I think it would change the way we approach politics. So I want to look now at government through the lens of God's providence. God's providence means that He governs and upholds his creation, all of it, from little rocks to whole galaxies, and plants and animals too. His providence also encompasses the flow of history and the decisions of individual human hearts. In short, God’s providence means that God rules, and that because He rules nothing comes about by chance. Nothing happens apart from God's will. Nothing surprises God or ever presents God with an unsolvable problem. Nothing is ever beyond his control. At some level, everything happens because God wants it to happen in fulfillment of his good and perfect plan. That means when a nation is blessed with good government, we know this is by the will of God. Good governments don't arise by chance. They don't come from nowhere. Instead, they come to us a gift of God's goodness and mercy. They are from the hand of the Lord. At the same time, when a nation endures a period of poor government or when the Christian Church endures oppression at the hands of government, this, too, is from the hand of God. Also in such times, God is in charge. In all the adversity experienced by the Church, the Lord is still advancing his own good purpose to eventually unite all things under one Head, even Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10). So let’s consider now how working with the doctrine of God's providence will have some blessed effects for those engaged as Christians in the work of politics. 1. Reflecting on God's providence would lighten our mood! When governments do foolish things or act in ways that diminish our freedom and make life more difficult for us, that can be very discouraging. However, when we remember that God is sovereign over everything and that even Satan can do nothing apart from the will of Christ, we get a different feeling about difficult political realities. The world is not spiraling out of control; God is still in control! What's happening is part of his plan and his plan involves working out everything for the glory of his Name and for the good of those who trust him. 2. God's providence should increase our patience. God's providence is connected to God's ultimate purpose and we know that this is a long-term project; our Father in heaven is playing the long-game. Knowing this enables us to continue in hope even as the going gets rough. 3. God's providence should increase our hope for change. We read in Proverbs 21 that the: "king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wills." The imagery here probably comes from agricultural practices of the ancient world. In parts of the ancient world, there was the practice of digging canals and smaller waterways that could be controlled by a series of large valves. If a farmer wanted to channel water to a particular part of his land, he would simply close one valve and open another. It wasn't difficult to do and the effects were quite dramatic. Just as easily as a farmer redirects water in a channel, so easily God redirects the heart of a king; He turns it wherever He wills. Even when the king imagines that he is acting with complete autonomy and sovereign power, it's actually God who is directing his decisions. Notice that God's sovereignty extends not just to the actions of the king but to his heart, that is, to his inner self, the place of his thoughts, desires and wishes. For God to influence a ruler in this deeply personal matter is not difficult. For this reason, even in the most trying of times, we can expect positive change. Even when the trajectory doesn't look good, God can make things happen. Walls can come down quickly. Closed doors can be opened when we no longer really expected it. Events can happen that totally change the political landscape – and we didn't see them coming! 4. God's providence should increase our courage I would say that this is true because knowing God's providence decreases the feelings of intimidation which we may experience. When government and the media seem large, overwhelming, and irresistible, we are not afraid. I'm reminded of what Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). The fear of the LORD who rules the world in his providence takes away the fear of people. Fear paralyzes us but living confidently in the light of God's all-encompassing providence motivates us and encourages us to speak and act according to our convictions. 5. God’s providence encourages us to engage in politics Saying this may seem counter-intuitive. Wouldn’t the confession that God sovereignly turns the hearts of kings wherever He wills make Christians passive? Wouldn't the doctrine of providence encourage us to simply wait for God's next move? I would say that the opposite is true. The more we reflect on God's sovereignty, the more we think about his providential control over the world, the more we will be motivated toward political engagement. God's work of providence encourages us to work in our sphere and responsibility. After all, in his providence, God uses the work of human beings. He uses our prayers, words and our political witness to accomplish his work of providence. Yes, of course, God can and frequently does act directly upon his world but in many cases, God works indirectly and through the actions of people. Ephesians 1 says that God has a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth. By God’s providence, this plan is coming to fulfillment. However, this fulfillment involves human prayer, human actions, words and witness. The fulfillment of God's plan involves each one of us working with our own gifts and opportunities for the glory of God. Imagine that you didn't know there was a plan. Imagine that you didn't believe God was firmly in control. Imagine that you didn't know that in the end God wins and his Kingdom is established in righteousness forever. Imagine that life was a crapshoot so that you just didn't know where it would end. Would that motivate you to action? I don't think so. But when you know that God wins and that everything is somehow part of the pathway to final victory, then you can feel a surge of energy. Something good is coming. God's victory is coming and you can be part of the process. This article was originally published in the May/June 2019 issue of the magazine. Rev. Schouten is a pastor for the Aldergrove Canadian Reformed Church....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Get Articles Delivered!

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

Contests

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

'Your Turn' Voting

Screen Fast

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

Mina and Marco in Egypt

Siao-Mei in China

Leah Sharibu in Nigeria

Homosexuality, News

Opposing rainbow crosswalk results in human rights trial

Contests

RP’s "Log out and look up" screen-fast challenge is July 13-22

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism project

Church history, People we should know

There was a man: Ulrich Zwingli

Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Contests, Photos 2026

RP's 2026 Summer Photo Contest: Let's get real!

Economics

Why family businesses still matter (and why the Church should care)

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Assorted

When there is smoke…

Science - General

Wild about beetles

Economics, People we should know