Recent Articles | Reformed Perspective

People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Stood strong against the tide of liberalism engulfing the Church

*****

One of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century was an American Presbyterian named John Gresham Machen. More than any other individual in the English-speaking world, Machen led the intellectual defense of Biblical Christianity against the attacks of theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Machen was among the top-ranked Biblical scholars of his generation, and he was the point man for conservative Protestantism when it looked like believing the Bible was no longer going to be plausible for educated people.

Started OPC & WTS

Among Machen’s achievements was the founding of three notable institutions: Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All three of these institutions continue to exist today.

One of the most recent biographies of Machen is J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought by Stephen J. Nichols. Nichols recounts Machen’s life and also describes the significance of his books.

Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1881. His father was a successful lawyer and his mother came from a well-to-do family in Georgia. She was a staunch Presbyterian and raised her son to love the Bible. He did very well at school and ended up attending Johns Hopkins University. Subsequently he decided to do graduate studies at Princeton University while taking some divinity courses at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS).

It’s important to note the historical significance of PTS. That seminary was the leading conservative Protestant seminary in the English-speaking world from about the mid-1800s until 1929 (when it would be taken over by theological liberals). In the latter part of the nineteenth century and initial part of the twentieth century, the best known of the Princeton theologians was Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield the leading defender of Biblical Christianity in his day. Warfield would have a strong influence over Machen, and the two became friends.

In the lion's den

If this short article has whetted your appetite to learn more about J. Gresham Machen, you'll be interested to know there is a 41-page biography by John Piper available online, for free. Gresham's biography is packaged with 2 others, about John Owen and Athanasius, in Piper's Contending For Our All. A free pdf copy of the book can be downloaded here.

During the 1905-1906 academic year, Machen studied in Germany under Wilhelm Herrmann, an influential and articulate theological liberal, who argued, among other things, that it wasn't even vital whether Jesus really lived. Machen’s conservative views were severely challenged at this time, but ultimately he was able to resist Herrmann’s sinister theological perspective.

After returning to America, Machen became a professor at PTS, teaching the New Testament. He was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PCUSA in 1914. When the United States finally entered World War One in 1917, Machen volunteered to serve in France with the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), where he would operate a canteen, serving refreshments to French and American soldiers on the front line. Although he didn’t engage in combat himself, he saw the fighting and its effects first hand.

You can’t split a rotten church

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the insidious tentacles of theological liberalism were rapidly spreading among the Protestant churches of North America, turning people away from belief in the Bible as a supernatural revelation from God. The stage was being set for a showdown between orthodox believers and the adherents of fashionable unbelief.

Machen discussed with B.B. Warfield the possibility of a split in the PCUSA that would separate real Christians from the theological liberals. But as Nichols records, Warfield, seeing the widespread success of liberalism among the leadership of the PCUSA, famously replied, “No, you can’t split rotten wood.”

In 1921 Warfield died, and with him (in the estimate of many people) Old Princeton also died as the stalwart defender of theological conservatism. Soon the pack of liberal wolves (in sheep’s clothing, of course) would seize control of the seminary and place it in the service of unbelief.

On a more positive note, Machen’s first book entitled The Origin of Paul’s Religion was published in 1921. In each of his books Machen would defend historic, orthodox Christian beliefs against the rising tide of liberalism. Theological liberalism, as Nichols helpfully summarizes it, takes “as a starting point the position that the Bible is not a divinely inspired book, but a human one, deriving from a religious community and traced with legend and myth.” Machen had a thorough knowledge of the current scholarship on the apostle Paul and was able to defend genuine Christianity against its challengers.

Christianity and Liberalism

Besides being a theology professor and author, Machen was becoming increasingly popular as a speaker at various Christian events. In the theological battle between conservatism and liberalism, Machen was beginning to take center stage as the conservative champion in the academic field. In 1923, his book New Testament Greek for Beginners (a text for learning Biblical Greek) appeared to wide acclaim. It’s still in use today.

But it was another of his books published in 1923 that would become his most important: Christianity and Liberalism. “With this book,” Nichols writes, “Machen emerged as the singular spokesperson for the rigorous defense of orthodox Christianity in response to the challenge of liberalism.” It became a classic, clearly demonstrating that historic Christianity and theological liberalism are, in fact, two entirely different religions.

Due to his efforts in defense of the truth, Machen received the support and accolades of fellow believers. From some of those on the other side, however, Machen received hate mail. According to Nichols, one liberal sent him a letter addressed to “Prof. of Bigotry” that referred to his “miserable theology” and instructed him to “learn to be a Christian or else get out.”

The fall of Princeton Seminary

As time went on, momentum was clearly on the side of the liberals within the PCUSA, and in 1929 they managed to “reorganize” the governing board of Princeton in such a way as to give control to liberals. Nichols states that with this development, Machen “was left no real choice but to resign.” As a result, with a small band of supporters he founded Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) in Philadelphia in 1929, with the intent to recreate a seminary in the image of Old Princeton. Among others who left PTS to join with Machen in this endeavor were Cornelius Van Til and John Murray.

Some PTS board members also resigned in order to be on the board of WTS, including Samuel Craig, the founder of Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (or, as it is more commonly known today, P&R Publishing)

In 1930 Machen produced another significant book, The Virgin Birth of Christ. Liberals, of course, denied that Christ had been born of a virgin because they were unwilling to believe the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nichols writes that this book became “the standard scholarly defense of this crucial, orthodox doctrine for decades to come.”

The final battle

A decisive showdown between conservatives and liberals in the PCUSA finally occurred in the mid-1930s. In 1933 the PCUSA (along with six other denominations) released an official report entitled Re-Thinking Missions. It “advocated a paradigm shift in missions premised on the notion that Christianity is not the exclusively true religion.” This was the liberal view: Christianity should accommodate people of other religions rather than proselytize them.

A battle within the PCUSA ensued between conservatives (led by Machen) who believed that Christianity is the one true religion, and the liberals who were religious pluralists. To make a long story short, the liberals won. In response, Machen founded the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM) so that conservative Presbyterians could give money to missionaries who believed in evangelizing non-Christians.

Having a missions board that is not under the authority of the church is not the Biblical ideal, of course, but the intent was good. However, the General Assembly of the PCUSA declared the IBFPM to be unconstitutional and proceeded to discipline its supporters. Nichols notes,

On March 29, 1935, making front-page news in The New York Times – "Presbytery to Try Machen as Rebel," ran the headline—Machen was officially defrocked and stripped of his credentials.

Machen appealed this decision but his appeal was rejected by the General Assembly in 1936.

Then in June 1936, Machen and his supporters founded the Presbyterian Church in America. In 1939 its name was changed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) due to a lawsuit filed by the PCUSA.

Machen had a lot of work on his hands as the leading figure of both WTS and the OPC. He was becoming worn out and exhausted. Then in December 1936 he took a train out to North Dakota to help a struggling congregation there. He caught pneumonia and died on January 1, 1937. His death was a tragic loss for the cause of truth. But he had fought a good fight and left numerous books that would help to strengthen believers in their faith. He also left the institutions he founded that would continue to maintain a testimony against theological liberalism.

Conclusion

Gresham Machen was widely recognized as one of the greatest Christian scholars of his generation. He used his God-given talents, education and social standing to uphold Biblical Christianity in the face of unrelenting attacks from theological liberals who sought to undermine the faith. Machen was the conservative scholar of highest standing in this struggle, and his efforts encouraged many Christians to stand fast for orthodoxy.

Of course, Biblical Christianity would have survived even without Machen, but he demonstrated that genuine Biblical scholarship supported the truth of the Bible. The conflict wasn't between educated, intelligent liberals and uneducated, ignorant conservatives as some believed. The liberal scholars could not refute Machen's work. Christians did not need to fear that their religion was being disproven by modern scientific discoveries, as the liberals alleged. In his own way, Machen lifted high the standard of orthodox Christianity, providing a rallying point for those who continued to believe the historic faith. The tide of opinion in his day swirled furiously against Biblical Christianity, but he was a rock against which the waves of unbelief harmlessly broke.

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 discourage...

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

When someone says, “Hey, we should do some outreach in our own community,” it's an awkward situation since it's so very hard to tell whether they are just saying the right, polite thing, or whether they really mean it. At a Bible study some years ago the man making this particular statement did indeed mean it. Someone else in the group then went a step further and described a small campus outreach project they’d seen a Christian Reformed evangelist do. It was really simple. You set up an information table on campus on a regular basis, and from the contacts you make you set up a Bible study. People became enthused, and after a couple of meetings a small group of Canadian Reformed University of Alberta students was organized and recruiting their fellow students. The recruiters were trying to get people to man the information table on campus in the university's mall in teams of two, for one hour a piece. The response was amazingly enthusiastic on the part of the students, and so the following term a second information table was set up in the Student Union Building. The Bible study generally did well, attracting one or two people from the general campus population that didn’t know these Canadian Reformed students. A couple of them even came to church for a while. Areopa-what? The project needed a name. In Acts 17 Paul goes to a place of learning in Athens called the Areopagus to explain his God to all who wanted to who wanted to hear, and so the campus outreach effort was dubbed “The Areopagus Project.” While it was a clever name, it was sometimes confusing. When members of other Christian groups on campus asked about our efforts, they didn’t understand why we chose the name “Areopagus.” When we called the Bible supplier for a new case of Bibles to be sent to “The Areopagus Project,” she could hardly pronounce, let alone spell the name. Even so, somehow it stuck. The project was, in a way, kind of amazing. It was organized, and run by students. There was no paid missionary, campus outreach worker, or other ministerial help to backstop our efforts. It was just average students enthused about spreading the gospel. However, we soon realized we needed some help so we took advantage of a rare opportunity. Edmonton was one of the few places in the world where our own Canadian Reformed denomination had a denominational “sister church” in the same city. We brought in Rev. Tom Reid and Dr. Peter Heaton, minister and elder of the local Free Church of Scotland congregation to give us advice and additional manpower. In a very practical way, members from the two denominations cooperated in campus outreach. Without synodical committees or letters shuttling back and forth, we experienced a practical, communion of saints with Christians from a different background. Reformed and Presbyterian Calvinists learned to cooperate despite having different histories, songbooks and traditions. Hard questions Though a lot of neat things happened, it wasn’t all easy. When people stopped by our information table to talk, they asked tough questions. “Does God hate homosexuals?” “My best friend doesn’t believe in God, is she going to hell?” “Since there is no God, why do you waste your time worshipping him?” In a comical way, there was one question that summarized people’s attitudes. Noticing the banner on our table, with a cross and the word “Reformed,” one woman asked, “Should I be offended by that?” Though she was genuinely puzzled, and we couldn’t help but smile, there was something to what she said. The truth of the gospel is offensive to those who don’t believe because it challenges everything they stand for. By sitting at that table and honestly trying to answer people’s difficult questions, we learned that the Bible does offend people, and that what we believe is radically different from what most people believe. Any Christian who ever steps onto a secular university campus soon learns that at least every once in a while his faith will be challenged. He will have to learn to stand up for his Father. In that way, The Areopagus Project was not so unusual. A Christian is always somewhat visible at a university, and this just made us more visible. By being visible, it meant that, in a small way, we did learn to stand up for God. We lost a little bit of the nervousness and the fear that comes from being the only one in a crowd who’s obviously different from the rest. Measuring success There were unexpected results from The Areopagus Project. Members of the three congregations involved got to know each other much, much better. In fact, they got to know each so much better after sitting at the table together, that two of them got married. Another member of our group married a Bible study participant who was an ESL student from Korea, and a member of a sister church out there. Friendships between Canadian Reformed and Free Church members persisted. Most of them started at the Areopagus, but continued into regular, everyday life. These sorts of projects are usually measured in terms of “souls saved.” Honestly, we couldn’t tell you, for certain, of a single soul that was saved as a result of our work. So was it worth it? Were the hours spent hunting down pamphlets, manning information tables, making phone calls to set up schedules, and helping out at Bibles studies productively spent? Without a doubt, yes they were. We put Bibles in the hands of 150 people who might never have seen them otherwise. We challenged hundreds of people to think about their beliefs and presuppositions, and we learned a little bit about defending our own beliefs. We can’t say that we saw the plants grow up, but we certainly sowed the seeds, and God may cause them to grow in the years to come. All good things… The students who started The Areopagus Project graduated and many moved away. And without them, the work didn’t continue. While that’s kind of sad, there are now former students and “graduates” of The Areopagus Project who know that evangelism isn’t the sole duty of missionaries but can and should be carried out by average church members. In a small way they’ve started to see the possibilities. While the death of The Areopagus Project may close one door to bringing the gospel to our community, the fact that so many university students worked in this project will undoubtedly open others. This article was first published in the September 1999 issue under the title “The life and death of the Areopagus 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,...

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 and younger men, and gives instruction concerning the care of children. Every age group is covered... except for one. Why doesn't Paul say anything about adolescents? Adolescent males typically have the strength of adult men, and in many ways the freedoms and opportunities of adults too. And at the same time these adolescents have nowhere near the responsibilities of an adult; we say of them, they're "boys who shave." We’ve accepted that the teenage years are when boys do dumb things, and we're quick to forgive them because, well, they’re just kids so what can we really expect? However Scripture speaks of just two main age brackets: children and adults. This third grouping, adolescents, is simply not Scriptural. And that, of course, is why Paul makes no mention of them in Titus 2. In God’s eyes teenagers are responsible for their conduct (as is a tween!), and needs to repent of sin as much as any 50-year-old. The Bible simply does not know of a "boy who shaves." In the Bible, if you are no longer a child you are a man, albeit a "young man." So when, in Titus 2:6, Paul talks of the need for younger men to be self-controlled, he has in mind any male who is not a child and not yet an “older man.” So let's take a closer look at what Paul has to say in Titus 2 to the younger men of the church in Crete, and take from it what we can for the instruction of our own younger men. While our focus is on the younger men, we should note that the Lord has preserved this passage of Scripture for the benefit of more than just the “younger men.” In this same chapter older men (Titus 2:2) are to give leadership, and part of the leadership they provide is surely that they ensure that younger men are what God wants them to be. Older women (Titus 2:3) are to teach the younger women to love their husbands (Titus 2:4,5) – and those husbands are invariably included in the group described as “younger men.” Both the older women and the younger women, then, have a vested interest in what the Lord expects of the younger men. The whole congregation, then, can and must learn from God’s instruction to the younger men. Source It is important to remember that Paul’s instruction to Titus in this chapter, in relation to what Titus must teach the “younger men,” did not come out of the blue. As in all his teaching, Paul is building on God’s earlier revelation – what he says here must be understood in the context of the Old Testament, and of the example of the perfect young man Jesus Christ. So let's consider first the instruction from Genesis, then the instruction from Jesus Christ. Paradise Adam was surely no child when God created him, and surely no old man either. In the eye of our minds we see Adam in Paradise as a “younger man” of some 20 to 30 years old, in the prime of strength and ability. Notice what responsibilities God expected him to satisfy. In Genesis 1:26-2:18 we learn he was to: Image God – Just as the almighty Creator was loving and just and holy and kind and generous, so Adam was to be loving and just and holy and kind and generous. Creatures, angels, even God Himself should be able to see in the young man Adam something of what God was like. Rule over all creation – This young man received a kingly function, with all creatures under his dominion. Please note that God did not let Adam hang around for many years until he was older and/or wizened through a lifetime of experience before all creation was placed under his feet. Right away God put him in the Garden with the mandate to “work” it and “keep” it (Genesis 2:15). The term “keep” describes the function of protecting the Garden from enemies – and God knew full well that Satan would attack the Garden through his insidious temptation. Yet God entrusted the Garden to the care of this young man! Be fruitful – The command to be fruitful does not refer simply to making babies, but includes the responsibility of raising the children so that the next generation has learned how to image God and be effective rulers of God’s world too. Be a leader – God said too that it was not good for the man to be alone, and so God created a woman to be “helper” to the man (Genesis 2:18). The man in turn was to accept the helper God gave him, and give her leadership and protection. God’s instructions to Adam in Genesis 1, then, point up that Adam was expected to embrace responsibility. Young men of subsequent generations were, obviously, to do the same. The Biblical picture of manhood is not characterized by loafing or playing games, let alone letting things happen. Rather, a Biblically faithful man welcomes responsibility and takes initiative. This is what older men are to impress on the younger, and what older women are to teach younger women to encourage in their husbands. Fall The fall into sin made carrying out this glorious responsibility immeasurably difficult. Work became a slog and a burden and weeds appeared not only in gardens and fields (Genesis 3:18-19), but also in one’s character and in inter-personal relations. Tensions characterized marriage (Genesis 3:16b), and children would reduce a man to tears (Genesis 4). We can understand why the Preacher describes all as vanity, a burden, a groan (Ecclesiastes 1:2). “What has a man from all his toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 2:22). After the fall the creature that had been fashioned to image God, rule over God’s world, and raise more image-bearers, now bumps into so much frustration. How humbling for a creature endowed with such glorious responsibility! Understood Despite the destructive effects of the fall into sin, several figures of the Old Testament demonstrate that they fully understood God’s intent for young men. Consider the examples of Joseph, David and Daniel: Joseph – He was 17 years old when his father sent him to check up on how his brothers were faring as they tended the family flocks (Genesis 37:2). He was also, then, 17 years old when he was sold as a slave to Egypt. As a young man he ended up in Potiphar’s house and readily embraced the responsibility his master entrusted to him when he “put him in charge of all that he had” (Genesis 39:4). Not too many years later, perhaps in his early 20s, Joseph was imprisoned “where the king’s prisoners were confined" (39:20), yet even there he took the initiative to embrace whatever responsibility rolled his way. So “the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners” (39:22). He took control of his feelings so that he did not waste his energy with feelings of anger at his brothers or pity for himself. When his family came to Egypt 20 years after he was sold, he was still a relatively “young man” – but now ruler over the entire country. David – Already as a teenager he was entrusted with his father’s sheep. As a teenager he fought off a lion and a bear, and was called to play the lyre to King Saul. As a youth he volunteered to fight Goliath (1 Samuel 17:42). In his 20s he led Israel out to battle as Saul’s commander, then fled from Saul and, though persecuted, refused to kill him. Young though he was, he understood what manhood was about; he embraced responsibility and so made hard decisions. By the time he was 30, he was king over God’s people Israel. Daniel – He was a young man, likely yet a teenager, when he was taken as prisoner to Babylon. Young though he was, he refused to eat the food the palace prescribed (Daniel 1:8ff). Again, though young he made use of the opportunities he received to learn what he could learn. So, when God elevated him as a very man to a position of power and leadership in a foreign land, he was ready for the challenge. These three young men acted in line with God’s expectation as revealed in Paradise. They understood that youth was not a time for loafing, nor a time to live off others; being young men meant that they were to embrace responsibility to image God and rule over what was entrusted to them – especially themselves. Jesus The Biblical example of what a “young man” is to look like is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. He was “like his brothers in every respect,” and that includes the reluctance some have to embrace responsibility. But the Scripture says of this young man that though he was tempted in every respect as we are, He never gave Himself to sin (Hebrews 4:15). That’s to say that in his teenage years, and in his 20s too, He made it His business to image God in all He did, and made it His business too to rule over whatever God entrusted to His care – including first of all Himself, be that in guarding His mouth or restraining his sexual urges. At 30 years of age – truly a young man still! – He took up His public ministry in Israel, preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, healing the sick and raising the dead. In the process He denied Himself for the benefit of those the Father entrusted to Him, even embracing the cursed cross and the heavy judgment of God for the benefit of the undeserving. Herein He demonstrated precisely what God intended for all men back in Paradise already; they are to embrace responsibility, and so take initiative to further the Lord’s kingdom. Paul drew out for the Ephesians what this means for men. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies… (5:25ff). Jesus’ embrace of the responsibility that belongs to being a man means that, “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (Titus 2:11). Jesus is the (young) man, whose example all men are to follow. Titus 2:6 - "sober-minded" Let's return now, to Paul's instructions for young men in Titus 2. Paul's objective is to build up church life in Crete. He turns to God’s Old Testament instruction and to Jesus’ example to consider what gifts the Lord has given to His church and what this example needs to look like in practice. It is this material he unpacks as he tells Titus to “urge the younger men to be sober-minded.” The term Paul uses to describe what young men are to be is difficult to translate. The NIV and the ESV render it with the term "self-controlled," the NKJV has "sober-minded," the NASB has "sensible." The same term appears in Mark 5:15 in relation to the demoniac man – after the pigs, driven by the demons that used to possess the man, were drowned in the sea, the locals found the man “in his right mind.” In Romans 12:3 Paul instructs his readers “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment.” The point is this. God created us to “rule over” all creatures, including ourselves. With the fall into sin we became slaves to sin so that Satan ruled over us. However, Christ – perfect man that He was – conquered sin and Satan and so brought salvation for all people (Titus 2:11). Sin, then, is no longer our master, no more than the exorcised demons were now master of the demoniac of Mark 5. Instead, Christ has poured out His Spirit so that we can again be the men God wants us to be. Men are meant to embrace responsibility. The victory of Christ has given renewed opportunity to embrace responsibility. Paul would have Titus urge younger men to take seriously the victory of Jesus Christ as they make decisions day by day about what to do. They are, in other words, to think of themselves with the "sober judgment" that comes with believing the gospel of Calvary: since you are no longer slaves to sin – that’s real! – but once again God’s possession through Jesus Christ – that’s reality, too! – you don’t have to give in to sin and temptation; you can resist the evil one. Factoring that victory into one’s decision-making process is being sober-minded, and yes, it leads to a life of self-control. Titus 2:12 Titus 2:12, logically follows what we read in verse 6, and works out what this level-headedness looks like in the midst of life’s temptations. We read there than Christ’s victory, train us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age. And yes, the word translated as "self-controlled" in verse 12 is the same critical word as the apostle used in verse 6 about the younger men needing to be “self-controlled,” “sober-minded,” level-headed, realistic. Christ has broken Satan’s back; let younger men factor that reality into their decisions. That’s taking responsibility properly. I need to add: “the present age” is not a reference to the younger years but is instead referring to the time before Christ’s return in glory (see vs. 13). His victory on the cross guarantees the final great act of history, the day when He comes to judge the living and the dead. That reality again prompts the “young man” to a particular level-headedness as he factors this return into the decisions he makes – whether driving his car, spending his money, raising his family, deciding on his recreation, etc., etc. Crete This sort of lifestyle represented a huge challenge for the younger men Paul was writing to on the island of Crete. The culture of the island is caught in that proverb Paul earlier quoted: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). It’s a mindset that encourages the more energetic to do whatever they feel like doing. With the Christian faith new to the island, the “younger men” had very few role models to look up to. That’s why Paul told Titus that he needed to be a good example for these young men. We read in verse 7: “show yourself in all respects to be a model of good work, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned.” Titus was the apostle’s “true child in a common faith” (Titus 1:4), which is to say that Titus learned how to do the Christian life, and teach it too, from the apostle himself. As preacher on the island, and a young man at that, Titus needed to be aware that other young Christian men on Crete would be watching how Titus himself lived out the gospel of Christ’s victory in his daily responsibilities. His own way of factoring in Christ’s triumph in his daily decisions needed to demonstrate that he said "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and instead gave himself to good works. Moreover, his teaching couldn’t have the empty ring of liars’ big talk (1:10ff), but needed to exude integrity, dignity and soundness. Here is a reality true for every preacher/teacher of all times, indeed true of all office bearers and leaders. Anyone entrusted with the task of preaching and teaching the gospel of Christ’s victory needs be aware of his role as a model of Christian living. Brothers, we are created and recreated to image God, and so to rule over whatever God has entrusted to our care in the same way as the Lord does it. Christ Jesus emptied Himself for the sake of His bride, the church. As teachers and preachers of this good news, we must – if we wish the gospel to be credible – obviously factor in the reality of Christ’s victory into all our conduct and our words. Vital role Paul, then, sees a vital role for younger men in building up church life, be it on Crete or be it in Canada. Younger men are to take seriously whatever responsibility God gives them (be it for a vehicle, a house, a wife, children, themselves, work, etc) and consistently factor in the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross as they make decisions pertaining to the responsibilities God has given. Then there’s no place for ungodliness, and plenty of place for godly lives. Such a lifestyle advertises the church wonderfully. Conclusion What do we see of today’s younger men in the churches? From teens to 50s, are these men making responsible decisions, and so contributing positively to church life? There is, I’m convinced, so very much for which to be thankful on this point. We see young men making profession of faith and presenting their children for baptism. We see younger men devoted to their wives and families, and stretching themselves for service in God’s kingdom. It’s reason for gratitude. We also see younger men who do not stretch themselves all that far at all. We see some younger brothers content with a basic job, content to come home from work and chill in front of TV or on the Internet, and we see some, too, who pour themselves into sport. There is nothing wrong with sport, nor with relaxing in front of the TV, or even doing simply a "hands on" job. But there is a problem if one spends no time or energy to prepare one's self for increased responsibility tomorrow. It’s for responsibility that God created men, so men must read, study, and prepare for leadership roles tomorrow. Manhood is not to be measured by how much hair you can grow, or how big a truck you can drive, or how much beer you can drink, or how good you are on your skates, or how big a fish you can catch. Without knocking any of these things, none of them catch what God created men to do. What God wants of men is that we embrace responsibility, to the point that we work with Christ’s victory in every decision we make, 24/7. What does that look like? It follows the example of Jesus Christ in His self-emptying for His bride. He is the younger man who took responsibility for those God entrusted to His care, and so he laid down His life for His own. That’s the sensible, sober-minded, levelheaded example the Lord gives us. This article first appeared in the March 2013 issue....

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�...

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 what the Church today would be like if we all read the first hundred pages of Calvin.” – Ben House What kind of impact will you have? Whether it is municipal, provincial, or federal, there always seems to be an election just around the corner and Tim Bloedow’s way to influence these elections is worth considering. Some years ago he passed on a strategy he’d gleaned from one Dr. Glenn Martin. The professor was convinced that every serious Christian should try to influence the vote of at least 100 people. He himself wasn’t satisfied unless he attempted to influence at least 1,000. This was back before social media was much of a thing, so he would write these 1,000 people and tell them how they should vote and why. We’ve got more means now than he did then, so this next election can we have that kind of impact? A brief rebuttal of post-modernism “Some of you may believe that you cannot discover Truth. If this is true, you have actually discovered a truth. You might as well continue searching for more.” - Thor Ramsey, A Comedian’s Guide to Theology How much do our children owe? Parents try to leave their children with an inheritance, not debt (Prov. 13:22), but Canada continues to debt-finance their federal and provincial government budgets. They spend money they don’t have to pay for promises made to this present generation. But while this generation gets more than they paid for, the next generations will be saddled with paying off the more than $2.3 trillion combined debt of our federal and provincial governments. Individually what we owe differs some, depending on what province we live in, but according to the Fraser Institute, even in Alberta it amounts to $41,000 per person, and it rises to nearly $69,000 per Newfoundlander. So what’s a billion… or a trillion? When our debt is in trillions that’s pretty hard to fathom. So let’s start with a smaller number and see if we can wrap our heads around it. Just how much then, is one billion? Well… • A North American’s average age expectancy is 2-3 billion seconds • A billion liters would fill 400 Olympic-size swimming pools • 170 African bull elephants weigh the equivalent of one billion grams • A bit over one billion minutes ago Jesus walked the Earth And what’s a trillion? Dr. D. James Kennedy did an interesting bit of calculating in his book The Mortgaging of America. He notes that, “if you had gone into business when Jesus Christ was born – a business that was so unprofitable that… you lost a million dollars a day, seven days a week, it would still take you 700 more years from today to lose a trillion dollars.” The log in our own eye When the London Times asked notable personalities across Britain to write on what they thought was wrong with the world, they purportedly got this response from author G.K. Chesterton: “Dear Sirs, I am. Yours truly, G.K. Chesterton.” Fcat or foitcin? An email mkanig its way ronud the Ietrnent calims: It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are. The olny iprmotnant tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it woutiht a porbelm. Tish is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed eervy ltteer by istelf, but the wrod as a wohle. Azamnig, huh? But is it ture? Yes and no. Lsat lteerts are irtomanpt but wehn the wdros we raed are lses flaimiar or qtiue lhtgney or rbleemse oehetr wdors it bmoeecs duicflift to urnneadtsd eevn wtih frsit and lsat lterets paceld ctlrcroey. Parental dictionary If words were defined just for parents: bathroom: used by the entire family, believed by all except mom to be self-cleaning feedback: what you get when your baby doesn't appreciate dinner grandparents: people who think your children are wonderful even though they're not sure you're raising them right independent: how we want our children to be, as long as they do everything we say ow: the first word spoken by children with older siblings puddle: a small body of water that draws other small bodies, wearing dry shoes, into it show-off: a child more talented than your own sterilize: done to your first baby's pacifier by boiling it and your last baby's pacifier by blowing on it sweater: garment worn by child when its mother is feeling chilly top bunk: bed where you should never put a child wearing Superman pajamas Some choices are wicked When American abortionist George Tiller was murdered in 2009, pro-life leaders knew that whatever they said in response would be misinterpreted by the media. That left most too cautious to speak out, but it pushed columnist Ann Coulter to do so. In an interview with Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly she talked about the murder using rhetoric that pro-abortionists use to justify killing the unborn. She started by telling O’Reilly that she didn’t like thinking of Tiller’s death as murder, preferring instead to call it “terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” O’Reilly, misunderstanding what Coulter was doing, started to protest, which prompted Coulter to take it further, putting a twist on another well-known bit of abortion rhetoric. “I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists,” she told O’Reilly, “but I don't want to impose my moral values on others.” Putting her own spin on a best-selling pro-abortion bumper sticker she told viewers, “If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot an abortionist.” When abortionists bring up issues like “privacy,” “choice,” or “imposing morality” on others, they’re trying to evade the only relevant issue in the abortion debate: are the unborn human beings? If they aren’t, then no one should object to abortion; if they are, then everyone should! But instead of arguing this issue, abortionists avoid the debate entirely using slogans that assume what they are trying to prove – that the unborn aren’t human. Coulter exposed this evasion by showing how their slogans make no sense when applied to an acknowledged human being, abortionist George Tiller. Seamus Coughlin attacks the "personally opposed" evasion in the video below (which is cartoon, so some of the brutal is taken away, but it still should not be watched with kids around). ...

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. ...

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

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Stood strong against the tide of liberalism engulfing the Church

Started OPC & WTS

In the lion's den

You can’t split a rotten church

Christianity and Liberalism

The fall of Princeton Seminary

The final battle

Conclusion

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

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