Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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

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.”

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

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

I grew up with dirt under my fingernails and the sound of machinery in my ears. My grandparents’ farm sat on the arable land; our house was tucked into the wooded corner next door. Spring meant climbing onto my grandfather’s tractor while he disc’d the field, then four boys with a pipe planter each, dropping seed by hand, row after row. We were working the same ground my family had farmed for five generations, learning to fix the pump when it failed and to weed, then weed again. The harvest fed us and brought in a little extra cash, but the real yield was teamwork, patience, diligence, and a sense of responsibility for land that fed our own people. My father’s piano tuning/software business taught the same lessons with different tools. We learned to refurbish old computers, solder battery packs, fold brochures, pack shipments, and we learned to run a lathe and mill to fabricate specialty tools, where precision mattered because it could mean the difference between a salable part or wasted time and material. The wage was modest; the education was not. None of that looked glamorous. It was just what our family did to survive. But those long days in the field and in the shop gave us children real work to do in a family economy where the stakes were tangible. Children need to learn that their contribution isn’t busywork but real help that is needed and valued. If we slacked off, we harvested less; if we cut corners, customers noticed. The consequences showed up in food on the table and the ability to keep the lights on. On the good days, when we’d done especially well, the reward was just as concrete: we might be chosen to pick raspberries – a rare treat for any eight‐year‐old who could mind the thorns. Where I live, those conditions are becoming rare as family businesses are thinning out. And when they do, the church is losing not only jobs and independent income, but one of the most natural training grounds for Deuteronomy‐6‐shaped discipleship. How we got here The family that works together…. This is a picture, back in the day, of the author’s father out logging with his own father and grandfather – three generations. In my case, the farm and the shop were simply how our family made it. We were German‐Irish by blood, but living in the Dutch‐Reformed belt of West Michigan meant our views on work, worship, and family life ended up much the same. From the 1930s to the 1950s, many Reformed immigrants landed in a bind. Industrial jobs were tied to unions whose class‐warfare ethos and loyalty oaths a confessional Christian could not accept in light of Christ’s command not to swear oaths beyond a simple yes or no (Matthew 5:34, 37). So men did what they had to do: they started small construction crews, repair shops, trucking companies, print shops, and farms – not glamorous or easy, but theirs, and answerable only to Christ and His church. Two and three generations later, those necessity businesses have grown into a dense ecosystem of family firms that roof our churches, pour their foundations, insure their buildings, employ their young people, and help fund the Christian schools scattered across our denominations – an ecosystem we have largely taken for granted. But it won’t continue, at least not automatically. Family businesses today are being squeezed from three sides. Economically, many smaller outfits live in the shadow of consolidation. Regulations, insurance costs, and succession planning all get more complex as the founder ages. In some sectors, the only viable “exit strategy” is to sell to a larger competitor or investor – or, in the case of farms, to sell rich soil for development instead of fields. Culturally, we have quietly absorbed the assumption that “success” means leaving the shop behind. We push sons and daughters toward university and white‐collar professions as the default measure of maturity. Staying in dad’s plumbing company or grandpa’s trucking business is too often presented as “settling.” Ecclesiastically, we sometimes thin out the link between fathers, work, and children. A man may run a firm by day, then spend his evenings on church and school responsibilities – good things in themselves – while his kids mostly see him tired and absent. In that environment, the business becomes just a source of income and perhaps a donor to the school, not a shared life. The next generation experiences it as background noise rather than as the place where they belong and are needed. Deuteronomy 6 and the economy of the home Deuteronomy 6 is one of those passages we know so well we stop seeing it. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts” (Deut. 6:4-6, NIV). So far, so familiar. But notice where the text goes next: “Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deut. 6:7, NIV). Brothers get ‘er done: Aaron (right) and his oldest brother Nate (left) using their new CNC machine to begin building new piano keyboards. The picture is not of a family scattering to separate spheres every morning and reconvening briefly at night. It is of a household whose work, meals, travel, and rest are woven together enough that the commands of God can be explained “on the way” without scheduling a special event. When the Lord warns Israel about forgetting Him, He does so in economic terms: “when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down... then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God” (Deut. 8:12–14, NIV). Climbing the corporate ladder might give us nicer things, but it is hard to impress much of anything on our children if we aren’t there to do it. A family business can better allow us to mix vocation, wealth, and worship. Parents are able to disciple their children in the middle of their actual labor – plowing, harvesting, buying, selling, paying wages, and resting on the seventh day. Family businesses, at their best, have been one of the most natural ways for that kind of life to happen in a modern economy. In the farm and shop I grew up in, we didn’t schedule a seminar on honesty; we watched my father explain to a customer why a job would cost more than he’d first estimated. We didn’t need a lecture on Sabbath; we saw machines sit idle on Sunday even if the weather was perfect. In many Reformed communities, the stories are similar. Children stand next to their father on a jobsite and see how he handles an unreasonable client. They hear their parents talk at the supper table about whether to take on a contract that will overload the crew and crowd out worship. That is Deuteronomy 6 discipleship: not just catechism questions at the table, but a whole economy lived under the Lordship of Christ, with children close enough to see it. When our work is hidden from our children – behind factory walls, office towers, and a firewall of “confidentiality” – we don’t just lose an apprenticeship. We lose one of God’s ordinary means for teaching the next generation what it looks like to love Him with heart, soul, and strength in the real world. Inheritance is more than money It’s tempting to think of succession almost entirely in financial terms. A business is an asset. It can be passed on, sold, or wound down. All of that matters. But if we think only in those categories, we miss the deeper covenant issue. The fruit of their labors: The family farm roughly 20 years ago – in front of the stacked pumpkins are Aaron’s grandparents Larry and Janic, with his father. On our five‐generation farm, we never inherited a corporation with a boardroom. What we inherited was a way of being in the world: • You get up when the work needs you, not when you feel like it. • You tell the truth about your work, even if it costs you. • You remember that the land and the tools are the Lord’s first, yours second. Similarly, in my father’s piano business, we didn’t learn a brand so much as a posture: • Take difficult jobs seriously. • Serve people who can’t quite afford you with the same care as those who can. • Build something that will outlast your own two hands. For many in Dutch‐Reformed circles, the inheritance has similar contours. A grandfather who refused a union oath starts a small firm. His children grow it. His grandchildren now run companies that sponsor the local Christian school and employ young people in the congregation. Selling such a firm when there is no successor, the burden is crushing, or health demands a change, is not automatically wrong. But to treat the business only as a commodity, with no conversation about whether God might be calling a son, daughter, or son‐in‐law to shoulder the responsibility, is to miss the covenant dimension. Inheritance, biblically, is not just “what you get when dad dies.” It is the whole package of land, vocation, name, and reputation that one generation entrusts to the next. It is the field where you teach your children to drop seed at the right depth and the shop where you let them solder their first shaky connections. If we have sons and daughters who could, in principle, step into that inheritance – on the shop floor, in the office, or by reshaping the business for a new age – have we spoken to them about it as a calling question, not just a career option? Why the Church should care At this point someone might object: “Isn’t this just nostalgia? Not everyone can or should work in a family business. Many faithful Christians are employees, teachers, nurses, civil servants.” That’s true. Scripture honors all honest work done as unto the Lord. Not every household will own land or a company. Not every child should take over dad’s trade. But we should be honest about what we lose when family enterprises quietly disappear or become indistinguishable from any other professionalized asset. We lose visible catechism in work. Children learn less from lectures on diligence than from watching their parents do good work under pressure. When work is invisible, that formation weakens. We lose natural apprenticeship for the non‐academic. In many of our churches, there are young men and women whose gifts lie in their hands, eyes, and instincts rather than in essays and exams. Family businesses are often the first place those gifts are noticed, valued, and harnessed for the kingdom. We lose a dense network of employers who “get” covenant life. When Christian schools rely on tuition flexibility and bosses who understand a young person might need time off for a cadet camp or a profession‐of‐faith class, they are often leaning on owners shaped by our own churches. If those owners sell to distant corporations, the culture changes, even if the logo stays the same. This is not an argument that every elder must cut back on evenings or every father must start a company. It is a plea to recognize that in God’s providence, our churches and schools stand on the shoulders of men who, rather than yielding to certain pressures, built businesses that now sustain us. If that ecosystem decays, the fallout will be spiritual long before it is merely financial. Where do we go from here? What might it look like to take this seriously without turning it into a new law? A few modest proposals. For business owners: Bring your children in intentionally – not as free labor to exploit, but as sons and daughters to form. Give them real responsibilities at age‐appropriate levels and show them how their contribution matters. Narrate your decisions. When you refuse a dubious deal, honor a warranty that technically expired, or decline work that would compromise Lord’s Day worship, explain why and tie it to the character of the God you serve. Talk about succession as calling. If there is a realistic path for a child or in‐law to carry the business forward, invite them into that discernment early. If there isn’t, be honest about that too, and help them see how the skills and instincts they learned can bless the broader church. For churches and schools: See ordinary vocation as God does. Pray by name, from the pulpit, for tradesmen, small business owners, and farmers as you do for missionaries and office‐bearers, knowing that we all need God’s grace and support in every one of our endeavors. Encourage apprenticeship. When a young person is drifting, consider whether what they need is not another program but a place at someone’s side from 7–3, five days a week. Be realistic about meeting loads. If a father steps back from a board so he can spend one more evening a week in the shop with his teenagers, that can be a wise, praiseworthy choice – but it shouldn’t be beyond gentle questioning. Some men need encouragement to make family a priority; others need encouragement not to neglect the church. Wise elders will help discern which is which, so that neither the household nor the congregation is quietly sacrificed. None of this is a guarantee that every family business will survive, or that every child will embrace the inheritance offered. In a fallen world, some shops will close and some children will walk away. God’s kingdom is bigger than our particular enterprises. But Deuteronomy 6 will not be repealed. Until Christ returns, God will continue to call parents to teach their children when they sit, walk, lie down, and rise. The question before us is not whether we can recreate the 1950s, but whether we will steward the structures He has already given – farms, shops, firms, and offices – as places where that kind of life is even possible. When a family business dies, it is not only a sign that comes down and a building that goes dark. A small ecosystem of covenant life dies with it: a place where children could see faith, work, risk, generosity, and repentance played out in real time. We won’t all reopen shops. We won’t all farm five‐generation land. But we can all fight, in our own callings, to keep work, wealth, and worship from drifting apart – and where God has given our communities family businesses with deep roots and wide branches, we can at least pause before we cut them down and ask whether the next generation might yet learn to climb them. Aaron Reyburn grew up on a multigenerational family farm and now serves as shop foreman in a three generation piano service and rebuilding shop. He also enjoys writing, and owns a small Christian publishing house, Reyburn Press. The picture at the very top is of Aaron and his dad, while receiving training at the Steinway and Sons Piano Factory in New York, to further their education in the industry. Those are piano rims drying after being pressed into shape....

Red heart icon with + sign.
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 Hemisphere is a beautiful time of year. Bright reds, oranges, and yellows rustle in the trees and then blanket the ground as warm weather gives way to winter cold. Many are awed at God’s handiwork as the leaves float to the ground like Heaven’s confetti. But fall may also make us wonder, “Did Adam and Eve ever see such brilliant colors in the Garden of Eden?” Realizing that these plants wither at the end of the growing season may also raise the question, “Did plants die before the Fall of mankind?”1,2,3,4 Before we can answer this question, we must consider the definition of die. We commonly use the word die to describe when plants, animals, or humans no longer function biologically. However, this is not the definition of the word die or death in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for die (or death), mût (or mavet), is used only in relation to the death of man or animals with the breath of life, not regarding plants.5 This usage indicates that plants are viewed differently from animals and humans. Plants, animals, and Man – all different What is the difference between plants and animals or man? For the answer we need to look at the phrase nephesh chayyah.2 Nephesh chayyah is used in the Bible to describe: • sea creatures (Genesis 1:20–21) • land animals (Genesis 1:24) • birds (Genesis 1:30) • and man (Genesis 2:7).3 But Nephesh is never used to refer to plants. Man specifically is denoted as nephesh chayyah, a living soul, after God breathed into him the breath of life. This contrasts with God telling the earth on Day 3 to bring forth plants (Genesis 1:11). The science of taxonomy, the study of scientific classification, makes the same distinction between plants and animals. Since God gave only plants (including their fruits and seeds) as food for man and animals, then Adam, Eve, and all animals and birds were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). Plants were to be a resource of the earth that God provided for the benefit of nephesh chayyah creatures – both animals and man. Plants did not “die,” as in mût; they were clearly consumed as food. Scripture describes plants as withering (Hebrew yabesh), which means “to dry up.”2 This term is more descriptive of a plant or plant part ceasing to function biologically. A “very good” biological cycle When plants wither or shed leaves, various organisms, including bacteria and fungi, play an active part in recycling plant matter and thus in providing food for man and animals. These decay agents do not appear to be nephesh chayyah and would also have a life cycle as nutrients are reclaimed through this “very good” biological cycle. As the plant withers, it may produce vibrant colors because, as a leaf ceases to function, the chlorophyll degrades, revealing the colors of previously hidden pigments. Since decay involves the breakdown of complex sugars and carbohydrates into simpler nutrients, we see evidence for the Second Law of Thermodynamics before the Fall of mankind.6 But in the pre-Fall world this process would have been a perfect system, which God described as “very good.” A Creation that groans It is conceivable that God withdrew some of His sustaining (restraining) power at the Fall when He said, “Cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and the augmented Second Law of Thermodynamics resulted in a creation that groans and suffers (Romans 8:22). Although plants are not the same as man or animals, God used them to be food and a support system for recycling nutrients and providing oxygen. They also play a role in mankind’s choosing life or death. In the Garden were two trees – the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fruit of the first was allowed for food, the other forbidden. In their rebellion Adam and Eve sinned and ate the forbidden fruit, and death entered the world (Romans 5:12). Furthermore, because of this sin, all of creation, including nephesh chayyah, suffers (Romans 8:19–23). We are born into this death as descendants of Adam, but we find our hope in Christ. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). As you look at the “dead” leaves of fall and remember that the nutrients will be reclaimed into new life, recognize that we too can be reclaimed from death through Christ’s death and resurrection. Endnotes 1 See a refutation of unbiblical teaching about plant death at www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs2005/0221plant_death.asp. 2 Strong’s Concordance, Online Bible, Online Bible Foundation, Ontario, Canada, 2006. 3 Many creation scientists do not include invertebrates as nephesh chayyah creatures. 4 Sarfati, Jonathan, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Answers to Critics, www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs/370.asp. 5 See a refutation of unbiblical teaching about plant death at www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs2005/0221plant_death.asp. 6 Sarfati, Jonathan, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Answers to Critics, www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs/370.asp. This article is reprinted with permission from the 2006 October-December issue of Answers Magazine. You can find thousands of other great articles addressing the creation/evolution debate on their website AnswersInGenesis.org. It appeared in the December 2014 edition of Reformed Perspective....

Red heart icon with + sign.
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 a full-time pro-life apologist, which means he gets screamed at a lot. One of the more common squawks goes something like this: “You aren’t pro-life; you’re just pro-birth! You want to tell women what they can do with their bodies, and don’t give a rip what happens to the kid after it’s born!” How would you respond? God tells us that sometimes silence is the best response. He warns us that trying to be heard over a red-faced, spittle-spewing, murder-marketer’s screams will only make us look just as foolish (Prov. 26:4). But what about when the accuser really wants a response? What about when there is a listening audience gathered round? How should we answer then? We could point to the pro-lifers we know who donate to, or volunteer at, pregnancy centers. We could list everyone we know who’ve adopted or fostered children. And for good measure we might mention the way our churches care for the elderly and the sick, and the unemployed, and just generally show love for our born neighbors too. If we’re feeling feisty, we might even go on the offensive and ask, “How much time and money do you donate to care for others?” knowing that the typical critic is doing nothing or next to it. That’s an answer that might shut them up. But it’s not the answer Scott Klusendorf gives. He goes a different direction because he understands the abortion debate is largely one of truth versus, not simply lies, but evasion. The other side doesn’t want to debate whether the unborn are precious human beings like you and I; instead they sidetrack the discussion to any other topic. They’ll talk about how poor some mothers are, and how unwanted some babies are. They’ll attack men for daring to speak on the issue. In the latest pro-abortion stunt, groups of women will parade around in red dresses patterned after victims’ attire in a dystopian novel about political leaders who get away with ritual rape. The accusation that loving unborn babies is akin to rape is as bizarre as it is repugnant. But as much as insults hurt, they don’t do the same damage as suction machines. That’s why our focus has to be on the unborn, and sharing where their worth comes from. As much as abortion advocates want to sidetrack the issue, we can’t let them divert us from highlighting how our country’s smallest citizens are being murdered. How do we stay on message? By absorbing the insult. If they want to argue that pro-lifers don’t give a rip about children once they are born, we can grant their point and play a game of “what if…” Klusendorf’s response to attacks goes something like this: “What if I was the cold-hearted jerk you’re making me out to be? What if I was the worst human being in the world? How does me being a jerk have any impact on the humanity of the unborn?” When Kristan Hawkins, president of the Students for Life of America, was asked why pro-lifers weren’t offering solutions for the foster-care crisis she played the “what if” game too. What if the accusation was true? What if pro-lifers were only concerned with the unborn? She asked her accuser: “Are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?” She continued: “There is no other act of violence that kills more people every single day in America and across the world, than abortion. There’s nothing wrong with me fighting, and spending 100% of my time doing it. Just like there’s nothing wrong with the American Diabetes Association putting 100% of their money, their research and time behind curing Juvenile Diabetes…. The reality is, you don’t really care what I do. That I support children in third world countries. Or that I might be volunteering in a soup kitchen....  It’s just an argument to stop the actual discussion from happening, which is that abortion is a moral wrong and it should be stopped.” There’s an old joke about a pastor who, in his sermon’s margins, wrote: ”Point weak here; thump pulpit harder.” The world has no strong points, so they have to pound the podium till they bleed, shrieking their insults to try to drown out the Truth. They don’t want to have the debate. We can’t let them distract us from it. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism explains, we’re on Earth to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. When we make His glory our first concern, we won’t sweat it when someone attacks our name – that won’t stop us from talking about God’s Truth. When we’re enjoying His love we won’t worry about having the world’s approval – that can’t stop us from defending unborn children made in His image. And when we recognize the world only hates us because they hated Him first (John 15:18) we will rejoice in the good company we are keeping. This article was first published in the May/June 2019 issue of the magazine....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Real Talk: Lead with intention or lose the mission

This episode can also be found on your favorite podcast platform: Spotify, Apple, Podbean, Amazon Music or on our website. Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel and our podcast profiles so you can be notified when new episodes are released. Below is a transcript of the episode. Please note that this transcript was automatically generated and may contain some errors. ***** Opening As Reformed Christians, our communities are full of organizations, many of which took decades of hard work to build – from schools and churches to charities serving locally and abroad. We've been blessed in many ways and have been able to bless countless more. But these organizations take work – not just the blood, sweat, and tears of a generation that built them from the ground up, but ongoing day-to-day effort of so many volunteers and workers who work with such good intentions. How often do we hear, though, from the founding generation, from the generation that built these organizations, that an organization that we lead no longer really resembles the purpose that it was intended to serve? Are these organizations living up to their mission, or to the name that they were once given? Today, I'm joined by Peter Greer, president and CEO of Hope International, a Christ-centered nonprofit equipping underserved communities to break the cycle of poverty around the world. Peter is a co-author of over 15 books and has been inspired by the idea of keeping Christian organizations from straying from their intended purpose. Today we talk about his book Mission Drift and how Christian organizations can serve, grow, and prosper without losing their roots. Wherever you serve, I hope this conversation will help you understand the value of clarity and purpose. A big thanks to our friends at Nearalta for making this conversation possible. Be sure to check them out at nearalta.com. Intro The world's changing fast, but what questions should we really be asking? You're listening to Real Talk, a podcast presented by Reformed Perspective, where we take God's word and apply it to the nitty-gritty of life. Buckle up for real questions, real answers, and real direction. This is Real Talk. Tyler Vanderwoude Peter Greer, appreciate you joining me. This is a privilege. I read Mission Drift many years ago, before I started, I mean, my adult life, I don't know. Maybe that began 10 years ago, but before I got into like committee work in my community and stuff like that, I actually read Mission Drift. Someone recommended it to me, and it was it was something that's kind of changed my attitude on the approach I take to especially like nonprofit work and community work, so it's something that I was excited to read again in the last little bit, and you know, kind of dive into today with you. So I see you got another one of your books in the background there. I'm guessing this is very much tied in, although I haven't had the privilege of reading all – What is it? – 15 plus books that you've written. Peter Greer It's a problem, but yeah, I do love researching and writing. And you are correct. I mean, you always have kind of the last one behind you, I guess. Tyler Vanderwoude So that's how leaders lose their way. So that's I guessing right quite tied in. Peter Greer Yeah, some people have called it Mission Drift: The Personal Edition. Some of the same principles that we found about how organizations drift. It's really just an exploration of what happens in our heart, what happens in our lives. How do we drift? So there is an unmistakable and intentional connection between the themes and topics of the two books. Just a decade apart, Mission Drift did come out 10 years ago, and fun to have this one that just launched recently. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, awesome. Yeah, so yeah, I must read that book when it first came out, then. Mission Drift, because it it's been a while. But yeah, the yeah, my hope is to dive into that. So we'll definitely touch on the personal side of it. I haven't had the privilege to read that book, but yeah. So I guess how did you get into this world? You got into like mission work or you know not-for-profit work, and then you're the president and CEO of Hope International. So how did you get into that? And then what is that organization? Peter Greer Yeah, no thanks. And so it was it was early in my kind of life, I grew up as a pastor's kid and had this interest in global missions, and then got into kind of global studies. I thought you know business and finance was an area of interest, and at the time, I didn't necessarily see how those two fit together. But I was studying in Moscow and met someone who was using the tools of business and entrepreneurship to open up doors to some challenging contexts, and I thought that was the coolest thing that I had ever heard. These two interests of global missions meeting this interest in finance and entrepreneurship, and so that's really been my career. So I went to Cambodia initially, and then to Rwanda, and then to Zimbabwe, and then joined Hope International 21 years ago. So those were a few stops along the way. But we exist to invest in the dreams of families, so provide access to capital and training and coaching, and we do it in the world's underserved communities. And for us, our faith is at the very core as we proclaim and share, yeah, the love of Jesus as we do this work in the places where we serve. So it's a little bit of global missions and entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation. It's like the where those three spaces overlap is the place where Hope International resides. Tyler Vanderwoude Oh, that's cool. How did you personally – so you said you you mentioned you went to a few places. Were you doing the on the ground work? Were you like, how did you get to the point where you're this leader? You're the CEO now, and you're also writing books about how leaders should you know lead organizations. Peter Greer Yeah. So, I mean, you graduate from university, and you're excited, you're passionate, and you have no skills. At least that's what I had at that moment. And so I reached out to every organization that I knew that was doing this sort of work, and I said, "Hi, I'd love to join your team.” And not surprisingly, I got zero responses. I mean, not even acknowledged, and ended up actually getting some other experience that, in retrospect, was really really helpful. So I worked at a private school and got some experience that was helpful. And then the door did eventually open, and initially it was on the internal controls and fraud prevention side because you're dealing with money and you're dealing with these organizations, and so I joined World Relief, and that's what I did in Cambodia. And then an opening, they needed someone to come in urgently, and so I moved to Rwanda from there. Same organization, World Relief, and then yeah. Anyway, so those were the initial door openings, and then it was in graduate school that I did a project on Hope International, and I was doing it in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and spent a week overlapping with the president at the time. At the end of that week, he said, "I'm going to be leaving the organization to go to another,” and he said, "Would you consider applying for my role? I think that this would be a great spot for you.” And so, at age 29, that's when I joined Hope International, and it really has been an amazing team, an amazing global mission, and I am just as enthusiastic and excited about what we're doing today as I was when I started, but really the space of how do we really create excellent organizations around the world that provide investment capital to entrepreneurs with the intentional outreach, discipleship, and church strengthening in the way that we operate around the world. So that's the career. That's what I've been doing. Tyler Vanderwoude Wow, that's yeah. I've definitely… there's impact to be had all up and down that. So that's really cool. How did you get into writing books about it? Like you, at some point, people are asking you probably for advice and things. And I guess so we can tie this into the book Mission Drift, like how did you come across this idea? When did that kind of come about? Peter Greer Yeah, so 2008 I was on a hike in California, and I was you know… these people I hadn't met before, and one of them his name was Donald Miller, and he was talking about… I was just very interested and very generous in learning more about the work that we were doing, and near the end he said you should write a book about that. And this other individual who was on the hike with us, his name was Jeremy Cowart, and he said, "And Jeremy, he's a global photographer. You should put his pictures in the book.” And he made it sound very easy, and turns out it's not quite that easy to write a book, but that started a journey, and I did start writing at that moment. And I guess in many ways I didn't stop. I love the journey, and I guess there's two kind of components of that. One is that writing makes you go deep, and in leadership we're always pulled to be shallow. And for me, a book writing is like my own professional education to not be shallow, but to say I'm going to go deep in a subject. And then the second piece is I've never written anything out of expertise. It's always been out of an area that we're thinking through. And so you ask the question about Mission Drift. That's because I looked around and I saw a lot of organizations that had drifted from their founding purpose and mission and identity, and it wasn't that we had figured it out. If anything, I felt the same pull. In fact, there was one foundation that looked at Hope International, and this was kind of the one of the origin stories of the research. And they said, "We love the mission. We love the microenterprise development. We love the places where you serve, but..” they said, “because we're a publicly traded company, tone down the Jesus stuff, and then we'll be able to fund you, and then we'll be able to come alongside you.” And in that moment, I did not have the clarity that I have now at that moment, my initial response was, "How can we make this work? We have to make this work. We need those funds. Think of all the good that we can do. How do we find the creative way around it?” And I've come to realize that that money would have would have been a contributing factor to Hope losing its way, for Hope drifting, and so we never got the money. We actually started the research and came back and said, "Can't do that. That is at the core. It's who we are. It's what we do.” And I do look back at that moment and say that was the biggest gift that we've ever been given as an organization, and it didn't come with any check. It didn't come with any finances. It didn't come with any dollars, but it came with clarity of who we are and what we're all about as an organization. And I would say that was one of the defining moments that we had as an organization. Tyler Vanderwoude Wow! Yeah, that's a that's cool to hear that you say that. You're kind of… the book is helping you work through it because it's like I mean I feel like that with the podcast. I'm like the more I the more I do this, the more I read, the more I learn, the more I'm exposed to. And you know I use you know podcast to talk through the things you're learning, and it helps you clarify it in your mind. I can see how the writing does the same thing, but I'm… Yeah, I mean it's always easier to learn off someone else's mistakes. So I mean, it doesn't sound like you made the mistake necessarily, but it's but looking at other people's mistakes, Peter Greer Just to be clear, we've made plenty, I've made plenty, we've made plenty of mistakes, but that one I do think we were able to learn from others and identify it early on and make some significant changes to how we think about our work and governance and structure and what we measure, what we celebrate. There really were tangible ways that we were redirected as an organization. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah. So, so I guess we could… I mean, we could talk about how this happens. Like, so I guess what is mission drift for people who haven't heard the term before? I'm sure people could piece together what they think it would mean, but like, what is that? How did you kind of define it? And then, and then, can you give some examples of organizations that have drifted and use that to kind of, yeah, kind of help us understand what are we talking about? Yeah, you mentioned your one example, which is pretty clear in my mind, but.. Peter Greer Right, and one of the pieces that we wanted to do was to not feel like this is investigative journalism, that in meant anyway the stories that we tell would be breaking news of an organization. No, we wanted to look at a bigger period of time, and we wanted to focus on organizations that are not, you know, there's not like on the on the line. It's long ago that those decisions were made, and unfortunately, they are so easy to find. Higher education, health, non-governmental organizations, outreach to care for those in need. Every sector has so many organizations that were founded with a very clear and Christ-centered mission, and yet over time are doing something very different. So, one of the well-known ones is an institution that was created for higher education, and they said this: their mission statement was to be plainly instructed and consider well that the main end of your life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, they chose as their word and their logo to have veritas, which means truth, and then they talked about words around Christo et ecclesia. Until recently, that was on the diploma, so truth for Christ and the Church, and that institution is known as Harvard University, and it is not necessarily doing that. Tyler Vanderwoude Decidedly not that. Peter Greer Right. Right. Yeah, and in many ways, it's not like we're not saying there's not good things happening. It's just saying when you actually look at the founding purpose, if you look at the founding mission, and you look at what they're doing today, those two things are completely different. Another organization was called Christian Children's Fund, and that was an organization that was created by a minister to care for individuals. One of the pioneers in the child sponsorship kind of model, and grew, and then they ended up changing their name to Child Fund, and they're still doing good humanitarian work. But the interesting thing is when they changed the name from Christian Children's Fund, one of the phrases that was used in as they were talking about this is a board member summarized very succinctly: "This organization has nothing to do with Christianity.” But wait a minute, it's in the name. Wait a minute, it's in the founding story, but it was not in the current practice. And the president at the time said this: “An organization changes slowly, and then all of a sudden, you have to take a step back and see if the name accurately represents who you are.” And so, I think that is the most incredible definition of drift. That, in her own words, it's like it all of a sudden we realized, but long ago, decisions were made that separated the practices that they had, the organizational activities, from the core mission. And so we, I could go on and on and on. But we see this in healthcare. We see this in in in all kinds of different domains. But higher education, there's plenty more that I could share as well. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, that yeah, that makes sense. Is it is it a.. like, do you view that as a like.. it could be that the mission has drifted, or was it like a misnamed organization from the beginning? Peter Greer Yeah, my experience is it was not misnamed at the beginning. If you read the following documents, right? If you read the passions of the first generation, here's what Dr. Paul Tripp says. He says too often the passions of the first generation become the preferences of the second generation and become irrelevant to the third generation. That's what happens. And so, no, I don't think it was misnamed. I think it was the clear passion of like we want to make an impact. We want to be living out our faith. We want that to be the core of who we are, and yet slowly and over time, small compromises compounded by time lead to a very different destination. Tyler Vanderwoude Well, yeah. Well, that's a really good, yeah, that's a really good way to put it. Like, it makes you think: Are the principles actually principles, or are they preferences at this point? You know, yeah. So okay, so let's talk about. I guess how. What are some of the things that like we can we can see? How do we see this happening over time for like an organization drifting. We see the start and end point of, or you know, end point of like something like Harvard, where it's very obvious now. What were those things along the way? How did that.. how did that happen? What are we looking for? Peter Greer Yeah, you know, we were looking for like order of operations. What do we need to pay attention to most? And it seems like every story had different contributing factors, and I think that it's one individual talked about death by minnows as opposed to swallowed by a whale, meaning like it's not one big event, it's not one big issue, it's just these small compromises. The reason that's so significant is it means it's really hard to identify right now. It's easy to identify when you have enough time. It's very difficult to identify in the moment, and I think for all of us, my working assumption at this point, after studying this for a number of years, is every organization is drifting in some important way. The question is: Do we see it? Do we spot it? Are we identifying it? And are we correcting it? And so that's why I love this idea of drift. It's like there's currents that we're in, and if you just stop paying attention, you will go along with the current. The easiest thing to do is nothing, and I tell you that will not lead you to a place of more missional fidelity. It will not lead you to a place of more vibrancy in mission. It'll slowly pull you away to a very different destination. And I think your point is so well said. It's like in the long term we can see it. In the short term, we need to be aware. So, what are some of the things that we should be aware of? Number one, clarity. If you want to have a question, go in the first five people you meet at your church or your organization or your school. If you're working in a place that has this, and you say this is important to who we are, first five people, and do you hear consistency? Do you hear clarity? And most of us think there's more clarity about who we are than is actually understood. And so clarity is number one. And then if there's not that clarity, got to figure out how do we live it out? How do we regularly connect it to the decisions that we're making? And that's the point number two: is you got to have clarity of who you are, and then you've got to connect it to today, the decisions that you're making. And there are no neutral decisions. Everything can be looked at through a lens of mission, and that's why every single person on staff can play a role. Every single person can shape the way that you're connecting the mission to what you are, and so a decision. Our next strategic plan: Do you start with the opportunity and market assessment, or do you start with the mission as you're looking at the new product to launch? Is it this is going to be the cost? This is going to be the risk reward, or this is going to be the way that it connects to our mission, and so I really think the mission true organizations – they're vigilant, they're attentive, they're clear, and they connect that mission to the day-to-day decisions that they're making. And then one other, just final thought is: and people are really important. Thinking longer term – if that's true that passions become preferences, become irrelevant, it means the way that we do staff development is mission critical, not just for the competency, not just for the technical ability to do the job. That's important in every organization, but to also be growing in the missional passion, the passion for who you are, what you are, not just the technical skills and abilities. So the organizations that stay on mission are hyper vigilant about staff development, and again, not just the technical components, but growing in the underlying yeah faith in action that is so essential for mission-driven organizations. Tyler Vanderwoude Wow! Yeah, there's so much in there. I think I think all four of those points are convicting for me, and I'm thinking about this from, I'm on I'm on our local school board, so we have we have a school run like community school, so not run by our church, but church you know a community basically spanning over several congregations, several different denominations, even, but yeah, the clarity to start just to start at the beginning, it isn't really super obvious when if you ask somebody what the mission of the school is, it's something that we've been working on at our school for the last couple years is making sure that people can actually express what the what the mission is, what the vision is. I think our vision statement a couple years ago was like 45 words or something. Like that probably isn't going to work. Yeah, there's there's a lot there. So I guess can we connect this to like can we think about drift in our organizations the same as we think about, you know, say cultural drift, like our culture's pulling us in a direction? Even like deformation in the church, like we're all, I mean, we're all tended toward evil. Or is there something that's more specific about like a culture or an intention of an organization that we can kind of control a little better than we can, you know, address culture. Peter Greer Yeah, I think the principles are the same. And going back to where we started the conversation, that's why I was so interested and initially, the conversation with the publisher was like, should we do a revised and expanded version of Mission Drift 10 years later? Right. And I feel like what we missed in the original book was just how important what happens in us is, and so that's where how leaders lose their way came from. It was basically like take those same principles, apply them to an individual, not just an organization. But the principles are the same; they really are in what we need to be vigilant, and the small steps and the small cracks in and what can we do to pay attention to them. But my favorite hymn, the line in any hymn, is from "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing”, and it was written by Robert Robinson, and he has this line, and he says, "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it prone to leave the God I love”, and I think He nailed it. I think He nailed it that we don't do the work if we don't believe that we could lose our way. And I would say the same thing for organizations. The worst thing you could do is have an assumption that future generations are going to stay on mission. To have the assumption that what's happening right now is going to happen, everyone, everyone, everyone that we studied that stayed on mission said we just didn't take it for granted. We knew our moment in time, one of our primary preoccupations was living out the mission and then passing it on to the next generation. And I think the same thing applies individually. Recognizing drift and how easy it is to drift means that we're going to maybe do some things differently in our life. We're going to pay attention to things. We're going to we're going to understand and identify where, not if, we're drifting. And again, by God's grace, make some minor course corrections as opposed to major issues that will form if we think we could just ignore this or it's going to go away on its own, that never tends to happen organizationally or individually. Tyler Vanderwoude So, how do you, say you're sitting on a board and you want to bring this up? I mean, aside from handing Mission Drift to everyone, handing them the book and saying, “Read this whole thing before we chat.” How do you avoid sounding like a kook when you're like, you could you could say, “Look, guys, this decision is going to completely derail this organization in 10 years.” Everyone will be like, “Wow, okay, settle down. The you know you don't need to lose sleep over this or you know settle down with the alarm bells. Like it's not that bad.” It's the same thing people say about culture. It's the same thing people say about anything that's deforming. I guess how can you frame those things to be like this is important, and then like yeah, how do you identify what those… you identified four key pieces.. how do you, when you're sitting in in a board chair, say this falls into this bucket? How do you find out what those things are? And yeah, like pay attention to them. Peter Greer Yeah, and this is the great thing that anyone in on a board or on a staff, anyone can have a positive influence. And I think about the power of questions. Oftentimes, my experience is, especially in the early compromises, it's not because people are trying to take the organization – we're going to have a coup, and we're going to take it in a different direction. Oftentimes, it's just benign neglect, as opposed to willful or intentional steering. It's just like we just stopped paying attention. So I would say, in the early stages of drift, the power of a question – that's a really interesting idea. How does that connect to the core of who we are as an organization? Like questions that can start to weave in the mission. That person seems wonderfully technically qualified, but can you tell me a little bit more about how his or her, like who she is or who he is, aligns with the mission of what we're all about as an organization. That's great that person is interested in being in our board. What do we know about that person's commitment to the core foundational mission of who we are as an organization? And so I would say in the early stages, because it's not most of the time like willful, intentional. I just think that's a powerful way. Now, the further you go down, the further entrenched there are. Yet, it does not get easier to raise these issues. So, maybe that will be my sober assessment: is the sooner you make course corrections, the less painful they tend to be. The more you ignore, the more you grow with some faulty implementation of that core mission. The more painful it is to try and get back. And so I would just say, like, pay attention wherever you are. Like right now is a great day. It's that classic one. Like, when's the right time to plant a tree? 50 years ago. The second best time? Today! So in a similar way, like focus on that mission, come back and clarify and connect it to the decisions that are being made. Tyler Vanderwoude So if we talk about clarifying a mission, like what are some tools I guess that we people can use to make a mission? Because I would say, like I'm talking again from a school board perspective, we have a mission. If you ask the board, I mean, you would get similar answers. I would think, and again to your point, like if you have good people, they're all aligned if you really press them on these things, but yeah, if you go down the road, they're not maybe all aligned, you know exactly. So, what are some things that you can use to clarify that? Like, how do you how do you get that understanding and like pin it in like you know the present so that you have that for the future? Peter Greer Yeah. So there's a lot of creative exercises and tools and ways and this is not dodging your question, but my honest answer is it actually doesn't matter too much which of the tools because they all accomplish the same thing, elevating the mission, reminding us of the mission, connecting the mission to what we do, and I don't think it's yeah. There's only one way to do that. So if you want some specific tools, you can go to missiondrift.com. We created a toolkit. There's a workbook that's there. It's called the Mission True Workbook. That's available for free if anyone wants to try it. Put these ideas into practice, but I don't think there's a wrong way to intentionally see, celebrate the mission that you have. And then, in terms of clarification, this is the other piece that I think sometimes people think we're saying something different. But I'm not opposed to change. The world is changing. The models change. Education changes. The reality is the world is changing. The reason why I resonate with the idea of drift is because drift is just going along without intentionality. And I would say for a board, you have to understand who you are. But that's not to say there's not significant moments or big decisions about model and operating and systems and change. There are big changes happening in our world. We need to, but the question is, when we make those decisions, when we make those changes, is it to become a truer version of ourselves or to walk away? Is it to hold on to the core, or is it to let go of what is most important? And I like how Fred Smith he says, you know, it's oftentimes like selling the family heirlooms for a little more cash. Those things that are just so precious that right now we feel like ah, we just are going to sell them. I think a lot of times people. I wish I could have that back, and I know hearing stories there of some that have seen mission drift, experienced mission drift. They're like, "Oh, I wish we could go back to that decision.” And that's really what we're trying to do is just be aware of how prevalent mission drift is, know who you are, and then connect that to the decisions that you are making in your life and in your leadership. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah. Okay. So that's helpful. So there's not really a specific tool. Is there a format? I guess maybe not specific format, but is there like what would a what does a good mission look like? Is there a is there like if I have a vision statement, I have a mission statement. Is that enough, or is it like? Do you put like core values down? Do you do you do you specify it very particularly? Like I think there's examples in the book of even like actionable items like having to the way to change the mission would have to be over the course of many years with you know unanimous approval from the board, those types of things. Like, what does a specific, what does a mission look like? Because I'm, I'm thinking, it's not always that it would be with I guess with bad intentions or with like just because someone's asleep at the wheel that it would drift. Like I'm thinking some of the organizations that I've been a part of or heard of, the next generation it's not necessarily a preference, but they actually look at the mission and they redefine it because maybe because of cultural drift, but also maybe they thought that the I guess the strategy of the mission wasn't being executed well, or even that the mission was set up properly to begin with, they no longer necessarily value the things that the founders valued. If I give you an example, like so, if you have a if we have a school that's like a community school that's you know aligned with the church, certain churches, you might two generations down the road have a crop of leaders who doesn't think that that's actually a Christian thing to be doing to have maybe a more insular school and would like to open it up to everybody, and there then your entire I mean it's the mission is completely different. It redefines the organization. So, is there a way that you can build that mission so that that cannot happen, or is that a valuable thing to be doing? Peter Greer Yeah. So, again, I just highly, highly, highly recommend separating the mission from the means and having super clarity and saying what are the things that are most important, and I think to clarify that, one of the pieces that we do is the 50-year test. You come back in 50 years. What would break your heart if it's lost? And assume 50 years, the world is going to change a lot in the next 50 years, right? Tyler Vanderwoude Two years! Peter Greer Yeah, exactly. But you don't then, given that, when you think about education, you're not going to be talking about what happens in the current mode of technology. Like you're going to be talking about more core, fundamental things about who you are, what you are trying to do in the school and in the world, and in a similar way, I think that 50-year test it clarifies what do you still hope to be true. And then I know there's a bunch of organizations put it in the ground, put it in the ground, do that time capsule, write a letter to the future leaders of that organization, and just pass it on to future leaders. That might be one way to start. And then for me, the other piece is just simple clarity. There is a negative return on complexity when it comes to mission. The simpler you can make it, the more you can focus on the essence, on the core, the more likely it is that it's going to be seen and understood and implemented. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, you mentioned Simon Sinek in the in the book. Yeah, and I guess that book. I mean, I read that book years ago too, probably around the same time I read Mission Drift. But that that idea, I guess there's also an exercise and a whole maybe a whole other organization that goes along with that to clarify that is that is that pretty similar like doing something like that Y exercise to come up with I think it's pretty short and punchy right. Peter Greer Yep, exactly right. Tyler Vanderwoude What that is so is that is that good enough like that little piece of. Wording like four or five words that, or is it like is it something deeper where you have to kind of like also have some you know fine print? It feels like you should have a contract, right? Peter Greer Right, right. No, and that's where you know you reference this already, but we wanted to make this as difficult as possible to change the who we are, the primary purpose. Why do we exist? So again, it's that why question, not the what. And so we have that system, and you cannot change the primary purpose of the organization without unanimous vote from the board directors in three separate years. That slows down the decision making. Unanimous vote in three separate years, and that's with intentionality because you don't want to have just one meeting. You're like, hey, we're facing this crisis. If we only change this, we can therefore, and yet it's not impossible. You can change the mission. It just is, “Are you really sure? Are you really sure you want to change the mission? Tell me more. Let's slow this down.’” And that has been really helpful, I think. But again, that's differentiating mission from means. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah. How does that work with? I guess like so, like charitable, a lot of charitable organizations are run specifically by the board, obviously with input from donors or other people who have kind of a stake in the game. But what about something where there's like a society running it, or there's like is there is that just another layer that makes it harder to change things or harder to pivot from the from the mission, or I mean, or that could that be another danger where you know the society is actually pulling the board? Peter Greer Yeah, again, not to be too alarmist, but there's all kinds of ways for an organization to drift, and who's making the decisions? Who has that? And what I find so interesting is most boards of directors understand their fiduciary responsibility. They understand they need to have an audit committee, and they know their responsibility. But you know what? Most boards don't understand? Their primary job is to ensure that the organization does and stays on mission, and yet there's not often clarity on that, and so we disconnect over time. And the boards that help an organization stay on mission, they're creative. They're like, let's make sure we read that mission statement before we do anything. Let's make sure before that decision is made, we pray about it. Give space to listen and see what happens. And the organizations that stay on mission, they understand that one of the core, if not the core, responsibility they have is not just evaluate the CEO, but make sure that the organization is staying on mission. And again, even that is an example. When the CEO or president or executive director is evaluated, are they evaluated for growth numbers, metric numbers, or missional impact? That will guide decisions that will change behaviors. And most of the time, we drift towards what is easiest to measure, which is growth in revenue and number of people served, as opposed to also saying, "But what is the impact? What is the way that we're living out the mission? Those are questions that are harder to assess, but I think over time more important if you want to have an organization that is anchored to its mission. Tyler Vanderwoude Oh yeah, that's a really good point. Yeah, you bring it up in the in the book too. That's um, yeah, what you measure is kind of what you what you're gonna care about, and a lot of times that's fiscal. You know, you know what? Yeah, how much revenue we bringing in? Do we meet in budget, or what kind of impact do we have? How many? And it's always a number based because that's the easiest thing to track. But you know, how many you know people did we impact along the way? Yeah, and you get, I guess, you get kind of distracted by like growth or whatever. So yeah, that's and then you talk you talked about a way to you know kind of create those metrics for the things that matter. So I think that's a really cool thing to consider if you're in that position. How does you mentioned people like the staff and the board? I guess what do you say to people who struggle to find people to join their organization? Whether staff like there's just a shortage of labor, or you know the board members, there's not just like you know clamoring to be on your board. You're just so tempted to take the first person available who has you know three hours available in their week. Like, what do you want to just say to those people? Peter Greer Availability is great, but availability is insufficient, right? I mean, if you want to stay on mission, you've got to have people that believe in the mission, and so compromise in the board is unwise. So in that sort of a situation, you feel like you must have a board. Maybe you don't have to have it quite so large. And I would rather have five people that are on mission than 15 people that have 7 that are on mission, like that's not a net positive. That is a net negative. You got to go 100% for those people that believe in the mission of the organization who are going to be on the board of directors. So, yeah, maybe slow down. Maybe state when you feel like you might be tempted to compromise, and then figure out what is your assessment and onboarding process, and how much of that is connected to what it is that you hope to protect and to preserve as an organization. So again, this is not this is not earth shattering research. It makes sense, but it's just we aren't paying attention. It's just we feel the urgency, we feel the need, and we justify small compromises and woefully underestimate the impact that they're going to have on the organization over time. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, and any bad decision there can snowball, like you said. Like if you have seven, if you're outnumbered on the board with people who don't care about the mission, but even if you have two or three, you run a staff. Even it just turns into a culture of not, you know, that keeping that mission front and center. And that I like, I like the point you raised about reading the mission at the beginning of the at the beginning of the meetings. I think that came from an example in your book. Can you share a couple examples from the book, or you know that you've seen since writing it of organizations that are doing this really well, and like what they're like what they're doing different than organizations that are just kind of hoping for the best? Peter Greer Yeah, no, that example you're referencing is the Kroll Trust, and so the founder of Quaker Oats, his name is Henry Kroll, and he saw that mission drift was happening, and so he said, "For my estate, for the resources,” he was a titan of industry, and he said, “I want to make sure that these resources are used in the long-term alignment of what I believe matters most.” And so he created a charter, and that charter must be read before the meeting begins and I think that is a great practice, and it really was born out of his awareness of just how easy it is to drift. And so they make the decisions in alignment with that decision. He went further in that, in that he said, "And I know family. I love my family, but I want to make sure I'm not creating a family board. I want to make sure I'm creating a missionally aligned board.” And so he was creative in how individuals were invited to join the board. I thought that's really interesting. And for him, it was like blood relationship is insufficient. We got to make sure that people are vetted for their not just family relationships, but vetted for their missional alignment. So that's one example. I also just love the way that Alec Hill at Intervarsity he was so intentional about pouring into these cohorts of future leaders, and his example stands out to me as someone who is like recognizing that his time was temporary. He was interim in his role and recognized that he needed to be pouring into future generations. One individual talked about the know-how and the know-who, and really just wanting to make sure the connections were made, and that requires a posture of humility, a posture of mission first, and I could go on, but those are some that come to mind. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, those. Yeah, it's cool. It's cool to see guys with that intention. Do people have a fear that when they do something like that, that you know their organization will be insufferable to work for or work with, or a fear that maybe there's not enough people that align specifically with what their what their position is? That yeah, their organization is not going to improve. Is that I mean a way that you know the mission is kind of pushed aside? Peter Greer Yeah, probably answer D. All of the above. Tyler Vanderwoude Always seem to be! Yeah, that makes sense. It's like, yeah. But if you don't do it, then you you just don't have an organization in 50 years. So I think that 50 year test is a it's a real thing to keep in mind. Peter Greer Yeah, I think the benefit, right, is 50 years. It's a long enough time horizon that I can do the math. I'm not going to be doing my job in 50 years, so it's intentionally extending beyond what most people would consider their time, their tenure with a particular organization. Tyler Vanderwoude Is that a struggle people have to think past their own time? I mean, you serve on a board maybe you know three to six years, 10 years, and maybe you can keep the mission in mind for that period of time. But do people do a good enough job when they're founding an organization or being a part of an organization, thinking like, or is it a struggle to be like, well, I don't even feel like this is going to exist past my lifetime. That you know, or you're, or maybe you're solving problems so you know that feel so critical in the moment that it doesn't feel like there is a future. Peter Greer Yeah, and again, I just feel like it's benign neglect. I just think it's you're not thinking about it because when you show up, what is your what are you thinking about? Today, these are the decisions that we need to make. Today, these are the pain points. Today, this is the urgency that we have around these items, and in the thinking about, I think it's the Covey quadrants, but thinking about the important and not urgent, those are the most difficult things to actually prioritize. I know it's important, but it just doesn't feel urgent right now, and therefore we kick the can down the road. Therefore, we don't deal with the things that we need to deal with. We think there's going to be a future day when we're going to show up and have nothing else to do other than wrestle through. And my experience is that day never comes. There's always something that feels urgent and timely, and so we don't do the work of extending our time horizon a little bit longer. Tyler Vanderwoude Anyone who has woken up for work more than three times knows that that's not true. I guess it's hard to feel right because you're like, oh, if we can only just get these three things off our plate, you know, these two things are urgent, and yeah, it's hard to make time for that that big picture thinking. But what are some what are some I guess responsibilities if you're not say part of an organization, but you donate or you're, yeah, you're funding an organization. What are some of the things that that donors can do to help keep an organization on mission, not even being part of the day to day? Peter Greer I think the donors way underestimate the role and influence that they could have, because what donors sometimes think is I'm just giving the money and then let them go. But I actually don't think that's the type of engaged philanthropy that's going to help organizations stay on mission. I love that there's multiple times in my life, in my career, where people have reached out after I've sent something or said something, and said, "Hey, Peter, that was nice, but you forgot what was most important”, and they called me out, and they were totally right on the times that I did not, with clarity, talk about the core of who we are and the mission that we have, and my only response to them is thank you. Keep doing it. And the irony is, there is great influence of funding, but oftentimes it's the sources of secularization. I get way more questions on the other side of saying we'd love to do this matching grant, but you are a Christian organization and looks like you require a statement of faith of your staff, therefore, we can't fund you. And I feel the tension. It's like, “Oh, if we would just soften that, we could get more money.” And so there is a pull towards secularization in funding. And I wish that people who cared about the mission recognized the pull and influence that they could have in the opposite direction. Obviously, doing it gracefully and doing it with kindness, but as Proverbs 27:17 says, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted”, and so maybe we have some friends that say, "Hey, I think that you might be slowly moving away from what seems to matter most. Let's talk about that.” Tyler Vanderwoude How do you determine what matters most? Because somebody will say that you're, if you could take that money and have more impact, like what are you trying to do? So, how do you define what that should be? I guess it's kind of organization by organization and what your goal is. But I guess as a leader in a Christian organization, as a Christian leader in a Christian organization, how do you how do you think through that for Hope International and all the things that you've done? Like, how narrowly do you define that the Christian-ness of your organization in order to like if somebody from a yeah if someone from not a Christian organization but someone who's sympathetic works alongside you. Do you take money from a Catholic organization and not a Protestant organization? Like, there's a different, I guess there's different levels of this. Like, how specifically do you try to narrow that focus? And or is it kind of on a case by case? Peter Greeer Yeah, yeah. For me, the principle is: Do they know who we are and what we're about, and I think it's not loving or honest to not share about who you are as an organization, and to have two different marketing materials. This one talks about mission. This one doesn't talk about it. That doesn't feel genuine to me. So we have individuals that support us that love the microenterprise, and they know who we are and what we do. But that's not necessarily… they like the outcomes that we're seeing, and they choose to fund us anyway. But they're not surprised. There's never going to be a moment that they're going to see something online or hear something that I'm going to say on this podcast, and say, I had no idea that we were trying to our mission statement, as it says, as we proclaim and live the gospel. Like that shouldn't be a surprise or secret. And so to me, the onus of responsibility is on the organization. Be clear who you are internally and externally. Be clear on who you are, and don't be willing to compromise. And I think that's really the sensitivity for me is if I feel like I care more about the money than the mission, I have lost my order of operations, I have lost the order of prioritization, and hopefully have friends internally and externally that will call me out when that happens. Tyler Vanderwoude Oh, that's yeah, that's super wise. How does how does this work for I guess non charitable organizations? Like trying to think of all the different types of organizations. Like we, my co-host Lucas and I we run a business and we have core values. We have them on our wall. I think they're Christian core values. We meet with our staff. We you know we pray before our you know staff dinners and things like that. But we don't we don't have an intentional Christian mission. We're a for profit door company, so how does that work with for profit companies? And can we apply the same thing to organizations whose main goal isn't ministry, but is you know, selling a door. Peter Greer I would say the answer is yes, because it doesn't matter what the company is, doesn't matter what the tax status is of an organization, whether it's for profit or nonprofit. There are core things that you want to be true, and the level of what do we talk about clarity and intentionality, and it's going to look a little bit different, and there's going to be different opportunities and challenges in both of them, but I don't think it changes any of the core components of: Do you know who you are? Do you know what you value, and how are you living that out? So for you and the values that you have, great to put them on a wall. What are you doing? What are you doing to live them out? And would you be willing to compromise on one of those core values if it means a new order that's going to increase revenue from X to Y, and the mission-driven organizations? They just have clarity, intentionality, and they know what's most important to them, so I would say you probably could go through a pretty interesting exercise personally on the business side, and you might find more alignment in this conversation than just the school or the nonprofit that you're engaged with as well. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, like I mean, our listeners will be engaged in all sorts of things, businesses, and yeah, obviously schools and churches and all sorts of organizations. We're part of the Dutch Reformed community in in Canada here, and there's organizations for everything we've got up and down. So, and I know that this actually this book has been really impactful. Our executive director at Reformed Perspective is Mark Penninga. He speaks highly of this book. He used it at ARPA, which is an organization for Association for Reformed Political Action in Canada. They had this. They actually used a bunch of the tips from the book to make sure their mission doesn't drift. And things like that, so it's been impactful already. I think just in terms of the business, the struggle is looking at in other places is um, I'm not giving I'm not going to be given money with uh with strings attached in the same obvious manner, I guess, right. So maybe it takes a little more discernment to decide on, yeah, are the you know values aligned with my with my customer? It's a lot more. Yeah, it feels more long term customer value equation than it feels like an immediate mission, you know, drifting type of experience. But we do use it a lot with our staff, like our core, our core values. Like we're not willing to compromise on that. I think that's, I think that's even more common though in the secular world to keep things on mission or keep an organization on track the way that they think they should be. How else can we apply? Like you have a you have the book behind you about personally, you know, looking at this in your personal life. What where are some things that we can apply this? Can we apply this to the you know I don't know if we can call it like the mission of our families or things like that. Like are there other places where we can consider this? Peter Greer So we already mentioned this book came out 10 years ago. I've been writing ever since, and I had one friend say, "Peter, you have written, but every book connects to Mission Drift,”and I don't think they're wrong. I actually put this into ChatGPT. I say, "Create a diagram of all the books that I've been a part of, and in the center it says “mission, mission/purpose”, and then it connects in different ways in different groupings. And I don't think it's wrong. We did a book called Board and CEO, and it's all about how mission is applied to governance. We did a fundraising book, and it's like how mission applies to these relationships. And we did one called Rooting for Rivals. And the more you have clarity on your mission, the more you're going to be able to enter into partnerships with others and collaborate on things that are beyond yourself, and how leaders lose their way. It's like unless you know what your personal mission is, you are very likely to drift, and that's true on a family level. So I don't know. Maybe I only have one book in me, but I've had different covers. But it's true. Like it really, I do believe that it connects to everything. Tyler Vanderwoude It's such a saturating idea. Peter Greer Yeah, yeah. Tyler Vanderwoude Have you done any of this in in not just in the organizations, but like, do you do any exercises with your staff to make sure they're on mission, or even with your family, Peter Greer Oh, all of the above. And again, that's the answer. It's if drift is small compromises compounded by time, then the way to stay mission true is small shifts back to your mission compounded by time. It's like the regular course corrections, and I absolutely believe that this has personal implications. One of the other things we found in how leaders lose their way is that most leaders who drift in their life don't have anyone in their life who can help them see when and where drift is happening, and so they pretend it's not there. They stuff it down, and that is utterly lethal. They don't have anyone. They don't have any time to slow down. And I love in Psalm 139 It says, "Search me and know me. Show me if there's any...” And I just think our ability to slow down personally and organizationally to look around and say where, not if, drifting might be happening; where, not if, there might be a slow slide towards a lukewarm attitude or approach; where in our lives we might have lost sight of what is most important, and I think that requires a little bit of courage and a little bit of slowing down to have those types of conversations. So yeah, I think real world implications, personally and organisationally, but it requires courage and it requires a different pace and requires an awareness of how easy it is for drift to happen and how rare it is for organizations to really have long term faithfulness in the same direction. Tyler Vanderwoude Well, like wow, yeah. Personally, have you taken, do you take time regularly to kind of sit in that, like to understand, uh, yeah, what your goals are? Have you written down like a mission statement for yourself, or is it like something that you know you kind of do through your life to reassess and make sure that you're doing that. Peter Greer Short answer: Yes. My birthday is coming up very soon, and one of the things that I have on my calendar on my birthday is going to sound maybe a little bit odd, but I was so struck by watching people that have gone before me and listening to the words that were spoken at their celebration of life, and I don't know anything that recalibrates us faster than remembering to number our days. And so this is odd, but on my birthday, you know what I do? 7:00 a.m. on my calendar, I read a eulogy that I wrote about myself. Tyler Vanderwoude That does sound our but also, I could totally see the value. Peter Greer I mean, some people are just going to absolutely say that's ridiculous. But I tell you, if you don't have clarity of what matters most, you're not going to know where you're drifting. And so I read those words, and then I look where in my life do I need to recalibrate? Where in my life do I need to make some micro, hopefully micro course corrections? And again, that's just true personally and organizationally. See the drift, spot the drift, don't ignore the drift. And the sooner you see it, the easier it is to address. Tyler Vanderwoude Wow! Yeah, how do you see that in your personal life? Like, I mean, maybe you're not a good example because you've thought about this for 15 years now. But like, would you see it coming up? Or I mean, I'm starting to think of like if you do have a conflict of your own mission personally, and you're not really aligning your actions or what you're doing every day with what you believe you should be doing. Like if you if you read a eulogy at the end of every day and you were sad about what you did in that day because it didn't align with what you hope would be said at your funeral, what like do you not end up with like a mental health crisis, like where you're like, “I can't go on living the way I'm living”?Like, is that is does that contribute to people's yeah directionlessness, I guess? Peter Greer Ah, it's so interesting. Tyler Vanderwoude At some point, like you must feel like you're just floating, like you're just you're just you're just going through the things that are put in front of you, but you don't really have anything to move yourself to. Peter Greeer Oh, I feel the exact opposite. I feel like most days there's a fog or a haze because you're just in the whirlwind of all the activities that you need to do today, and I think it's the exact opposite that looking at that point on the horizon brings focus, brings clarity, brings alignment, and so I've experienced it the exact opposite. Tyler Vanderwoude If you, yeah, if I guess if you're like you almost if you do it in the morning, you would have that point to look at. If you're just doing it always retroactively and saying “I'm sad, I can't actually I'm not meeting that that standard or that goal.” Peter Greer Oh, and that's where I just feel like the other thing that is so matched with this is this is not like a try harder, do better message. It's like recognize where drift happens, and what I believe is that I serve a God who says my mercy is new every single morning. You wake up today, new mercy, new grace, amazing grace. How sweet the sound, right? And so, I think those two things of understanding how much I drift does not lead to some sort of self, you know, feeling terrible about myself. I think understanding just how much we're loved, just how much we're forgiven – that does the exact opposite. That reclarifies, that re-motivates, that recenters, and so those two things can come together. And that's why I love. We talked about the hymn Come, the fan of every blessing: Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it. Yeah, I drifted yesterday, and I'm going to drift today. Here's my heart, Lord, take and seal it. Like here we go. Show me the way. Show me the way today, and help me to, yeah, take that next step. So I don't know, I don't find it demoralizing. I find it clarifying, and maybe that would be different if it was devoid of grace. If drift led to just like, oh, I'm so terrible, but drift that leads us to grace is an incredible gift in equipping, empowering us to take that next step today in what we can do to live out that mission. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, that's so true. I think a lot of times we just feel like it's like a work harder and be smarter. Like, what do you, if you're drifting, well, then we should have just worked harder, or we should have we should have done something different. But yeah, it's not like you can't do it. I think it's not if you yeah. Walking through the book, you give you also have some questions at the end of every chapter that that kind of like help you to think through. I thought that was a really cool, I thought that was a really good touch for the book to help. Like it brings it to life to show you like here are the things you could be asking about your own organization, your own situation. Peter Greer I've had one compliment that I really appreciated from someone who had read a couple of the books, and the individual said, "I appreciate that they're practical”, and I think part of the reason for that is because we're not writing about just ideas in theory. These are practical because we're trying to live them out. Like we, by our own admission, I don't know how to stay on mission and not drift. Like, yeah, I mean we're all trying to do it. So it's what are the tools? What are the techniques? What are the approaches? What's going to help put these ideas into practice? And my experience is it's not that we don't know what to do. It's just really hard to then actually do it. And so at the end of every chapter, those reflections or exercises or the workbook or whatever, there's a all of those are designed to put ideas into practice that I think is most of the time where we either stay on mission or where we slowly drift. Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, so I'm encouraging it to people. I mean, people should definitely go read the book, read all your books. Yeah, it take a while because there's lots, but the questions, like I felt the same way. I was like, these are all you're reading through them, like you know, as if you're just reading them and you're not, you know, answering them as you go. You're reading them. You're like, oh, that's a good question to ask in my situation. Oh, that's a good question to ask, and you just you just keeps going through the list. But it again, it makes it so practical that there's not a lot of there's not a lot of barrier if you're struggling with this or you're seeing a little bit of this like I would encourage get this book and just go through these questions even and ask them about your organization because they it's not something where you have to be like you know the smartest guy in the world to try to figure it out like it's just a matter of asking the right questions and doing it continually, I think, like basically at any point you are at, it can it can be valuable. So that's yeah, it's really cool. Trying to think if we've missed anything. Otherwise, I'm like, I'm trying to picture how to do this in my own life, like just to bring this into like, if I can make a mission statement for myself, it would also help me guide you know the organizations I'm a part of or donating to or, but yeah, is that I gotta give that some more thought. I gotta pick up the book how leaders lose their way. That’s what I'm coming out with. Peter Greer Can't wait to hear what you come up with. No, that's great. So thanks. I mean, so kind. But it is like a journey that we're on, and I think just regularly reminding each other. Like every time I talk about this, I'm like, oh, I need to refocus on that, or that's an area to lean more into, or focus more on. So no, I think we need these regular reminders of what matters most, and how do we how do we live today in light of that? Tyler Vanderwoude Yeah, and if you're a leader, this is a book you could read every year, and remind yourself. But I guess I guess one more question we had them we talked a little bit about change, and I guess this is one of the things that people ask about is like, well, if I can't if my mission can't drift, then how does it change? Like, how can I change it? And then, I guess, what are some good examples of why it would change? Like, you mentioned cultural things, but like a lot of times you think about that in terms of drift. The culture moved. You know, we should be moving with the culture. Like, that's no, no, no. Let's not move with the culture. But there's obviously technological things. Like, what are some of the reasons why you might make a sudden shift? Peter Greer Oh, I mean, I think about just some of the ways for Hope International that we're wrestling with that right now is some of the things that we can do can now be automated, and that's great. That's more efficient. Some of the things we can do can actually replace all human connection with the people that we serve. For our theory of change, for our mission, if we lose personal connection, we lose the opportunity for outreach and discipleship that doesn't work with us. That approach doesn't matter if there's a technological solution if it replaces the importance of life on life. So that changes what we do and how we… So we're looking for more efficiency, but we're not looking for replacement. And that would be different if we were just trying to maximize the financial aspect of who we are and what we do, but that's not what we're trying to maximize. We're trying to maximize the way that we share Christ's love, and that requires a physical embodiment, life on life. And so, anyway, that's one very small example of right now some of the ways that we're thinking through this. Tyler Vanderwoude Oh yeah, that's a great example. I mean, that's like the example, like the you know, that's the biggest change right now, right? AI can do everything, but yeah, I guess same thing with the school. It gets me thinking about the school. You can, AI can educate your kids, but can it really do the thing that your school is meant to do? You know, you can you can have a daycare or any kind of any kind of thing, but it's yeah. There's definitely technology to push back on if you really believe in your mission. Wow, yeah, no, that's a great example. I'll I'm gonna have to grab some more of your books, and I'm gonna need to join the web that you've created around this this this topic, the mission. So, but I really appreciate your time. I think this is this is great. I don't know if there's anything you have to add to the conversation other than go buy all the books. Peter Greer Well, no, just to say so great to have the conversation with you, and love the way that you're living out your mission at work and in the places where you serve as well, so really appreciate the conversation so much. Tyler Vanderwoude Thanks, Peter. Yeah, really appreciate you joining us. This opportunity to talk to you guys. All the best with Hope International. All that you do with microfinancing and you know serving those in yeah in in poorer states than we are in in you know Canada and the States. So you know, really appreciate all your work there too. Peter Greer Right. Tyler Vanderwoude Thanks so much. Thanks everyone for listening. Until next time, keep having real talk. Outro Thanks for tuning into Real Talk. If this episode inspired you, please share it with a friend so you can continue this conversation in your own life. We encourage you to send us your feedback or let us know who you would like to hear on the podcast. You can email us at [email protected]. This episode is produced by Tyler Vanderwoude Vanderwood, Lucas Holtvluwer, and Mariah Tamminga in partnership with Reformed Perspective. Until next time, keep having real talk....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
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. It doesn’t begin with abstract definitions, but with comfort. Our only comfort. Many of us have encountered, or experienced ourselves, a quiet guilt about “not knowing enough theology,” as if faithfulness were measured primarily by intellectual mastery. The Heidelberg resists that posture. Designed to be digested slowly over the course of a year, it teaches with patience. It repeats itself intentionally. It understands that formation takes time. And it certainly took time to capture that on film. Today, we find ourselves standing at a moment we honestly didn’t know how to imagine back on July 13th, 2023 when our organization, Faith to Film (FaithToFilm.ca) first took on this project. Every Lord’s Day of the Heidelberg Catechism now has a completed video. Fifty-two videos. Twenty-six pastors. Multiple denominations. One catechism. A full, freely available teaching resource on ReformedConfessions.org that did not exist before, but now it does. Why we started Pastor Hans Overduin took on Lord’s Days 15 and 23. Too often, Christian content is forced to choose between depth and visual excellence. We didn’t think that tradeoff was necessary. The Reformed confessions, in particular, seemed like an area crying out for this kind of care. Written centuries ago, they articulate truths that remain deeply relevant today. Truths with direct application for people wrestling with today’s fears, today’s doubts, and today’s hope. The church has never failed to recognize their value. They remain central to catechesis, preaching, and discipleship. And yet, the digital representation of them has not sufficiently reflected the clarity, weight, and beauty of the truth they contain. We wanted to do something about that. Our broader vision continues to be a single digital home for the Reformed Confessions where learning is layered. A video for introduction. A quiz for reinforcement. Extended material for deeper study. Illustrations that help concepts land. A place where churches can confidently send their people, knowing they will be met with clarity, pastoral care, and theological integrity. Not to replace traditional catechesis, but to supplement it and to provide access for those who may not have the same proximity to teachers or resources, whether new converts, families, or believers in other parts of the world. The Heidelberg Catechism felt like the natural place to begin. We are deeply grateful to the twenty-six pastors who lent their voices to this work. Though they serve in a range of congregational settings, they spoke here in one voice, bearing witness to the unity the Heidelberg Catechism has long provided to the Reformed church. Their participation reflects a shared commitment to teaching what has been confessed, received, and faithfully passed down through generations. The long middle Rev. John van Eyk addressed Lord’s Days 11 and 13. What we didn’t fully anticipate was just how long this patient approach would take. Don’t be mistaken, we understood the importance of moving slowly. We simply wanted the fruit of patience immediately. After all, two and a half years is long enough for enthusiasm to fade. Long enough for schedules to clash, funding to stretch thin, and momentum to feel fragile. This is why we are so grateful for everyone who supported this work. There is also a unique weight to the nature of this work. We regularly found ourselves asking difficult questions: Are we honoring the gravity of these truths? Are we preserving the warmth that Ursinus and Olevianus intended? Are we being careful, not only with words, but with images? There is a real challenge in visually representing biblical and theological concepts while maintaining a healthy reverence for God’s name and character. Navigating that tension was no small task. So yes, it is true that this has been a challenge, but it’s hard to stay stressed when the very content you are producing is a balm for your own soul. Sitting there, mouse in hand, editing a video on Lord’s Day 1, and being reminded that you are "not your own, but belong body and soul, to your faithful Savior, Jesus Christ." Time after time the words of the pastor on screen would cut straight through the producer mindset and hit the believer's heart. It really is a profound thing to experience. To realize that the very truths you are trying to broadcast are the same truths holding you together while you do it. Ready for you to use Pastor Mark Wagenaar tackled Lord’s Days 52 and 22. At this point, the Heidelberg Catechism series is no longer a project we are working on, but a free resource the church can now rely on. Go to ReformedConfessions.org, watch the videos, sit with the illustrations, and work through the questions. It is our prayer that it finds its way into your homes, classrooms, membership instruction, or quiet personal study. We pray that, in the steady rhythms of teaching and repetition, God would use this work as He has so often used catechesis: to form believers who know what they believe, why they believe it, and how that belief shapes their lives before Him and before one another. Above all, this moment draws our attention away from ourselves and back to the God who preserves His truth across centuries, cultures, and mediums. As we look forward to the development of the remaining Three Forms of Unity, we rest in the knowledge that the weight of this work does not fall on us. We are not the reason these words endure. We are witnesses to the fact that they do. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Kyle Vasas and David Visser are a part of the team at Faith to Film which, in addition to ReformedConfessions.org, has done video series on Calvinism and Essential Truths, and is in the planning stage for one on office bearer training. Check out all their work, and how you can support it, at FaithtoFilm.ca....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - Creation/Evolution

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

I recently set about the task of making an enclosure to keep animals, and I want to tell you how I did it. This may seem to be a strange topic for Reformed Perspective readers but please bear with me and I trust that all will become clear. Quite the creation My aim was to create a large, secure enclosure and so I began by marking out an area within my back yard. You may think it somewhat eccentric, but for some very good reasons (which I won’t trouble you with) I had to begin the construction at night. So right after I had marked out the area and unraveled some fencing, I erected an enormous halogen lamp over the whole site, which, when turned on, flooded the area with light, which was good. The following day I began to clear the enclosure, which was somewhat waterlogged. I bailed out most of the water, but took care to leave some behind, as I needed a little in order to provide ponds for the aquatic animals. By the end of the day, I have to say I was well pleased with the result. When I came back to the site the next day, I began to shift some of the water I had left in the enclosure into ponds by digging holes in some places, and then piling the dirt up into mounds elsewhere to create dry patches. Once this was done, I spent the remainder of the day putting in some plants and food for the animals to eat. By this time, the whole thing was starting to take shape really nicely. My main task on the following day was to take down the halogen lamp, which I had only intended as a temporary measure, and to put some smaller, permanent lights around the outside of the enclosure, which when fixed up, looked really quite wonderful. The next two days things began to get really exciting. First I put some fish and other aquatic creatures into the ponds and I also brought some birds into the enclosure. Then on the following day I introduced some land animals into the enclosure. At this point, the whole thing was almost finished, except for one thing. It had always been my intention to get my son to look after the enclosure, and so the last thing I did was to show him what I had made, telling him that it was a gift to him and giving him some quite specific instructions as to how I wanted him to perform the task of looking after it. You perhaps won’t be surprised to hear that at the end of all that I took the next day off and had a well-earned rest. Surveying all that I had done, I can honestly say that I was extremely pleased with the way things had turned out. The whole thing had taken me a total of 24 years from start to finish, but it was well worth it. ***** “Now hang on a second. Did you just say 24 years?” “Yes, that’s right, 24 years.” “But from what you said above, it sounded like the whole thing took you six days with one day of rest at the end.” “Yes, it did sound like that, didn’t it? But if I told you that one day is as four years to me, would that begin to make a little more sense?” ***** Well no it wouldn’t, but hopefully you’ve got the point by now. The time frame above clearly cannot be stretched out from six days of work into 24 years, yet this is essentially the position taken by those who advocate theistic evolution when they attempt to stretch the creation account in Genesis into billions of years. What I want to do in the remainder of this article is to ask whether there are any compelling reasons why we might want to engage in this particular “stretching exercise.” Why would it take so long? Sticking with the above introductory analogy, let me pose the following question: why might such a project end up taking 24 years, rather than six days? There are five possible reasons: I might actually need 24 years to complete a project because of the sheer amount of work involved (although anyone who has seen the plethora of unfinished projects in my shed might wonder whether even 24 years would be enough time). I might be impeded by one thing or another – resources, health or weather, for example. I might just be plain lazy and so somehow manage to turn a six day job into a 24 year job. I might need to take a long time in order to make sure the work is of sufficient quality. I might have some other purpose for having taken 24 years, when I could easily have done it much quicker. Now of all these possibilities apply to men, but only the last one might apply to God. Though the volume of work, unforeseen impediments, laziness and the issue of quality might be factors in the length of time it would take me to build my enclosure, all Christians would agree that none of these things would be factors for God in the creation of the Heavens and the Earth. The amount of work involved was no obstacle to God, nor could anything have impeded Him in the process. It goes without saying that laziness, whilst applying to men, does not and could not apply to God, and it also goes without saying that the quality issue is not a factor with God, and He could have produced a Universe of the same perfect quality no matter what time period He took to complete it. In other words, there was nothing whatsoever that could have prevented Him from finishing His creation in a nanosecond, six days or 13 billion years – whatever He willed to do. A reason for six days Which leaves us with only the final possibility – that of having some other purpose for taking time to finish a job. With men, it is difficult to think of a single reason why anyone, given the option of building an enclosure such as the one described above in 6 days or 24 years, would deliberately choose to do it in 24 years. That would make little sense. If a man were just as able to produce work of excellent quality, whether it took him 6 days or 24 years, why would he choose the 24-year option? Furthermore, if his purpose in creating the enclosure was because he wanted to give it to his son as a gift, wouldn’t it be odd if he deliberately chose to take 24 years to complete it rather than six days? Now someone might conceivably use this very point to question why God would have created in six days, rather than a nanosecond. After all, He could have finished it all in a nanosecond if He had wanted to. There is, however, a very good reason why this was so, since His purpose was to give the world as a gift to man to tend and keep. The six days of work and one day of rest sets a pattern for how men are to live, worship and take dominion over that gift. This is clearly seen in the reason given for keeping the 4th commandment: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” But what good reasons exist why God might have chosen to create in 13 billion years rather than six days? If I am to take the claims of theistic evolution seriously, what I want to know is why He would have done it this way and not done it that way. Arguments for or against theistic evolution are usually discussions of whether the word "day" (Yom) must be taken literally, or what “the rocks” say, or whether evolution undermines the foundation of the gospel itself. These arguments have been covered very ably by others, but what I want to do is to come at the issue from a different angle. My question is simply this: If God could have made the Heavens and the Earth and all that in them is in six days, what arguments from Scripture and from the purposes of God are there to support the idea that He actually decided to take billions of years and evolutionary processes to do so? In other words, why would He do it like that? Bring glory to God In order to test the claims of those who affirm theistic evolution, we must begin by asking the following question: what is God’s overarching creational purpose? Revelation 4:11 supplies us with the answer to this: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created.” In other words, God’s purpose in creating all things was to bring glory and honor to himself. There are essentially two ways that God gets glory from his creation. One is from the very fact of his creation itself being wonderful and reflecting his glory. There is a sense in which even if there were not one single believer on planet Earth, the creation would still praise Him and He would still be glorified. The Psalms are particularly rich in descriptions of God’s natural order praising Him, for instance verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 148: “Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” But although the creation can and does praise Him, by virtue of their being glorious and reflecting His glory, is this the praise that God ultimately seeks? Imagine that Beethoven had premiered his 5th Symphony to an empty concert hall and so at the end there was complete silence. Would the lack of people to applaud the piece diminish it at all or call into question the genius of its composer? Of course not! The music is glorious regardless of whether anyone actually listens to it or applauds. In much the same way, God’s creation exalts Him and brings Him glory irrespective of whether there exists another being to acknowledge it. Days 1 to 5 of Genesis – prior to the creation of man – are all described as good. But just as Beethoven’s intention was never just to create a symphony and have it played to an empty concert hall, God’s intention was never to create the world and leave it without a creature to praise and thank Him for it. Beethoven’s 5th is great, regardless of who listens to it, but how much more glorious does the piece become when an audience is there to hear and gives a standing ovation at the end? By the same token, God’s creation is glorious, regardless of who is there to appreciate it, yet how much more is God glorified when He receives the praise of angels and men? His overarching purpose was therefore to create a being that was not only made in His own image, but also capable of and willing to give Him glory. The Westminster Shorter Catechism famously begins with the question “What is the chief end of man” and gives the answer, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This can be flipped on its head to become “What was God’s purpose in creating man? That He might be glorified and that man might share in His happiness.” That, in a nutshell, is why God made us and therefore why we are here. We are to reflect his glory in everything we do, we are to enjoy Him and the gifts He gives us, and we are to return praise and thanksgiving to Him in our worship. This fits perfectly into the six days of work and one day of rest worship paradigm, where the pattern for our lives is established and ordered. But how does this fit in with the paradigm given by theistic evolution? Earth made for us Theistic evolution assumes that it took billions of years for the earth to even exist, yet alone become inhabited. Yet this is at variance with Isaiah, who says that “the Lord did not create the Earth in vain,” but rather “formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). If God’s purpose for the Earth was for it to be inhabited by men, and that it would be vain not to be inhabited by them, what possible reason would He have had to leave it uninhabited for so long? Genesis 1:26-28 is clear that the whole purpose of the created order was that it was a gift for His image bearer who was to be given charge over it. If this was the purpose of God’s creation, what possible reasons would He have had to put this off for something like 13 billion years? The Scriptures plainly teach that God’s purpose for man was not only to bear and reflect his image, but also to praise him in his worship: “I will praise You, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will tell of all your marvelous works” (Psalm 9:1). If this is God’s purpose for man, what possible reasons would he have had to defer receiving praise for billions of years? Deferred glory, dominion God’s purposes and His glory simply cannot be reconciled with the theistic evolution paradigm. To come back to the original analogy I used earlier, if my purpose was to create an enclosure and to give it to my son, so that he might tend it and return to give me thankfulness, in what way would I be achieving my purpose if I deliberately took 24 years to complete it when I could have finished it in six days? How then was God’s creational purpose and His glory fulfilled if he took 13 billion years and a multitude of dead animals along the way, when he could have done it all in six days and minus the carnage? Furthermore, where is man’s dignity in all of this? Psalm 8 states that man is crowned with glory and honor (Psalm 8:5). In the six day creational paradigm, it is easy to see why this is so. The Earth was made for man and given to him as a gift. He was then given responsibility for it and God “made him to have dominion over the works of his hands” (Psalm 8:6). The theistic evolution paradigm robs man of this highly exalted position for over 99% of the history of the creation, and for billions of years the Earth was apparently left to its own devices, without a dominion taker and without one bearing the Imago Dei. In conclusion, a straightforward reading of the Genesis account clearly suggests that God finished the Heavens and the Earth, including His image bearer, in a period of six days. This entirely accords with God’s purpose in creating all things – that He might receive glory and honor. The onus is therefore on those who advocate theistic evolution to show from the Scriptures and from the purposes of God why and how He would have used billions of years of slow graduated changes, without mankind to glorify Him, in order to bring this about. My contention is that theistic evolution is not only incompatible with the straightforward Genesis narrative, it also misses the entire purpose God had for His creation. As far as theories go, it falls well short of His glory. This was originally published in the July/August 2013 issue under the title “Why would He do it like that?”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
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 Proverbs is that wisdom is something that has to be pursued. We can see this in three of the characters we are introduced to in Proverbs. One of these characters is “the righteous” – humble and actively seeking out God’s wisdom. The wicked, on the other hand, are proud, and in their selfish ambition they are active too, but actively seeking out folly. They get into trouble because they are looking for it. But perhaps it is the third character who should most interest us. This third sort is also seeking folly…but not actively. In a sense he finds folly only because he isn’t seeking wisdom. He is the sluggard. So both the wicked and the righteous go out and make choices – they choose between wisdom and folly. The sluggard? He just stays home. And folly finds him. Between wicked and wise That’s why the sluggard is encouraged to stir. We find him in Proverbs 6 being told: “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Observe her ways and become wise.” The ant doesn’t have somebody telling her what to do. She acts on her own initiative. She goes out and finds a job, so that she may learn her trade. The sluggard needs to get up out of his bed and learn from the ant. The author of this proverb wants to encourage his readers in godly ambition. Then again, in Proverbs 26:13 and onward, we see a warning against sloth. Here the sluggard cries out, “There is a lion in the streets.” The sluggard makes excuses for himself, for why he just wants to stay home. He won’t risk any effort. Again, we see the need for godly ambition. We can’t be afraid of risks when we go out into the world. We have to be wise and prudent in our actions, but if we live in fear of what might happen, we will never find the prize. The reward will be gone. Christians have no excuse for sitting around and waiting; we have no excuse for endless leisure time. We either have to go out and seek wisdom, or we will lose it. Then we’ll become the fool, fearing even imaginary lions. And ultimately, we will lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so. Wisdom put to use Wisdom, in our passages, is the ability to discern between to choices. Practically speaking, wisdom is the means by which we make business decisions, choose a marriage partner, or make any number of other choices that come to us each day. But within Proverbs all wisdom ultimately points to the Wisdom of God, the Wisdom that God reveals in Jesus Christ and the Wisdom by which God made the world. He is the one who holds the universe together. We can distinguish between practical wisdom and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs, but they cannot truly be separated. If we do not seek wisdom, we ultimately lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so. So one of the messages of proverbs is, “get up, get out and find wisdom.” Search then. Seek out the wisdom of the universe. We need to have the attitude of the man Jesus speaks of in the parable of the pearl of great price. This man sells everything in order to find what is most precious; the kingdom of God. Search for the Wisdom; Christ. That is a life-long search, a life-long desire, for those who have found him. Do not cease from scouring the Scriptures. Do not cease from praying for understanding. Search until God gives you the fullness of eternal life and rest with Him. This article was originally published in the Sept/Oct 2017 issue of the magazine. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

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

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Being the Church

Retirement: What are you retiring from? What are you retiring to?

After a life-time of experience, it’s time to simply “exhale” ***** “Retirement is unbiblical,” she told me, her fist firmly pounding her desk. Alice had been the company bookkeeper for about 50 years. She lived and breathed the daily routine, and now that she was approaching 80, she was reluctant to give it up. She believed that if she ever retired, she’d probably just pass away within a few months. Her work defined her. Retirement conjures up a wide variety of emotions and ideas: anticipation, excitement, perpetual vacation, travel. But also anxiety, apprehension, and a loss of purpose. The closest that the Bible comes to mentioning retirement is in Numbers 8:25: "At the age of 50, they (the Levites) must retire from their regular service and work no longer. They may assist their brothers in performing their duties ...but they themselves must not do the work." Work even in Paradise But it’s worthwhile to go back even further, to the beginning of Genesis to determine that work isn’t the result of sin but it’s part of God’s creation order. In fact, our very first image of God “in the beginning” is a God of work; creating the universe, creating day and night, plants and animals, mankind. “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested (ceased) from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” (Gen. 2:2) After God created Adam, He put him to work: pick fruit, tend the garden, and give names to each living creature. Work is part of the creation order. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” There is delight in work. Work is also worship. It is how we use our God-given talents each day in God’s Kingdom. It is only once we understand the value and the role of work that we can understand the value and the role of retirement. Is it true that, as that desk-pounding retiree declared, “retirement is unbiblical” …perhaps with the exception of the Levites who had to pack it in at age 50? Time to reflect The notion of retirement is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Canada Pension Plan was created in 1965, setting the retirement age at 65. Interestingly, the life expectancy back then was 66.8 years for men and 73 for women. That’s not much of a retirement. Today, someone at age 65 can expect to live to age 90; that’s another 25 years! We’re living longer and staying healthy longer. What do we do with all that time? There’s the rub. As you approach your retirement – probably somewhere between the age of 65 and 75 – consider taking a sabbatical; a few months off. Maybe even a year. Rest, relax, travel, visit the kids, do a few of the things that you've always wanted to do. But before boredom sets in, before you spend endless hours in your deck chair or riding around on a golf cart, you need to spend some valuable time reflecting on your life, focusing on your areas of expertise, knowledge and wisdom. It’s also important to spend considerable time in prayer, realizing how God has led you throughout your life, and to be open to His leading during this next chapter in your life. Pull out your latest resume or CV and reflect upon all that you have done: your various jobs – good and bad, your career challenges. Create a list of the areas of expertise that you have developed over the years. That could be a brief list or it could evolve into a novel. Your history will shape your future. What you have done, and accomplished, and even failed at, will help you determine how you can share your experiences with others. Time to share You have learned a lot and done a lot in your life. Now it’s time to share it with others; especially teaching and training and mentoring the next generation. When our oldest daughter began her new career as a teacher after graduating from college, she was clearly nervous. I told her that, after all of those years of education and training, she simply had to “learn to exhale.” Just breathe all of that knowledge over those children. That’s what retirement can become for you. After decades of learning, doing and experiencing life, it is now time to simply “exhale”; breathe all of your knowledge over younger men and women as they shape their careers. There is, however, something even more important to share with others. It’s your spiritual journey. It’s about how God has shaped you and molded you and walked with you throughout your life. Tell them your story. It’s invaluable. As you mentor and train others, teach them your Christian perspective on leadership, on stewardship, on the right way to treat employees. Teach young men and women the importance of work/family balance. Remind them that their treasure is in heaven, not in the accumulation of wealth or toys or real estate. Most of us can expect to live 20 to 30 years after we reach retirement age. That's an entire career! Prayerfully take a sabbatical to determine where God wants you to serve next and who you should be mentoring. Then approach this new chapter in your life with the same zeal that you had in your former career. Except that now you will have the benefit of wisdom and experience. More importantly, you will have the benefit of walking with God throughout your life, feeling His presence as you made those thousands of good and bad decisions. It’s time to exhale. A version of this article first appeared in “Faith Today” magazine....

Red heart icon with + sign.
History

The case against the draft

Why no State has the right to take what belongs to Christ ***** Across the Western world, military recruiting is sputtering. In 2022 and 2023, the United States Army missed its enlistment targets by tens of thousands, prompting emergency bonuses and lowered entry standards. In Berlin, after declaring a “turning-point” rearmament, the government now admits its Bundeswehr is so understaffed that legislation to reinstate compulsory service may be introduced as early as next year. And in The Hague, Dutch defence planners warn that Swedish-style selective conscription may be the only path to their target of 200,000 active and reserve personnel. When volunteerism fails, governments reach for the oldest lever in the toolbox: obligation. Whether it’s described as a shared burden, a civic duty, or a matter of national survival, the reality is the same: someone will be compelled to serve. And not just in times of war. In Canada, calls for mandatory national service are growing—not to defend the nation, but to shape it. A 2024 article in The Hub, a generally conservative publication, argued for conscription as a peacetime tool to bolster civic unity and “career preparedness.” The idea is that young adults should be required to serve the government for one or two years – perhaps in the military, or in civil programs – because it would make them more employable, more mature, and more engaged citizens. In effect, conscription becomes a finishing school for State-formed adulthood.1 One national survey showed that half of Canadians would support mandatory national service.2 Some might argue that national service could build character or instill discipline, offering young adults structure in a time of cultural drift. But the deeper question is this: under whose direction will that discipline unfold? In a nation that funds the killing of the unborn and the elderly, that redefines the family under the influence of radical sexual ideologies and then silences dissent in the name of inclusion, can we entrust our sons and daughters to mandatory programs of moral formation? What kind of conscience formation can we expect from a State that denies the image of God? The same applies to military service. In 2011, Canada joined in the NATO bombing of Libya – it was a campaign that helped destabilize an entire region. Should a Christian be compelled to fight in such a conflict, even if he cannot in good faith regard it as just? These are not hypotheticals. They are the practical consequence of giving the State dominion over the body and the conscience. For Christians, this renewed talk of conscription demands moral clarity. The draft is not merely a regrettable policy choice – it is, in most forms, a theological offense. Whatever name it takes – universal call-up, selective lottery, or “national service” – compulsory service often claims the body and conscience of the individual in a way that only Christ may rightfully claim. This is not to deny that civil government bears the sword (Rom. 13), or that, in times of extraordinary peril, it may call its citizens to take up arms in defense of the innocent. But even then, the State may not rule the conscience. It must still respect the individual’s accountability before God. When the draft is imposed without regard for faith, vocation, or moral conviction, it ceases to be an act of justice and becomes a form of spiritual seizure. It commands not just action, but allegiance. And that is no longer civil authority – it is idolatry. It wasn’t even needed in WWII Canadian soldiers playing with Dutch children, 1945: During World War II, approximately ten percent of the population served in the military. Of the more than 1 million personal, just 13,000 conscripts had been sent overseas by wars’ end, and of those less than 2,500 actually made it to the front lines before Germany surrendered(Photo by Private Floyd Watkins, Canadian Scottish Regiment, Nijmegen, Fall 1945, and is used under CC 1.0 Public Domain dedication) But what about the draft for World War II. Wasn’t that a good thing? It’s true that many draftees served bravely in World War II, and yes, we owe them respect. In Canada, however, conscription was politically explosive, and conscripted soldiers only started being sent overseas in 1944, after a plebiscite. Just 12,900 conscripts in all were sent overseas – barely one percent of Canada’s wartime force. The vast majority of Canadian soldiers in WWII volunteered. This undermines the claim that victory required forced service. When the cause was seen as just, free men responded. If free men will not fight, that is a referendum on the cause and the leadership. You are not your own – so the State cannot own you “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Paul wrote these words to address sexual ethics, but the theological truth reaches further: the body of a believer belongs to Christ, not to any earthly power. That ownership has sweeping implications. When a government claims the authority to compel military service – disregarding conscience or conviction – it denies that Christ is Lord over the whole person. It effectively declares: “Your life is ours. You will serve, fight, kill, or die… because we command it.” Conscription reduces image-bearers to instruments. It treats men and women not as persons with moral agency and dignity, but as the raw material of State ambition. The citizen is no longer someone to serve, protect, or persuade, but someone to use. Yes, Scripture affirms that governments are instituted by God (Rom. 13). But never as gods. Earthly authority is real, but always bounded by God’s higher claim. When the State begins to treat citizens as its property, overriding conscience and laying claim to their bodies, it crosses a sacred line. In such cases, patriotism can become a form of idolatry. We see this clearly in regimes like North Korea, where the State claims total control. But what if the same violation of conscience and ownership is happening quietly, legally, and patriotically, and for just two years at a time, right here at home? Forced service violates both sacrifice and conscience History bears witness to believers who have fought with honor and integrity, even laying down their lives. But Scripture insists that every true offering – whether of time, money, or life – must be freely given. The problem with conscription is not that it calls men to defend what may be right, but that it demands such service by coercion. It does not persuade the conscience; it overrides it. It removes space for discernment, prayer, and conviction, and replaces it with mandate, penalty, and shame. This is more than a problem of method; it is a violation of moral authority. Conscription does not ask whether a prospective soldier, before God, can judge the war just. It simply commands. If he hesitates – still weighing Scripture, justice, or prudence – it threatens him with fines, prison, or public disgrace. Reformed theology has long upheld the sanctity of conscience under Christ. As the Belgic Confession teaches, we obey civil authorities “in all things which do not disagree with the Word of God” (Art. 36). But when the State demands what conscience forbids – compelling a believer to fight in a war he cannot, in good faith, regard as just – then obedience to God must take precedence. As Paul writes, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Righteousness cannot be manufactured by threat of punishment. Forced sacrifice is not virtue but violation. It flows from fear, not faith – from State power, not spiritual freedom. In such cases, resistance is not rebellion. It is fidelity to a higher law: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The litmus test of statist idolatry How can one tell when the State has become an idol? One simple test suffices: Does it claim the right to your life? Not merely your taxes or your labor, but your very blood? When a government asserts the power to compel its citizens to fight, kill, or die – regardless of conscience – it declares that the preservation or ambition of the political order outweighs the vocation and spiritual integrity of the individual. It elevates the needs of the State above the authority of God. History shows where this logic leads. In its extreme forms, totalitarian regimes have demanded absolute allegiance – even human lives – for the sake of national survival or ideological purity. Think of China’s one-child policy, or the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union against non-compliant citizens. Conscription may appear more restrained, but it rests on the same premise: that the individual belongs to the State, and may be spent for its ends. True defense must be free The moral and theological case is clear. But even on practical grounds, coercion signals weakness, not strength. A nation that must force its citizens to defend it has already lost something deeper than territory – it has lost trust. Advocates of conscription argue that emergencies demand drastic measures. If the nation is under threat, they ask, how else shall we defend ourselves? But a society worth defending will inspire its citizens to defend it freely. If the cause is just – and the leadership trustworthy – free men will step forward. If they do not, that failure is not a crisis of manpower, but a verdict on the moral authority of the State. To preserve liberty by destroying the citizen’s most basic liberty – obedience of conscience to God – is a contradiction. A nation may survive military defeat. It cannot survive the spiritual surrender the draft requires. One Lord of life and death Ultimately, the question is stark: Who has authority over life and death? Scripture teaches that civil government, under God, bears the sword to punish evil and protect the innocent (Rom. 13). In this sense, the State holds real – but limited – authority in matters of justice and defense. But that authority is never absolute. It is the authority to restrain evil, not to claim ownership of a person’s body or to override his conscience before God. When the State demands unquestioning obedience – disregarding moral conviction, vocation, or faith – it crosses a sacred boundary. It begins to act not as God’s servant, but as His rival. The State may levy taxes, build roads, and punish evildoers. But it may not lay claim to what belongs to Christ alone. When it does, it trespasses on holy ground. Let the Church say so – without apology. In almost every case, the draft is evil: it denies Christ’s lordship, violates human dignity, and compels men to act against conscience. No rhetoric of crisis, no appeal to national survival, can sanctify what God has not commanded. Let the State honor the Lord of conscience. And let the Church stand firm in the freedom for which Christ has set us free, declaring with calm, unyielding faith: We belong to Christ, and not to you. End notes 1 https://thehub.ca/2024/07/24/scott-stirrett-the-time-has-come-for-mandatory-national-service-for-young-canadians/ 2 https://www.timescolonist.com/economy-law-politics/half-of-canadians-support-mandatory-national-service-survey-reveals-9434252...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

The conceited apple-branch: a Romans 12:3-8 fable?

Was Hans Christian Andersen thinking of Romans 12:3-8 when he wrote this? Perhaps not…. but he could have been. ***** It was the month of May. The wind still blew cold, but from bush and tree, field and flower, came the whisper “Spring has come.” Wildflowers covered the hedges, and under one little apple-tree, Spring seemed especially busy, telling his tale to one of the branches which hung fresh and blooming, and covered with delicate pink blossoms that were just ready to open. Now the branch knew well how beautiful it was – this knowledge exists as much in the leaf as in our blood. I was not surprised when a nobleman’s carriage, in which sat a young countess, stopped in the road right by. She said that an apple-branch was a most lovely object, and an example of spring at its most charming its most charming. Then the branch was broken off for her, and she held it in her delicate hand, and sheltered it with her silk parasol. Then they drove to the castle, in which were lofty halls and splendid rooms. Pure white curtains fluttered in every open window, and beautiful flowers stood in shining, transparent vases. In one of them, which looked as if it had been cut out of newly fallen snow, the apple-branch was placed, among some fresh, light twigs of beech. It was a charming sight. Then the branch became proud, which was very much like human nature. People of every description entered the room, and expressed their admiration. Some said nothing, others expressed too much, and the apple-branch very soon came to understand that there was as much difference in the characters of human beings as in those of plants and flowers. Some are all for pomp and parade, others are busy trying to maintain their own importance, while the rest might not be noticed at all. So, thought the apple-branch, as he stood before the open window, from which he could see out over gardens and fields where there were flowers and plants enough for him to think and reflect upon, it is the way of things that some are rich and beautiful, some poor and humble. “Poor, despised herbs,” said the apple-branch, “there is really a difference between them and one such as I. How unhappy they must be, if that sort can even feel as those in my position do! There is a difference indeed, and so there ought to be, or we should all be equals.” And the apple-branch looked with a sort of pity upon them, especially on a certain little flower that is found in fields and in ditches. No one gathered these flowers together in a bouquet; they were too common. They were even known to grow between the paving stones, shooting up everywhere, like bad weeds, and they bore the very ugly name of “dog-flowers” or “dandelions.” “Poor, despised plants,” said the apple-bough again, “it is not your fault that you are so ugly, and that you have such an ugly name. But it is with plants as with men, – there must be a difference.” “A difference?” cried the sunbeam, as he kissed the blooming apple-branch, and then kissed the yellow dandelion out in the fields. All were brothers, and the sunbeam kissed them all – the poor flowers as well as the rich. The apple-bough had never considered the extent of God’s love, which reaches out over all of creation, over every creature and plant and thing which lives, and moves, and has its being in Him. The apple-bough had never thought of the good and beautiful which are so often hidden, but can never remain forgotten by Him – not only among the lower creation, but also among men. However, the sunbeam, the ray of light, knew better. “You do not see very far, nor very clearly,” he said to the apple-branch. “Which is the despised plant you so specially pity?” “The dandelion,” he replied. “No one ever gathers it into bouquets; it is often trodden under foot, there are so many of them; and when they run to seed, they have flowers like wool, which fly away in little pieces over the roads, and cling to the dresses of the people. They are only weeds. But of course there must be weeds. Oh, I am really very thankful that I was not made like one of these flowers.” Soon after a group of children came to the fields, the youngest of whom was so small that he had to be carried by the others. And when he was seated on the grass, among the yellow flowers, he laughed aloud with joy, kicking out his little legs, rolling about, plucking the yellow flowers, and kissing them in childlike innocence. The older children broke off the flowers with long stems, bent the stalks one round the other, to form links, and made first a chain for the neck, then one to go across the shoulders and hang down to the waist, and at last a wreath to wear round the head. They all looked quite splendid in their garlands of green stems and golden flowers. It was then that the oldest among them carefully gathered the faded flowers – those that were going to seed in the form of a white feathery crown. These loose, airy wool-flowers are very beautiful, and look like fine snowy feathers or down. The children held them to their mouths, and tried to blow away the whole crown with one puff of their breath. “Do you see?” said the sunbeam, “Do you see the beauty of these flowers? Do you see their powers of giving pleasure?” “Yes, to children,” scoffed the apple-bough. By-and-by an old woman came into the field, and, with a blunt knife, began to dig round the roots of some of the dandelion-plants, and pull them up. With some of these she intended to make tea for herself, but the rest she was going to sell to the chemist, and obtain some money. “But beauty is of higher value than all this,” said the apple-tree branch; “only the chosen ones can be admitted into the realms of the beautiful. There is a difference between plants, just as there is a difference between men.” Then the sunbeam spoke of the abundant love of God, as seen in creation, and seen over all that lives, and of the distribution of His gifts to all. “That is your opinion,” said the apple-bough. Then some people came into the room, and, among them, the young countess – the lady who had placed the apple-bough in the transparent vase, so pleasantly beneath the rays of the sunlight. She carried in her hand something that seemed like a flower. The object was hidden by two or three great leaves, which covered it like a shield, so that no draft or gust of wind could injure it. And it was carried more carefully than the apple-branch had ever been. Very cautiously the large leaves were removed, and there appeared the feathery seed-crown of the despised dandelion. This was what the lady had so carefully plucked, and carried home so safely covered, so that not one of the delicate feathery arrows of which its mist-like shape was so lightly formed, should flutter away. She now drew it forth quite uninjured, and wondered at its beautiful form, and airy lightness, and singular construction, so soon to be blown away by the wind. “See,” she exclaimed, “how wonderfully God has made this little flower. I will paint it with the apple-branch together. Every one admires the beauty of the apple-bough; but this humble flower has been endowed by Heaven with another kind of loveliness; and although they differ in appearance, both are the children of the realms of beauty.” Then the sunbeam kissed the lowly flower, and he kissed the blooming apple-branch, upon whose leaves appeared a rosy blush. This article was originally published in the May/June 2028 issue of the magazine. This is a lightly modified/modernized version of Andersen's “The Conceited Apple-Branch.” ...

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 33