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!

Parenting

Real Talk: How to lead your family

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.
Please note that the transcript below was automatically generated and quickly edited so it may contain some errors.

*****

Lucas Holtvluwer
Many men say they will die for their wives and children, but the real question is, will you actually live for them? In a time where leadership in the home is often misunderstood, avoided, or pushed into extremes, we want to bring clarity back to what scripture calls men to, in the strength of Christ. Not passivity, not control, but faithful everyday leadership. We'll explore what it means to lead as a prophet, priest, and king in the home, and what that looks like in real life, not just in theory. And joining us for this conversation is author and theologian Dr. Joel Beeke. For men who feel the weight of responsibility or the sting of failure, this episode is about clarity, conviction, and hope. Let's get into it.

Intro
A big thanks to our official sponsor, Trivan, for making this conversation possible. Be sure to check them out at trivan.com. 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.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Well, Dr. Beeke, thank you for joining us here at Real Talk. It's a real pleasure to have you.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Great to be with you, Lucas.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Excited to talk about leadership in the home and how to lead your family well. Of course, you've written a book, many books, I'm sure, on this topic broadly, and specifically this small one we have here today in the studio, which is a great little bite-sized taste of information and scriptural wisdom that, yeah, I enjoyed reading it myself, and I enjoyed reading it for preparation for this podcast, and I would encourage our listeners to go check it out, but we'll talk through it today. There's many kind of angles we could take with an episode like this. It's a big topic, how to lead your family well, and one you've been speaking about and writing about and talking about for many years, but I think we'll just start off at the top here.

The biggest issue that I, at least, see like in my own life and amongst my peers and younger men in the church, and perhaps older men who are listening to this can relate as well, is kind of a confusion about what does it mean to be a good man, and what does it mean to lead your family well, and to do this in a way that honors and glorifies God, in a way that balances out yet, not being too heavy-handed on the one hand, of course, but not being too laid back, and abdicating your duties on the other side, and there's a real temptation, I would say, in both directions, in today's culture, but broadly speaking, the biggest push from my standpoint seems to be that we're not clear on what it means to do this well and do this in a way that is in line with the biblical standard that's laid out in scripture. So, off the top, big question, what does it mean to do this well, to lead your family well?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, big question indeed. And sometimes, our, you know, there's an old Dutch saying that's on plaques sometimes that says your talk talks and your walk talks, but your walk talks more than your talk talks.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Can you say it in Dutch?

Dr. Joel Beeke
No, not quite. I only read theological Dutch, and not every day. But I think the point that sign makes is a very important point. One of the best things we can do is to shadow a father who's really doing it right and well, and observing, and if that's our own dad, praise be to us. I mean, praise be to God. But, we're the beneficiaries, and so my own father did a lot of things right, and I learned a lot from him, but basically over the years I came to be convicted that to get our arms around this issue and to give men a framework to work within this issue that we need to use the prophet, priest, king paradigm because we're really ultimately as fathers to be image bearers of Christ in our homes and in our leadership, and the way to do that is to image Christ, of course, and to image Christ, He leads us, and He meets all our needs, if we're true believers, by His prophetical priestly and kingly office, which are all one in Him. So as fathers we are to be small p, small k imitators of Christ in our families as prophets, priests, and kings. So, what that means is you go to things for your prophetical office, like Deuteronomy 6:4-9, where we're told to teach our children diligently all the truths of the word of God, the whole counsel of God. So we're to be real teachers. Prophets are not just predictors of the future, that was actually a side issue, but they were the mouthpiece of God.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Instruction.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yes, yeah, and so, but they were to do it passionately. They weren't to get more excited about a score of a ball, putting this contemporary, score of a ball game, than they were about Jesus Christ, so in the home the father must be full of passion, diligently teaching his children, maybe that means sometimes weeping, but it with the sobriety of what he has to teach, and the awesomeness of what he has to teach, and the magnitude of what he has to teach. This is huge. We're to teach, Moses says in Deuteronomy 6, when we lie down, when we rise up, when we go to bed, etc. All those expressions are just a Hebrew idiom to say we need to teach every day.

Lucas Holtvluwer
All the time.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yes, yeah. And, of course, our very walk is a teaching. I always say this to dads: your very life is the second most important book your children will ever read.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, that's true.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Next to the Bible. So that's one, but then we're also to be priests to our, our children by showing our, our sacrificial personality. We have to model not meritorious sacrifice like Christ did, but a gratuitous sacrifice that we lay down our lives for our wife and our children out of thankfulness, and as an image bearer of Christ laying down his life for us, but also, and this is huge, and I hope we talk about it later, we're to be prayer leaders in our family, prayer warriors in our family, and our children are to see us pray often, to hear us pray often, and we're to pray for them often also in their absence, as well as with them, this is a big part of our calling to be interceders, and for that I like to take people to Job 1:1-5, where his children are in the house having a good time together. We don't read that they're sinning, but he said it may be, it may be that in their heart they're sinning against God. So I'm going to be offering sacrifices every day and praying. Now we don't have to offer any bulls or turtle doves or anything today, because we go straight to the blood of Christ. So we go straight to God in prayer, and as Spurgeon said – so beautiful, I love the statement of Spurgeon – Job did it early in the morning, so Spurgeon said he hurried to the cross first thing every morning with his kids. Yeah, you know what a beautiful picture of a God-fearing father. And the text ends verse 5: “Thus did Job continually.” So it wasn't a hit or miss, it was a consistent day by day storming the mercy seat for his kids, and of course the mother needs to do that too, but as a leader of the home, the man needs to really marinate all his leadership in this, this prayerful ethos and pathos and demeanor, and so kids should be able to say of their dads, “well, my dad's not perfect, he's got his faults and flaws like everyone else, but he prays for my soul, he cares about my soul.” Because, as J.C. Ryle said, “soul love is the soul of all love”, and that's what my dad did so well. I don't think he could care less about my body out, quite honestly. My mother took care of those needs, but boy, did he love my soul.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
And it came across in his prayers, came across in his prophetical teaching. And then there's the third thing, which is kingship, and that's a very broad concept, but kingship, I think, means in a nutshell to defend your children from enemies, soul enemies, defend them from excessive use of social media, defend them from unwise romantic relationships, defend them from bullies, defend them from bad teaching – don't let them go to a school where they get inculcated with anti-biblical material. And then protection and guidance. The wise, kingly father gives a lot of guidance to each child, and that's one of our greatest weaknesses as fathers, I think, today, including my own. And, oh, thank God for family worship, which helps a lot in this area, but just also sitting down with your kids at times where there's non-family worship times, and just talking with them, and getting inside their mind, and giving them guidance in a fatherly way, like the wise men in the book of Proverbs, you know.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Okay.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Or, like, you know, come unto me, my son, and I'll give you understanding, yeah. And giving you understanding, I'll give you wisdom,

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah. Hear my instruction.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah. And you can feel the affection of that, you know, from the time the child is three years old on your lap, and you're, you're encircling your arms, maybe you got two kids that are young, you're encircling your arms around them both, and they're both looking at you, and you're just talking to them calmly, teaching them already at three years old about who God is, and how to hate sin, and you're giving them guidance how to share each other's toys, and you know, and the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23, you're modeling that for them, but you're, you're also talking to them about it from a very young age. Like Luther said, "Give me a child until he's seven, you can have him for the rest of his life. I've already formed him.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Or the guy who Napoleon Bonaparte said, I think it was Napoleon Bonaparte, said, "If you start training a child at five, you're too late.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, it's amazing what they can pick up.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yes it is! And I was just two weeks ago, I was just with my whole family in the swimming pool in Florida vacation, and I'm talking. It, by the way, that's a great time to talk to kids, because you're, you're just treading water in the pool, and, and, and you know, you just talk. So, I try to corner each one, or corner him is the wrong word, it wasn't anything forceful or heavy, but I just start chatting with them, and I'm talking to my, this four year old grandchild, one of the 13 grandchildren, and I said, “So what do you, what do you think? Do you think you hate sin, and you love God?” And she said, “I think I have some love for God, but not as much love as I should have.” “Okay, you hate sin.” “Well, I do sometimes, but I love my toys too much, and I just.. I enjoy life so much,” she says, “I'm afraid I'm.. I'm not ready to meet God.” “Oh, do you.. do you think you will be ready to meet God when one day in the future?” And she said, "Yep, I think so. I think on the day of judgment I'll be ready to meet God.” I said, "Oh, on the day of judgment, but when do you need to start seeking God?” And she snapped her head around, she looks at me, and she goes, "Right now, Grandpa!” And I said “Yes, amen, you got it.” I think that's the model, prophet, priest, king,

Lucas Holtvluwer
Got it. Okay, that's that's very clear, so I appreciate you laying that out. It's definitely daunting as well, in terms of like what you need to be as a man, to be able to live up to those callings, right? I mean, we know we're not gonna live up to it perfectly, but it's there's a lot there to build on and work on, like if I think of the typical, like if we think of the cultural vestiges that are left around from a more Christian time, like the whole protect and provide side of things, like that's still like in our, in my psyche as a young man, for sure, right, and like growing up in the church as well, but then that whole provision element also being not just you go to work and make sure your family's got enough money to put food on the table, kind of thing, like you got to be providing for them the soul care side of things too.

Dr. Joel Beeke
That's correct, and I should have said that under the under the King-ly office also provide is another important thing. I just kind of take that for granted. I think all fathers know that they need to provide for their family, but the thing we really have to fight against today, and I think I think we're making inroads, but is that that's just the beginning.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Totally, that's the basis.

Dr. Joel Beeke
That’s just the beginning. At the same time, we don't want to fall in the trap, Lucas, of the father has to do everything and burden him overly much, so that he comes home from work is very tired. Well, you're not allowed to take a 10 minute map, because you got to be, you got to be watching the kids now. This is nonsense, you know, he's going to be much better father if he takes a 10 minute nap, at least most men are, and then has the energy to go, but his wife, even though she's been working all day as well, but she should not think, well, now he's going to be working hard from 6pm to 11pm being with the kids for five straight hours, and doing dishes and all kinds of things. I mean, he can do dishes, that's fine. And I always, our family, I wash the dishes until the kids got married. My wife said, 'Now you don't need to anymore.” But you know, you find your own way in some of these things.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yes, you do.

Dr. Joel Beeke
We're in a day now where some fathers are just henpecked by their wives, and man, they're working all day hard, and they come home, they work all day till 11 o'clock, and their wife says, "Well I worked all day so you need to work all day, but men needed little time as a break on their own, as well as do wives. So, there needs to be kind of a sharing of the workload, but let's not go to the other extreme and say men have got to just be working all the time with their kids.

Lucas Holtvluwer
No, yeah, and that's more of a result of a lot of people, like with women working much more nowadays, right. There's that natural pressure there, of like, well, they're literally at work all day. If your kids are in daycare or something like that, right and that's, you can, you can see how people go down that road, but if they don't have clarity about what the vision is of Prophet Priest and King, what it means to do that. Well, that's, I think, that's where people can get confused, right. So, I appreciate you kind of laying that out, my one question, hearing you say that, was like, how did this build for you over time? If you think back to your time as a younger father, throughout different, you know, teen years and whatnot, like, I have a two year old and a three year old daughter, so I'm at the beginning stages of this, but now you're in the grandparent stage, like you say, with you said 13 grandkids there, that's a wonderful blessing. So, how did that kind of develop over time for yourself, making some of these habits, maybe to get practical? Like being a prayer warrior, like that's not something that comes naturally for me, at least as a young guy.

Dr. Joel Beeke
So, I would evaluate myself with different grades on different as I look back on different aspects of fatherhood. The overwhelming daunting problem I had is that the denomination I was in when I became a minister had five ministers for 10,000 members, so when I was 25 years old, I was ordained in Sioux Center, Iowa, and I had 2000 members in my charge. Well, I had 15 weddings a year, about 20 funerals a year, all these sacraments, I had to see every person in the hospital. I had to prepare two new sermons every week for Sunday. It was overwhelming, but right from the get-go until to now, until now, at 73, I've got the mode of working long hours, but my wife is – this is something I want to say too, very important – every woman is different, and so some wives can handle a man who works longer hours much better than others, and my wife happens to be one of those. So, I say to my theological students, don't follow my example, don't work as many hours as I worked, but know your wife, know the needs of your kids, and do the very best you can, and so some of those years when our kids were very small, I was also the only minister in a new denomination, and in nine churches, so that was very, very hard, very hard, but I was caught between a rock and a hard place, but then when we got more ministers as a seminary picked up, Puritan Reformed Seminary, and we could fill the pulpits, I was able to spend a bit more time with my kids, but when I look back in my life, I wish I'd spent more time with them, but what did happen was I tried to, after supper every night, we, without fail, we would have family worship. If I didn't do family worship, my kids would say, "What's wrong with you, Dad? Are you sick?” And then many nights, not every night, some nights we had to go away, right then, but many nights, I would, I would play with them for about an hour or something, do things with them, and then I would go back to the study. So, I'm not a very good example in some ways with the time factor, but you know, I did do probably more with my son than my daughters, and I did go golfing with my son, and hunting, and things like fishing a little bit, but I could have done more there too. So, in some ways, I think you always feel guilty that you'd never spend enough time with your kids. With my wife, it was different, because we're both really late night people, so after all the kids are in bed, we’d jump in the hot tub and chat for an hour. We go for still till today we go for a long walk around 11:30 at night.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Really?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah!

Lucas Holtvluwer
I'm sleeping then. Yeah, that's crazy.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Then we go to bed about usually it's between 12:30 and 1:00. So I, you know, have that time with her, but and I do think I do think that where I did do better at was being aware of my kids' needs, asking my wife every day, what's up, you know anything about? Okay, Esther has a test tomorrow, Calvin is getting sick, going right away to Calvin, praying with him, talking with him, praying for Esther and Calvin in the family prayer after supper, talking with the kids. I did better, I did better at that, but I think my greatest downfall was not enough time.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, that is tricky. Okay, so if we think about that, I'm just trying to think about, yeah, practical ways that, like, guys can improve and kind of get up to that standard of leadership, right?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yes, and one thing that we did do, we tried to develop different things, what, like, the Puritans called holy habits, where we would have certain customs that we would follow, tried, tried to do quite, quite a few of those, one of them, of course, being in family worship. For example, on Sunday morning I would teach the children that today regularly is a very, very special day. God is coming to speak to us today. I would wake them up every Sunday morning. I don't know if they appreciated it at the time, but I hope they do now. I would knock on the door and say, “Time to get up. We get to worship God today, and God is going to speak to us today. Let's get up out of bed. This is an exciting day.” And you know, my prayer would be longer at breakfast, and with excitement that we're going up to the house of God, and that type of thing, and so you develop, yeah, with the Puritans called holy habits. Maybe we'll talk more about some of them later.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yep, yep, yep. No, that's important. It's important to have some tangible things that we can all work on that way. I guess you kind of mentioned this earlier about this, the reaction to cultural egalitarianism, but I guess, and we kind of sketched it out with a prophet, priest, and king thing, in terms of what that looks like to do that well, and to not be on one side of the ditch or the other side too far. Do you want to say anything more to that, or you want to keep moving on? We can keep going.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Well yeah, you can go to either extreme can’t you? You can go to a point where you're the head of the household, and you exercise it by authoritarianism. You do what I say, or else, and lay down the law, and you come across hard and crass and crude and rude, and you alienate your kids. You may, you may beat them, you may beat brow them into obedience, but as soon as they grow up and they're out of your sight, they're going to sow their wild oats, because they're not close to you. And then there's the other extreme where you know you're wimpy and the kids set the agenda and you follow them, you're constantly giving in to them, and they rule the household. Same result, when they get older, they're going to sow their wild oats, because they haven't had good leadership. But if you maintain that right balance, and I think the right balance, and this is where I think all my kids knew all the all the upbringing. Dad and Mom both loved them like crazy, and, and that's why we care. That's why we teach you. That's why we pray for you. That's why we defend you. That was big in our whole household. Lots of verbal affirmations. I love you. Lots of hugs of mom and the kids, yeah. And you know that gives children a sense of security, so it's love, love, love that's got to pervade every single one of those offices. And that's what Jesus said in Ephesians 5, didn't he? You've got to love your wife, like I love my people. Well, he died for them. He shed blood for them. So it's a sacrificial love, but it's also a sweet love. It's a genuine love, and love covers a multitude of evils, and so that's key, if you don't show your kids that you love them, you don't tell them, and your wife as well regularly, you will fail as a father.

Lucas Holtvluwer
That kind of, it's interesting you say that about the regular affirmations, and then the verbal, like, "Hey, I love you, I care about you, I'm here for you, you need to talk” all that kind of stuff, which is all good, and I agree with that, but I think there's a kind of a gentle parenting movement as well, of course, nowadays too, and that tends to go kind of in that direction as well. So, maybe, do you want to just speak on a little bit, like when you say love, and you kind of just do this a little bit, but I just want to touch on it more. It's not the easy love, right? It's like it's usually the thing that takes more work to do.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, but the gentle parenting movement, as far as I see it, is more like you're affirming your kids for everything, you're telling them when they did something very poorly that they did it well. You know, that's not being honest with them.

Lucas Holtvluwer
That's lying to them.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, so gentle parenting is, is, is really a lack of leadership. It's putting the kids in the driver's seat, I think. Whereas genuine love is, is ruling all three of these offices, means that the three offices still function – you're still teaching, you're still praying, you're still sacrificing, you're still defending, protecting, guiding – so you're still, you're still in the driver's seat, you're still the head of the home, you're still leading the family, but you're doing it in love. So, even when you discipline your kids, you know, I, you know, Ted Tripps' book, A Shepherd in a Child's Heart. I read that when our oldest was two years old, and I went to Mary, and said, “Oh, wow, I'm not disappointing my kids, right? And neither are you. We need to follow this model.” So I did. So from then on, and I would take a child, say it's my son, I would take him into a separate room, I would administer the discipline, not with it to save him from shame, not to not to do in front of the other kids. First of all, I talked to him about his sin and show him why it's wrong. He has to repent, and after he repented, I would say, “Well, I still need.. I need.. if it was a fairly serious sentence, I need to spank you twice, and lay him across my lap, and if I need, of course, spank him only on the rear end, which I think is the only place on the human anatomy that God is designed to sustain spankings, and if it wasn't quite as serious, I'd say I'm going to just spank you once, and I would do it, and I would do it firmly for him, because he didn't feel much like compared to the girls, and then I would scoop him up in my arms, and then I would pray, pray with him, and then I would tell him I love him, and I would tell him, this sin is now buried, you've repented, and yeah, and one time, one time, he was like maybe four, and we've been doing this for a couple years, and we walked out of the room, and we always walked out the room holding hands. I figured that was a really good affirmation for him, also, that the matter is buried, never brought up again, never to be brought up again. Just like God, when He forgives us, He doesn't resurface it. Yep, Spurgeon said, “when you bury a dead dog, you don't leave its tail sticking up out of the ground and revisit it.” Done.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Okay. So I told kids that, you know, you're forgiven completely. We're never talking about this again, but don't do the sin again. Hold hands as we walk out, and we're walking out, and my son looks up at me and goes, "Dad, how come you never sin?” Whoa, okay. Back into the, we called it the sun room, because the sun shined in a lot of the windows. Back into the sun room, I sat him down. I said, “Son, I'm just as big a sinner as you. I need Jesus Christ just as much as you do to be my Savior and my Lord. So, don't ever think your dad doesn't sin, but we're in this together. We want to walk in God's ways. I want to, you want to, we want to live by the Bible, okay, son. Pray for me that I don't sin. I'll pray for you that you don't sin.”

Lucas Holtvluwer
Well, that's awesome. That's so cool. That's okay. Just to go back to this, the I'm interested in the order of operations. Or do you give your kids like a couple minutes to slow down and like kind of cool off before you come and talk to them? Like, would you put them in the sunroom, and then, because it usually they're like crying or something, because they did, it's kind of a mess.

Dr. Joel Beeke
I think Ted Tripps' book is a good paradigm, but one of the tricky things about parenting is, I have this theory, it's, it's not written in the Bible inspired, but I still think it's true. It’s this: I think God made every one of our children so astonishingly different from each other that He wants us to be dependent on His grace for wisdom to rear each one, and so often what works with one doesn't work with another. I had a daughter that if I spanked her this hard, she would weep and wail uncontrollably, and I mean, and not stop. Very, very, very tender. But if you left that daughter in a bedroom all by herself for five minutes, she would feel the pain of what she had done, and she wouldn't feel the rebellion from that she felt when she was even lightly spanked. So I only spanked her once or twice in her life, when she did something wrong with a sibling that I had to give them somewhat equal treatment here, and but for the rest, oh, it was much more effective to put her in a separate room. So I don't think whether there were.. there were two families. I'll tell you this quick story: two families had 10 kids each, and I'm.. I don't want to give any details in case people guess who they are, but the one father whose family was a total mess came to the other father, whose family was amazing, and said, “What do you do? I treat all my kids alike.” And the other father said, “That's probably your problem.”

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
You know, I mean, there's a certain equality you need to maintain, like you can't give one kid a $3 allowance per week and give the other one a $1 you know, in the same age range, you've got certain areas of equality, and you can't play favoritism, but boy, oh boy, you better not raise all your kids alike, because then you're not accounting for their, the originality of their personalities.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yep, that makes sense. In order to lead your family well, what is required of the man in terms of personal holiness?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, this is a huge question. Thank you for it. First of all, you've got to be saved. You’ve got to have a big heart for the Lord. You've got to want to rear your children according to the Bible, and you want to ransack the Bible, for tips for fatherhood. In fact, I would put it this way, that the Bible is still the best parental textbook on the market. Look at all the wisdom, explicit, implicit, given in the book of Proverbs alone. So, gotta have a heart right with God. You have to be born again, want to love Christ. Second, you got to guide your children by the Bible. Thirdly, you've got to understand that there's a sense in which these children are your children, and there's a sense in which they're God's children by the external covenant. They're included in that covenant, and what God is really doing is He's opening the womb of your wife and giving you children as a father to loan those children to you, and you're to bring them up, Ephesians 6:4, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and as it were, return them to the Lord in your prayers and in your upbringing, and dedicate them back to the Lord, in a sense like Hannah did, although not have them leave your home, so the net result of that is that you on the day of judgment want to be able to say to God, “Lord, I had many shortcomings and I need, I need them forgiven, and please forgive me for all my shortcomings, but by the grace of God, I did try to govern my family and lead my children according to your will”, so that when I'm in situations, and I would tell my own kids this too, I say “I must discipline you because God is commanding me to discipline you as head of the home, and I need to obey God. This is no fun for me to discipline you.” But I'm to raise children for the Lord. That means we need to follow the Bible, and we need to follow biblical principles. So I think we've got to get away from this business of I'm going to do what I feel like doing because I'm the head of the home. No, no, no, you got to do what God wants you to do because you're the head of the home so you need to, you need to sit still and say what does God want me to do, and if you're angry because your children have been disobedient and you're ready to discipline them, I learned the hard way that it's not the right time to discipline them because you're angry.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yes.

Dr. Joel Beeke
So what I say to them at that point is, I say, “Well, you've, you've committed a sin.” I try to keep my voice calm, sometimes a bit earnest, but never yelling, never yelling, and never angry, but I would say, “You've committed a sin, and your daddy is going to think about how to discipline you, and I'll come back to you soon.” But then what I don't tell them is I'm feeling angry inside, and I'm not ready to discipline you right now, and I walk away. Sometimes you only have to count to 10, and you regain yourself, so to speak. Other times you say, “I need a few more minutes. I really got to settle on a position here, exactly what I'm going to do.” Sometimes I even need to drop down to my knees and just say, “Lord, give me light and wisdom to know what to do,” and then when I feel more ready and more in self control, I go back and do the discipline.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Okay

Dr. Joel Beeke
When you discipline in anger, it will always come back to bite you. Just like when you get angry at anybody. I've had two times in 48 years of ministry where people were so angry with me, it was unbelievable, but I made the mistake of getting angry back, and I've lived to regret those times for decades, and but it's the same with children, you know, every time you lose control and get angry, you will deeply regret it afterward. Yeah, and your conscience won't be satisfied if you say, "Oh, well, they deserved it.”

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, you should have seen what they said. Yeah, no, no, doesn't matter. No, no.

Dr. Joel Beeke
No, no. So that helped me a lot, and I thank God I did learn that when the kids were very early. So, I. I don't think my kids ever heard me yell at them, ever.

Lucas Holtvluwer
No, no. So, that makes sense on the anger front. What about when, if we talk about personal holiness and you have these - you mentioned these habits of holiness earlier, and you talked about one of them. Did those habits of holiness help sustain you through some of those seasons of life? And maybe you don't have this, because if you're a pastor, you're in the Word every day, it's not as, as like this, but I find you go through seasons where it's more dry. Yes, you're still a Christian, but your faith is not as alive, but you still are called to leave, lead your family, right? Like, how did you kind of get through some of those seasons?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Oh, okay, yeah, that's an outstanding question. Yeah, well, of course, every believer has times where, if he's not careful, if he doesn't develop holy habits. In fact, the lack of developing holy habits is what usually generates lukewarmness and eventually backsliding, and it usually begins in the secret closet of prayer, where your prayers become colder, more distant, more formal, more brief, more without a heart, and that just slips away bit by bit, and Satan doesn't usually grab us and take us 10 feet away in one shot, but he inch by inch by inch he just works away at our vibrant godliness until it seems to dissipate and float away. So, yeah, so what are those, some of those holy habits? Well, one thing is praying with children on their knees, in addition to family worship, and I hope we talk about family worship later, because that's the biggest holy habit.

Lucas Holtvluwer
We'll get into.

Dr. Joel Beeke
But when kids go to bed, is a wonderful time to pray with them, and just to lay by them, and talk, have real talk. Dinner conversation, my wife is really big on this one, have real talk at dinner time. She actually has a talk called conversations at dinner time and if I came home from work, and I'd be sitting there, and I wasn't focusing on real talk. My wife is very gentle. I would feel this little gentle tap, tap of her foot on my leg underneath the table, oh yeah, and I know what you're saying. She's saying, "Join us, you're still thinking about your sermon”, you know, and that type of thing, so that. That's a really good thing, so that happy time around the dinner table is a really good time to talk about things about the Lord, just real things at school, and then a big thing for me, and I know a lot of men don't do this, but a big thing for me, which we establish from the get go in our marriage is that at night when we go to bed we get down on our knees, hold hands, and one night she prays and one night I pray, and it's not just a short little good night prayer, we pour out our heart for what happened that day, and pray that God will bless our feeble efforts of family worship that day, and I love to hear my wife pray. I love the feminine side of prayer, hearing that and the tenderness of it all, and I think she appreciates my leadership in prayer, and so that's a very sweet time, and that's like recharges your batteries, so that the next morning you're ready to go again. We don't do, we don't do it as well in the first right when we get up, because, like I said, we're late night people. Hi, I read about all these Puritans getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning and going to work and having two hours of prayer. I just, that's just not me, but I get a second wind in the evening, so I'm much better in my devotions in the evening, so, so that, that's a holy habit for us that I think is very important. But we also developed other holy habits and faith in our family that are just, you know, just automatic, like before you go on a trip, a vacation, all go down underneath in the living room, pray for safety and guidance, and so on. And then we van is all packed, and then we get in the van and drive away. As soon as we come home, we all go back into the living room want to acknowledge the Lord, we're safe, all get down on our knees again and pray, and then we unpack the car and stuff. So just that type of, I want to build in the consciousness of our children and my own, that every moment God is protecting us like an eyelash is protecting an eye 1000 times a day. And that's what Psalm 121 is all about. He shall preserve thee, and thy going out, thy coming in. He shall preserve thy soul. He shall preserve thee from all evil. The Hebrew word there, preserve, has a root meaning of the eyelet, protecting the eye,

Lucas Holtvluwer
Really?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, over and over and over and over again. And that's what God does for us so you want to acknowledge that.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Beautiful, yeah, it's small, small but powerful habits like that.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah.

Lucas Holtvluwer
And you would literally all get like physically on your knees together as a family. Wow, okay, that's quite something. That's beautiful. All right, okay. Why don't we delve a little deeper into Prophet, Priest, and King, and then I think we're going to come through some of this family worship stuff from there too, so on the prophet end of things, is biblical leadership primarily about the teaching rather than the authority? Like, where does the authority play into, like, does, like, the husband have to teach, or can, like, the wife teach, and, like, how did that kind of work out in your home, and where have you seen that modeled well?

Dr. Joel Beeke
I think the biblical model is not that the man has to do all the teaching and all the praying, but the biblical model is that the man is the leader. So, in family worship, for example, I would lead the family worship, I would do the opening prayer. My habit was to then divide the reading of the chapter into so four parts, first the prayer, and then the reading of scripture. Let's say we're going to read 20 verses. We used to read about 20 verses in the Old Testament. It was the New Testament, we used to read about 15, maybe 10, because it's more packed full of essence of doctrine, and that would just divide it, but as soon as they could all read, I'd say, you know, every one of us just reads four verses, and they know we're going to talk about it, they know I'm going to ask them questions, so having them participate makes them makes them feel very involved, and then I lead the conversation. Of course now we have the Family Worship Bible Guide, which we worked on for five years, so we use that. Now we're empty nesters. My wife and I still use that. And we still do it just like we did, as if the kids are there but we just do it with the two of. And then when it comes to the question at the end of that little section of one of the major takeaways of the chapter in Family Worship Bible Guide, maybe my wife would jump in if nobody answers right away, or one of the kids would jump in, but she's there to assist me, and she has a whole talk, actually, for women on how to assist your husband and family worship. And so it becomes a co-labor thing, but she allows the leadership be to me, so, and that's the wisdom of God in the scriptures that He's given not in terms of hierarchy, but in terms of function, two different roles for man and woman to play in marriage. You can't have two heads in the family, you need a leader, but, but particularly when the woman is theologically astute, and can maybe she's more astute than the husband.

Lucas Holtvluwer
I was gonna ask you that.

Dr. Joel Beeke
But she must still give him the leadership reins, and she must be wise in not dominating him, but she can jump in and offer answers or offer important questions to ask the children, and as long as he doesn't feel threatened, that can only strengthen his ability to do family worship. So, and then what happened with us was we wouldn't do long family worships, maybe the maybe the instruction part, instructing on that chapter would last from 5 to 12 minutes. There were the times when you know we got really talking on something, and we kept going, but as a rule, and then we would have a closing prayer, and I would do the same thing. I would, I would take turns with my wife and each of my three kids to do what they called the daddy's closing prayer, and it happened by accident, actually, or maybe I should say by providence, there's no such thing as accident. So, my three year old sitting in my, my lap, my son, my daughter was one year old, sitting on the other knee, and I'm going to ask my wife to close in prayer, which was normal at that time. My son looks up at me and goes, “Daddy, can I do the daddy's prayer?” I'm thinking three years old. Yes. So I said, “Daddy will whisper some words in your ear, and then you say them, and I'll whisper some more, and you say them.” So we did that for a whole year, when it was his turn to pray, and he felt very important when he was doing the daddy's prayer. When it was four, his fourth birthday, I said, "Okay, now you start to pray. And remember what Daddy taught you: A C T S, Acts formula, is the way we pray. You adore God, you confess your sins, you thank Him, and you supplicate, you spread out your needs.” Now he mixed up the order, that's okay, but pretty much got those four things, at least a little bit, and of course it's not always theologically as sound as you want, and as sound as you want. He's four, so you let him go. But I said then when you run stuck, you just kind of poke your elbow in my stomach, just give me a little poke and I'll help you again. So we did that from four to seven, three years, and then at seven I said, “Son, it's all yours now, you pray the whole prayer”, and what was beautiful, Lucas was, and I didn't even anticipate that, but by that preparation, I mean the Holy Spirit alone can teach them to truly pray, but by preparing them this way, even outwardly, when their peers would come over, when guests would come over, when unbelievers would come over. By the way, that's a great time to evangelize people in your family. Is have them come over for something, and then just bring them into the living room, where you have all your books set up, and have them participate in family worship. So, anyway, then what would happen is he would pray in front of the whole group of people at seven years old, no problem, he's been used to it.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yep.

Dr. Joel Beeke
So then I did my, I did our daughters the same way, because I realized this was working, so I did the daughters the same way, and one daughter responded a little better to it than the other, when one was a little more shy than the other, so it took a tad bit longer, but I think that's very important to involve them, and then we would sing, which is the fourth part of family worship. Psalm 118:15, “I hear the songs of rejoicing in the tents of the righteous”, and our one daughter got to play the organ, and our son got to play the cello and they would get out their instruments, and we would have just a wonderful time singing. I loved it. We get, we get, we'd sit right around our daughter, that was more shy, she really poured out her heart in playing the, in the organ, and, and, oh, could she play that thing, or no, it was a piano, piano, she could play it so well, and put all her expression into it, and we would just sit around her and sing it is well, with my soul, there's things like that, it was, I missed her so much when she got married, just for that alone. So, family worship is meant to be an enjoyable time. It's a serious time. You don't let.. you don't let the phone.. you don't answer the phone, you just let it ring. You’re in the audience of God. This is the most sacred time of your day. This is your primary responsibility, Father. To bring your children into the Word of God every day.

Lucas Holtvluwer
So you would go into a separate room to do that, not at the dinner table.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Absolutely.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Okay. And you feel like that was an important distinction.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yes, because at the dinner table, where are your books? Where's your salt book? Where's your Bible? You know, so you have it all set up on a regular basis. It's a holy habit, everyone goes to the same seat every time, everyone's got their particular books, it's all ready to go, and then you come back in and you clean off the table and do the dishes.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yep, yep, love it. Okay, so I just want to zero in on that, that point of potential point of tension with a wife who's more educated or potentially more gifted in explaining theological matters that would typically be associated with the head of the household, the male, right, the husband, so that balance there that you mentioned your wife as a talk about as well. I think you used an interesting phrase of like, if the husband isn't threatened by it, right? So, is it, is it just predicated on that, or like, where does that responsibility lie with the husband? Because there should be probably some real conversation there. If you know your wife is gifted in that area, you are not as eloquent, perhaps, or as well studied even. How do.. how have you advised people over the years to kind of handle that?

Dr. Joel Beeke
As a pastor, I've been around the block a few times, actually, just in a couple months from now, I started preaching 50 years ago. I can't believe it.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Wow.

Dr. Joel Beeke
But what I've learned from working with people over the years is that one size doesn't fit all in many of these things and people have different personalities, and a wise woman will be able to understand her husband well and know her boundaries, so that she doesn't take over the family worship completely, or also take over, or take over to such a degree that he would feel uncomfortable, like “I'm out of it”, whereas another man will say, hey, honey, I'm glad for any help you give me, and she can be freer. Doesn't mean that one is good or one is bad, it just means you need to develop a chemistry between the two of you.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Would you talk about that before, like you and your wife, about how you want to kind of proceed with this, or that just kind of developed over the years, or what did that look like for you guys?

Dr. Joel Beeke
I don’t even remember if we talked about it before, but we started. We started this extended family worship, instead of the typical traditional Dutch way of just praying before the meal and reading the Bible, and shutting the Bible, and then praying, and no singing, and no talking about the chapter. We started the more extensive form when my oldest was three years old, and I was asked to give a talk on family worship in South Africa.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Oh, wow.

Dr. Joel Beeke
And it changed my life. I read the Scottish Divines, I read the English Puritans, I read the Dutch, and I realized, wow, I thought all my life my dad was doing family worship, but.. and he did in many ways, on Sunday nights, he certainly did. It was a long family worship, about an hour, but on weekdays he did a partial family worship, but that was what the Dutch thought was family worship, at least in the 20th century. But I realized, no, no, no. After reading all these books on family worship that the Puritans wrote, this is only a little part of it. You've got to talk to your kids every day on the chapter, and so that's when we, we change. But my wife is just a natural, so she, she would just jump in the conversation. I'm not sure we ever talked about it, and I've never felt threatened by her at all by contributing. I just felt grateful, but of course I'm a minister, so maybe that's a difference. But I think 90% of Christian marriages, this is a non-issue, but I'm just saying that when a woman is very gifted theologically, she, she needs to understand her husband and continually defer to him on certain issues, even as she imparts her wisdom to the children. And he should learn to appreciate that very much.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yes, she can give that much more help.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Absolutely

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Interesting. What just again, when we're on the topic, what is one way that your wife, like, assists you or really helps you that you appreciate?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, so let's say I'm trying to ask my middle child at 10 years old a certain question, and she's not quite getting it, and I framed it maybe a little bit above her level, or you know how you give kids a little bit of a clue to help them. My wife would jump in and say, “Well, what about this”, and say it in a little different way than I would say. Sometimes it would connect with her, and she'd come up with the answer. I'd be crazy to be.. I'd be crazy to be offended by that. She’s only helping the conversation along.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yep, yep. Okay. No, that's interesting. Just figured I'd ask that, because it's not just guys who are listening to this too, but it's easy to get stuck on that as well. Okay. Yes, we talked about some healthy rhythms of family life and family worship there, so that obviously that involves active teaching of scripture in the time of family worship and that's different, that's an extension of the typical Dutch tradition, like you say. Yeah, that many of us are familiar with.

Dr. Joel Beeke
I need to say this. The Family Worship Bible Guy is written at a level of like 10 years old and up and so since then, since these four guys, mainly four guys, spent five years writing this, forefathers, and it's been our best-selling book, and it's transformed 10’s of 1000’s of families in the family worship – I encourage everyone to use it, and I've never heard one complaint. Well, I did hear one complaint on it, that the questions were too long, but no one else has said that, but it, that that book has been so blessed of God, but I had a lot of fathers come to me and say, can you do something similar for very young children. So now we're doing a nine volume family worship series from Genesis to Revelation. Four of them are in print, two more at the printer. We've got three to go, and we're working on the seventh volume right now.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Awesome.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Each volume has 90 family worships. So, there's first volume is called Beginning, which is 90 family worships from Genesis, and we do four things in each family worship on two pages, takes six to seven minutes to do, review two questions of reviewing yesterday's family worship, and you, and the answers are right there for the dad, and you just ask your kids, then read – here's the new portion of scripture to read, and two questions on the reading, and then reflect, and the reflection is something that relates to young children, ages four 3 or 4 to 11 or 12, and that they can identify with, and then there's three questions on that reflection, and the whole reflection relates to the text read. And then the last thing is request, so there's a prayer need that corresponds with what the Bible reading is, and the reflection, so you have review, read, reflect, request, and it's just each one is on two pages, takes 6 or 7 minutes, and this also is such a tremendous help the parents with smaller children. I find it very, very helpful.

Lucas Holtvluwer
I'm getting excited about you talking about, yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
There’s all kinds of people right now. I mean, I'm talking 1000’s of people who've gone through these, and, and they, and they say they, when I go to conferences, they come to me. When's the next one coming out? We went back and we started with Genesis, because we're caught up with you and upset. We're trying,

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, that's awesome. Okay, let's get into priest, then, for a minute, just because I know we got to be respectful of your time here as well. So, you say in the book here, many men would willingly die for their wives. If you truly would die for her, you would also live for her. Can you explain what it means to love your wife like Christ loved the church, and how, in your doing that, how are you living for her in that so powerfully?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, well, I have this formula that I get from Ephesians 5, and let me, let me just walk this through, through in like three minutes. I think I think this is a very, very important question. It comes at the whole heart of being, being a husband and so I have four words that describe the man's role as a husband in Ephesians 5. So, first of all, husband’s love your wives, verse 25 even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. Not 50% 100% So, first of all, you love your wife absolutely as Christ loved the church. I'm to love her best welfare, for 100%. I'm to protect her, I'm to teach her, I'm to pray for her, I'm to, I'm to be a prophet, priest, king for her, which I explain also in that little book.

Number two, that he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that he might present her to himself, to that is to Christ, a glorious church. Wow, I'm to love her purposefully. This is my purpose. This is the reason I should have married her in the first place, that I want to wash her with the water of the word and present her to Christ on the judgment day. And this, this means a lot to me personally. I want my wife on the judgment day to be able to say, “Lord Jesus, because I was married to this man, he washed me with the water of the word, and made me much holier than I ever would have been, by the Spirit's grace, if I hadn't been married to him.” So this is the purpose: you love your wife so that you might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, and then present her to Christ as a glorious church.

Lucas Holtvluwer
So can I interrupt there? That's, but ultimately still for the glory of God, not just for your satisfaction.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Oh, no, no, no, no, totally, totally for the glory of God. So you love her absolutely, you love her purposefully, and then, thirdly, you love her realistically. It goes on to say, not having spot or wrinkle. So, every wife, every person is a sinner. So, every wedding I do, by the way, I slip this in somewhere in the way, I look at the couple and I say, “you know who you're marrying today, you're marrying a sinner, you know that, and you're marrying a sinner.” And it's interesting, because conservative religious Dutch weddings, everybody takes that in stride, everybody realizes that, yeah. And note, there's no comment at all, but in some ways people burst out laughing, they don't even think of that, that you're marrying a sinner, but I purposely want to say it there too because if you expect perfection from someone, you put a burden too heavy on their shoulders. Yes, and the marriage will collapse inward, because the spouse will feel like I can never measure up, so you love your wife. This is the third word, realistically. She's the center, I’m the center. Yep, so what that means is your wife has some little awkward habits or things you don't like that aren't all that major. Hey, man, just look the other way. Doesn't mean anything. If there's sin involved, you need to learn that the method of constructive criticism, sandwiching your, your, your loving criticism between two slices of bread, two areas of compliments, just like Paul did in First Corinthians, where he complimented the Corinthians, then gave them seven levels of meat, dealing with seven criticisms, and the answer to all seven, by the way, was Christ. And then he gave them a top slice of bread by saying, you know, I want to come and meet you, give each other a holy kiss, and so on. And so that's the way to criticize, but that's only if there's sin involved. But you need to understand every single spouse is going to have weaknesses, and don't even bother to correct the small things. Fundamentally, what you see is what you get. Fundamentally, you don't change people's personalities. And you can nitpick and you can nag this can go both ways, be realistic.

Okay, and then fourthly, you've got to love your wife also sacrificially, as you love your own body. So, if you get something in your eye, what do you do? You don't say, "Hey, eye, I'll deal with the pain tomorrow.” No, it's your body, you want it fixed now. Your wife is hurting, you drop everything, you give her attention now, you listen to her now. So that's how a man needs to love his wife. Those four words.

Lucas Holtvluwer
So this whole model of the man, obviously being Christ and caring for his wife like Christ cares for the church. I've seen a lighter critique, perhaps, of the book where it said the writer of the piece was saying perhaps this is a bit too high of a view of what a man can do, but what would your response to that would be like, is it, are you're not. Not saying that this is the only way that Christ could be shown to, to a wife, or to the family, right? But do you think it's of such importance that it's one of the primary ways?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Oh yeah, oh yeah, it is the primary way.

Lucas Holtvluwer
It's the, okay.

Dr. Joel Beeke
But of course, but we also have our spots and wrinkles as men, so we're never gonna, we're never gonna reach in this side of the grave, we're never going to reach the total ideal but the Bible always sets the duties before us in the ideal form. So, as Paul says, I count my not myself to have attained, but I strive after. So, please don't misunderstand me, in every relationship in life we always come short, but this is the goal, this is the model, this is what we, what we aim for.

Lucas Holtvluwer
And you would say it's the primary, because it's so active every single day.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Oh, yes, and because it's, it's, it's Ephesians 5 is the theological chapter on marriage, and it plumbs the depths of marriage like no other place in the whole Bible and so this is the primary goal. So I look at it this way: post fall, what was the greatest weakness of man naturally? The greatest weakness of a husband, naturally, is not to really love his wife, to be selfish. So that becomes the primary, just because it is the greatest weakness, and because it models what marriage is to be. So, husbands love your wife. What is the greatest weakness of a woman post fall? Submission, lack of I want my way,

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, it's just two sides of selfishness.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Right.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Okay, so you, you think that's the primary way, because the contrast is so strong against the backdrop of our sinful nature.

Dr. Joel Beeke
That's a good part of it. The other part is, this is realistic. This is the primary duties of marriage, just all by itself, not even regarding the post-fall emphasis, but the post-fall emphasis of our sinfulness just makes this all the more obvious, that my primary duty is to love, and as Ephesians five says of the woman, it's not just submission, it's reverence, respect, that's what that's what a man needs from a wife, right.

Lucas Holtvluwer
So, okay, so, but this would be primary, like above, like preaching at the word, or like, how do you kind of rank that in terms of like how people know Christ? I'm just trying to, I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you talked within the marriage relationship. Okay. Oh no, preaching of the word is always, always primary. Yeah, of course, that's God speaking to us directly, from the pulpit through His word.

Lucas Holtvluwer
But in a marital context, yes, it's primary means. Yeah, okay, that makes sense to me.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, that's yeah, the word is always primary.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, yeah. Okay. No, I just wanted to.. I saw that as a critique. I thought, oh, hey, I'll ask that question. All right, so talking about kingship, then how does Christ model authority that is strong but not domineering and servant-hearted but not passive?

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, every step of the way. And when he talks about himself, this is exactly the balance, right? Come unto me, I'm meek and lowly and come unto me, all ye are weary and heavy laden. So he's very inviting, he's very coming, he's very tender. He comes low, he eats with sinners. At the same time insists on obedience, and he says, if you love me, keep my commandments.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah.

Dr. Joel Beeke
You know, walk in my ways, fear God. And so there's a balance in Christ that comes through every office, but also through the kingship office, where he, and this is a model for father as well.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah

Dr. Joel Beeke
Yeah, that kind of balance.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Okay, maybe just to end it on a nice positive note here, because we always like to do that too. If, if there's been a father listening to this, and they feel that they've come up short, which we all do, and they're, they're, they've learned a lot from this episode, from the wisdom that you shared, from scripture, of course. Do you have anything to offer them if they look back, especially if it's someone who's a bit older in their journey, and you know that maybe their kids have grown up now, and maybe they have the opportunity to be to be a good grandfather for the grandkids, or whatnot? What would you say to encourage them, and then what can they kind of do in their lives at that stage?

Dr. Joel Beeke
I would say the Lord restores the years that locusts have eaten, and whatever mistakes you've made, you can correct. I confess, I didn't spend enough time with my kids, I was young, all the pressures of such a widespread ministry, but I am trying to make up for that with my grandchildren, It’s one reason why I'm cutting back at my conferences, just to spend more time, probably the main reason, spend more time with the grandchildren, but also when we go to God and confess our shortcomings, it's amazing how God himself can take over with his grace and cover our shortcomings with the fullness of Christ and the grace of Christ so that when we see God working in our children as well as our grandchildren, we just say this is incredible grace. We're loaded with blessings. My wife and I often say that to each other. We're loaded with blessings. Our kids turned out better than we raised them. It's just, I mean, that's amazing grace. So I would say to fathers or grandfathers, don't give up, start right away, and go to godly men in the church who are more godly than you are, and ask them for help. All you need is one or two accountability partners, ask them to hold you accountable, if they're willing to be your accountability partner, help get, help get you going in family worship and that you can bring certain individual cases, maybe cases of discipline, and replay them in front of that wise, godly father, and say, “What did that, what do you think I should have done better, or what did I do wrong”, and get serious about your fatherhood, and, and remember, you don't learn to swim better by just looking at the water.

Lucas Holtvluwer
No.

Dr. Joel Beeke
You have to jump in, you have to start making motions with your arms and legs. They may, you may feel uncoordinated doing family worship the first time, but now you've got the resources you just have to get the books from rhb.org and or no, I'm sorry, in Canada it's Reformed Book Services. You get the resources and you, you start, and you ask God to help you, and before you know it, you'll be doing a pretty effective edifying family worship, and your sincerity will impact your kids, even if you don't have really great content, but you'll learn to have better content by using these resources, and God will help you.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Yeah, they'll see that you love God and that you love them

Dr. Joel Beeke
Absolutely. Absolutely. Persevere, don't give up, and don't skip a day. Okay, family worship. Soon as you skip a day, guess what? You'll skip another day, and the next week you'll skip two days, and then three. Don't do that. I don't care how tired you are. I don't care who you are. Every day, set time, holy habit. Just do the family worship, and you will be greatly blessed, and you will see impact on your children. I believe that will humble you.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Amen to that. Dr. Beeke, thank you for your time. This has been Real Talk, I would say, and yeah, you're welcome back anytime.

Dr. Joel Beeke
Thank you, my pleasure, and God's blessing on Real Talk.

Lucas Holtvluwer
Thank you, appreciate it.

Outro
Thanks for tuning in to 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, Lucas Holtvluwer, and Mariah Tamminga in partnership with Performed Perspective. Until next time, keep having Real Talk.

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

Perfect planet

It all had to be just right for life on Earth to survive and thrive ***** In our garden is a plum tree. Now this may not sound unusual except that stone fruit trees, like plums, do not grow well on the northern prairie. The cold winter winds can dry out the delicate branches of the plum, killing it. Yet our plum tree thrives. And it is growing larger and producing more delicious purple plums each summer. So why is it not just surviving, but thriving? Because it is planted in just the right spot; close to the house and a garden shed where these two buildings shield it from the brunt of the west and north winter winds. Conversely, in the summer the tree has good exposure to the east and south, providing it with enough sunlight and warmth to ripen the plums by the end of August. Perfectly planted planet Earth is like our plum tree, thriving because it has been placed with care. In fact, everything in the universe evidences the design of a careful Creator. Nobel Prize-winning professor of physics Charles Townes, in his 2003 article, “The convergence of science and religion,” asserted that, “we are here only because the laws of physics have certain particular values.” Townes recognized that these carefully balanced laws of physics, which “may be associated with intelligent planning,” are the reason life exists. In order for our Sun or other stable stars to exist “the properties of nuclear reaction and gravitation must be just right,” wrote Townes. This is because over-abundant nuclear reactions in the Sun would cause it to expand and eventually explode, while it would be inherently unstable if its gravity was even a little too strong. The composition of the elements available on Earth is also fine-tuned. According to Townes, the approximately 100 different chemical elements on earth – including carbon and oxygen on which life is based – could only exist if the electrical and nuclear forces were “just right and balanced.” Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle was impressed by the existence of these finely-tuned laws of physics. Even though he was a religious skeptic, Hoyle recognized that: “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. …he facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” God placed planet Earth in exactly the right spot for life to not just exist, but to thrive. In their book The Grand Design, renowned physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow gave three important reasons why Earth has the right temperature for life to exist: Earth orbits only one star, not two or more. About half of the known star systems are binary (two stars). If a planet were in a stable orbit in a binary star system it would be either too hot or too cold to sustain life; Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. “Eccentricity” is a measure of how elliptical or oval an orbit is. An eccentricity of zero will result in a perfectly circular orbit and an eccentricity of one will be an elliptical orbit resembling a very squashed circle. With an eccentricity of 2%, Earth’s orbit is very nearly circular which keeps our planet’s temperature relatively stable throughout the year. In contrast to Earth’s orbit, Mercury’s orbit has an eccentricity of 20%, causing temperature swings of 93°C as Mercury orbits the Sun. Our Sun is just the right size, and Earth is just the right distance from it for the Earth to have a temperature at which liquid water may exist throughout the year. The size of a star dictates the amount of energy it gives off, and if the Sun were just 20% larger, Earth would be as hot as Venus (464°C), and if just 20% smaller, Earth would be as cold as Mars (-64°C). “Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars." It all had to come together Our blue and green planet is unique in many other ways that make it habitable. 1. A magnetic field For example, neither Mars nor the Moon has a global magnetic field, whereas Earth does. Earth’s magnetic field extends out into space, protecting our world from the solar wind – that stream of charged particles released by the Sun. Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars. 2. Right rotation In addition, the Earth rotates on its axis fast enough and at a sufficient angle of inclination to regulate the temperature across the globe so that it doesn’t get too hot nor too cold. These temperature differences provide us with seasons, but also generate ocean currents that redistribute heat and important nutrients. 3. Moon of right size and location Our moon is also the right size and distance from the Earth to allow its gravity to moderate the ocean tides. Tidal action is not just important for mixing of ocean waters along coastlines, is also vital for the mixing of deep ocean water, the circulation of which allows the exchange of a wide variety of substances between it and the atmosphere. This action is essential to the overall maintenance of the climate system as heat, fresh water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients are redistributed. The Moon also stabilizes the degree of tilt of the Earth’s axis. Without our moon, large variations in the tilt of the Earth’s axis would result, driving cataclysmic changes to our world’s climate. 4. Stable Sun In their article “How special is the Solar system?” astrophysicist Martin Beer and colleagues reluctantly accepted that our solar system is atypical and there is the possibility “that none of the observed planetary systems is likely to harbor an Earth-like planet.” Not only is our solar system rare in that it has only one star, our Sun is in the top 10% of star outputs and its output is incredibly stable compared with other stars of similar magnitude – important factors in making our solar system a perfect place for life on Earth. 5. Goldilocks zone Ever since Isaac Newton first recognized in 1725 that Earth is the only planet in our solar system on which liquid water could exist, scientists have acknowledged that the range of distances from the Sun suitable for sustaining life is very narrow. In Strategies for the Search for Life in the Universe, professor of astronomy, and expert on solar systems, Tobias Owen declared that “in our solar system we have a situation that might be described as Goldilocks and the three planets – Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold, and Earth is just right!” The “habitable zone” occupied by Earth is now popularly described as the “Goldilocks Zone” because it is “just right” for life. Scientists have noted that the temperature of a planet directly affects the interaction between oceans and atmosphere, an interaction that is critical for maintaining a planet’s long-term suitability for life. When oceans interact with carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, a planet that is too cold will become even colder as more and more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans, eventually causing the planet to cool and the oceans to freeze. Conversely, a planet that is too warm will become even hotter as greater amounts of CO2 are released from the oceans into the atmosphere, raising the planet’s temperature due to the greenhouse effect, and eventually rendering it too hot to sustain life. Our Earth is perfectly situated to keep this interaction between oceans and atmosphere correctly balanced. 6. O2 needs to be OK We know that much more than the mere presence of liquid water is required to make Earth habitable. For example, a planet must also have sufficient gravity – but not too much – to retain its atmosphere. “Without our Moon, large variations in the tilt of the Earth’s axis would result, driving cataclysmic changes to our world’s climate.” One interesting fact about our atmosphere is that the oxygen level is exactly what we need for respiration, which supplies the correct amount of oxygen to our brain and organs. Too much or too little oxygen in the atmosphere will have a negative impact on human life, which is finely tuned to an atmospheric concentration of 21% oxygen. The amount of oxygen in our atmosphere is also the right amount needed for humans to work with metals. God gave us the ability to work with metals (Genesis 4:22), which requires heating ore, metals, and alloys with fire. Too much oxygen and fire will burn hotter and the flame will also spread much more rapidly, giving less control over combustion. Too little oxygen and combustion would not be a self-sustaining chemical reaction and the fire would go out shortly after the fuel is ignited. God created Earth as a place for humans to thrive (Ps. 115:16), and so He created our world, including the atmosphere, to be perfectly suited to both human life and human activity. The presence of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere is important not only for respiration but also for oxygen-based chemical reactions which are essential for the existence of life. Professor of physiology Kenneth Olson explained that the vast majority of these chemical reactions “are driven by energy from the Sun; plants capture solar energy to oxidize water to oxygen and reduce carbon dioxide to simple sugars and other compounds while animals reverse the process, obtaining their energy by reducing oxygen to water and oxidizing sugars to carbon dioxide.” Evolution chicken-egg problem Atmospheric oxygen is also necessary to create ozone (O3), which provides an effective screen to shield the Earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, notes Olsen, according to Evolutionary theory, “in the prebiotic world there was neither photosynthesis nor oxygen and life had to take its origin elsewhere,” such as sulfur-rich hydrothermal ocean vents. The problem with Evolutionary theory is that, without oxygen, there would be no protective layer of ozone and so any prebiotic life that did evolve would be bombarded by ultraviolet radiation and destroyed. The fact that our Earth’s atmosphere is oxygenated requires secular scientists to come up with a pathway to get from a prebiotic world without oxygen to the current world of complex life that utilizes oxygen. Many scientists now propose that oxygen-producing photosynthesis first evolved in cyanobacteria – algae – causing oxygen to be introduced into the atmosphere during what they call the Great Oxygenation Event. However, some scientists have pointed out that the presence of any oxygen in the atmosphere would be lethal to emerging life, including the developing algae. Why? Because oxygen is very reactive and will damage DNA and cell proteins, breaking them down. In the beginning, God created living organisms with enzymes that dispose of damaging oxygen as it enters their cells… but life emerging via Evolution would not have had sufficient time to develop these complex enzymes yet. Others explain away this difficulty by claiming that early life first developed mechanisms to deal with various reactive sulfur compounds which, with the appearance of oxygen, were then “tweaked” via evolutionary processes to deal with the presence of oxygen. Once levels of oxygen in the atmosphere increased, secular scientists suggest that more complex organisms must have co-evolved numerous mechanisms to protect themselves from reactive oxygen compounds that would literally bleach the organisms’ proteins and DNA. However, these hypotheses fail to explain how early life survived long enough to develop mechanisms to deal with reactive sulfur compounds in the pre-oxygenated world in the same way that they fail to explain how an organism could survive the rapid damage caused by oxygen long enough for any “tweaking” to take place by the very slow evolutionary processes of mutation and natural selection. The dilemma for scientists promoting Evolution is striking: on the one hand, oxygen forms highly reactive compounds that are destructive to biological life, while on the other hand, scientists contend that complex life could not have evolved without oxygen. Only some of what all needed to happen So, what are the requirements for Earth to be habitable? We’ve hardly named them all, but here’s just some of them: · right planet size, · only one Sun that is stable and the right size, · right distance from the Sun, · a circular not elliptic orbit, · the presence of a Moon of just the right size, · an inclined rotational axis, · a strong magnetic field, · the presence of certain elements in the right proportions – including an oxygen atmosphere of the correct composition, · and a large amount of liquid water. God made our planet perfectly suited to be inhabited (Is. 45:18) and for this He should be praised (Ps. 104:24, Ps. 111:2–4)! Dr. Mark Sandercock is a retired forensic chemist who worked for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is the author of “Foundation: A Biblical Worldview.” This is an abridged extract from Chapter 5. His book is available on Amazon.ca and Amazon.com....

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – May 2026

On logic Sherlock Holmes and his faithful companion Dr. Watson once went on a camping trip. Some hours after they lay down for the night and went to sleep Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars." "What does that tell you?" Holmes asked. Watson pondered for a minute – accompanying Holmes for years had given him countless opportunities to see the power of careful observations, and, as he was no intellectual slouch himself, he thought now might be a good opportunity to put his own keen observational abilities on display. "Well, Holmes, astronomically speaking it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you, Holmes?" "It tells me, Watson, that someone has stolen our tent!" Source: Adapted from a joke making its way around the Internet Simply and truly... There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of "Amazing" when he was born. They gave him the name in the hopes that he would live up to it and achieve great things. But as far as most people were concerned, Amazing never seemed to do anything to live up to his name. He never even got far from where he was born. He worked in the family business, and had some limited – one might even say quite normal or ordinary – success and married his high school sweetheart. While she thought him quite extraordinary, no one else did, and his name left him as the unfortunate butt of countless jokes. These jokes so bothered him that he told his wife that when he died he didn't even want his name put on his tombstone; maybe then the jokes would stop. Well, when Amazing did finally die, his wife honored his request. But she also wanted to have people finally understand how extraordinary her husband had been. So in place of his name she had this inscription placed on the tombstone: "Here lies a man who was loving and faithful to his wife for 60 years."  And now, whenever people walk by, they point and say, "Well, isn't that Amazing!" Source: A joke passed along by my father-in-law Do you like being corrected? David did. We're supposed to love correction. Not throw a fit in response to it, or even stoically accept it. No, we're supposed to love it. Proverbs 9:8 is just one of the texts where God makes this point: Don’t reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. God tells us that reproof is, in fact, a sign that He loves us: "whom the Lord loves, he chastens, And scourges every son whom he receives" (Heb. 12:6). This verse makes good sense to any parent – it's a lot easier to not discipline our kids, to just let it go this time (and the next, and the time after that) but if we love them, then we want to teach them what's wrong and right, and that will necessarily involve reproof of some sort. Still, "love correction" is a hard command to follow, so it struck me when I came across King David's response to the prophet Nathan's rebuke. As you'll recall, Nathan came to David after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered her husband to cover it up (2 Samuel 11-12). Nathan came with condemnation, and a curse. Though David confessed his guilt, Nathan informed the king that the LORD would kill the child that he had conceived with Bathsheba. And the child did die. We would all understand it if David didn't think all that kindly of Nathan after that. But, despite his great sins, David was still a man of God, and he shows this in his response to Nathan's reproof. In 1 Chronicles 3:5 we read that, of the four sons David had with Bathsheba, one was named Nathan! Here, then, is a man who was reproved, and seems to have loved the messenger who brought him that correction. The next time you’re grumpy… I saw this four-step cheer-yourself-up process on my sister-in-law’s social media feed and had to try it out. And it worked! Whisper “beep boop” to yourself. Repeat randomly over the next couple minutes Pinch your nose and say “sneep snop” Nose pinched, say “boopdedoop” in a really deep voice Nose still pinched, say “bubbles” in the angriest voice you can Give it a go and let me know if you find it effective too (the fourth one really gets me). But why does it work? The world often acts as if emotions control us, but God talks about self-control as being a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). There’s a sense too, in what God tells us, of emotions being actions we can do. So we might not be called to feel happy, but we are commanded to rejoice always (Phil. 4:4), and rejoicing is something we can express no matter how we might feel. This involves a person trying to actually control their emotions. And because the attempt is something that lines right up with God’s commands, the fruit that results is good. God’s love comes out in His commandments, such that obeying God is good for us. What is the purpose of your home? Some years back Rev. Peter Moelker wrote a head-clearing piece titled "My home, my idol?" in Faith in Focus. He asked Christians to give their head a shake and really think about why we buy, renovate, paint, scrub, tidy, dust, vacuum and have our homes: "Have you ever sat back and asked yourself the question: 'what is my home really for?' What is its purpose? A place to store our stuff? A museum to be shown to select guests? A fast-food restaurant to prepare quick meals for those who hurriedly pass through? What is the purpose of my home? The Bible tells us that our homes are to be places where children are instructed in the Law of the Lord (Deut. 6:7, 11:19), where the righteous experience the Lord’s blessing (Prov. 3:33), where Christians fellowship and worship God together (Acts 2:46), and where others are invited in to enjoy that same blessing of the Lord (Acts 16:15, 18:26, Romans 12:13, 16:23, 1 Peter 4:9, 3 John 1:8)." We might be embarrassed to have guests over when our home isn't pristine and smelling of lemon-scented Mr. Clean, or when we're having some problems with the night's menu. But if we realize the purpose of our home is for it to be used to the glory of God, rather than presented at its best for our own glory we'll have the proper perspective and not sweat such little stuff. Sola Opus Dei "I guess you could say we’ve been saved by works. His.” - Shai Linne, "Active Obedience" from his album Lyrical Theology Part One Why God can't make a square circle Here’s a trick question atheists pose: "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" If Christians answer yes, then God must not be all-powerful since He can't lift the rock. And if we say no, then it again calls into question God's omnipotence – He must not be all-powerful, because it isn't within His powers to make such a rock. But the question misunderstands what Christians are saying about God when we talk about God's omnipotence. While we claim it is within His power to do anything, we aren't saying it is within His character. There are, in fact, many things God cannot do, because to do them would violate His own character. For example, God is eternal, so He cannot cease to be. He also cannot lie, and cannot abandon His elect. And, for the very same reason – because it would violate His character – He cannot make a rock so big He can't lift it (or make a square circle, or homosexual marriage, etc.). God's character is the very basis for reason and logic, and He will not do anything that would violate the essence of Who He is. Diversity by Rob Slane Up is like down when left is like right Cold may be hot when the day is like night The cat and the dog are the same only when The men are like women and the women like men Celebrate diversity for sure, but recall That small really is small and tall really is tall Calling smiling a frown will not make it a frown Up really is up and down really down Updating a "classic" Have you noticed how grim many nursery rhymes are? Jack goes up a hill to get water and ends up cracking his head, while precariously perched Humpty Dumpty breaks his whole body... irreparably. Years back, I decided I absolutely had to draw the line when I made the mistake of reading "rock-a-bye baby" as a goodnight story to my two-year-old. I quickly made a last-line revision that would be far more conducive to my toddler having a restful – nightmare-free – sleep. This is how my version goes: Rock-a-bye baby, on the treetop, When the wind blows, the cradle will rock, If the bough breaks, the cradle will fall, And Daddy will catch them, cradle and all. On patience “Patience is a quality you admire in the driver behind you, and scorn in the one ahead." “Living would be easier if men showed as much patience at home as they do when they’re fishing.” Source: God’s little instruction book Man vs. beast "...our best moralists tell us to treat other animals well – never dreaming of telling the animals to treat us well!" – C. John Collins explaining how even those who say we came from the animals can't help but acknowledge how distinct we are from them. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Stood strong against the tide of liberalism engulfing the Church ***** One of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century was an American Presbyterian named John Gresham Machen. More than any other individual in the English-speaking world, Machen led the intellectual defense of Biblical Christianity against the attacks of theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Machen was among the top-ranked Biblical scholars of his generation, and he was the point man for conservative Protestantism when it looked like believing the Bible was no longer going to be plausible for educated people. Started OPC & WTS Among Machen’s achievements was the founding of three notable institutions: Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All three of these institutions continue to exist today. One of the most recent biographies of Machen is J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought by Stephen J. Nichols. Nichols recounts Machen’s life and also describes the significance of his books. Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1881. His father was a successful lawyer and his mother came from a well-to-do family in Georgia. She was a staunch Presbyterian and raised her son to love the Bible. He did very well at school and ended up attending Johns Hopkins University. Subsequently he decided to do graduate studies at Princeton University while taking some divinity courses at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS). It’s important to note the historical significance of PTS. That seminary was the leading conservative Protestant seminary in the English-speaking world from about the mid-1800s until 1929 (when it would be taken over by theological liberals). In the latter part of the nineteenth century and initial part of the twentieth century, the best known of the Princeton theologians was Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield the leading defender of Biblical Christianity in his day. Warfield would have a strong influence over Machen, and the two became friends. In the lion's den If this short article has whetted your appetite to learn more about J. Gresham Machen, you'll be interested to know there is a 41-page biography by John Piper available online, for free. Gresham's biography is packaged with 2 others, about John Owen and Athanasius, in Piper's Contending For Our All. A free pdf copy of the book can be downloaded here. During the 1905-1906 academic year, Machen studied in Germany under Wilhelm Herrmann, an influential and articulate theological liberal, who argued, among other things, that it wasn't even vital whether Jesus really lived. Machen’s conservative views were severely challenged at this time, but ultimately he was able to resist Herrmann’s sinister theological perspective. After returning to America, Machen became a professor at PTS, teaching the New Testament. He was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PCUSA in 1914. When the United States finally entered World War One in 1917, Machen volunteered to serve in France with the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), where he would operate a canteen, serving refreshments to French and American soldiers on the front line. Although he didn’t engage in combat himself, he saw the fighting and its effects first hand. You can’t split a rotten church During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the insidious tentacles of theological liberalism were rapidly spreading among the Protestant churches of North America, turning people away from belief in the Bible as a supernatural revelation from God. The stage was being set for a showdown between orthodox believers and the adherents of fashionable unbelief. Machen discussed with B.B. Warfield the possibility of a split in the PCUSA that would separate real Christians from the theological liberals. But as Nichols records, Warfield, seeing the widespread success of liberalism among the leadership of the PCUSA, famously replied, “No, you can’t split rotten wood.” In 1921 Warfield died, and with him (in the estimate of many people) Old Princeton also died as the stalwart defender of theological conservatism. Soon the pack of liberal wolves (in sheep’s clothing, of course) would seize control of the seminary and place it in the service of unbelief. On a more positive note, Machen’s first book entitled The Origin of Paul’s Religion was published in 1921. In each of his books Machen would defend historic, orthodox Christian beliefs against the rising tide of liberalism. Theological liberalism, as Nichols helpfully summarizes it, takes “as a starting point the position that the Bible is not a divinely inspired book, but a human one, deriving from a religious community and traced with legend and myth.” Machen had a thorough knowledge of the current scholarship on the apostle Paul and was able to defend genuine Christianity against its challengers. Christianity and Liberalism Besides being a theology professor and author, Machen was becoming increasingly popular as a speaker at various Christian events. In the theological battle between conservatism and liberalism, Machen was beginning to take center stage as the conservative champion in the academic field. In 1923, his book New Testament Greek for Beginners (a text for learning Biblical Greek) appeared to wide acclaim. It’s still in use today. But it was another of his books published in 1923 that would become his most important: Christianity and Liberalism. “With this book,” Nichols writes, “Machen emerged as the singular spokesperson for the rigorous defense of orthodox Christianity in response to the challenge of liberalism.” It became a classic, clearly demonstrating that historic Christianity and theological liberalism are, in fact, two entirely different religions. Due to his efforts in defense of the truth, Machen received the support and accolades of fellow believers. From some of those on the other side, however, Machen received hate mail. According to Nichols, one liberal sent him a letter addressed to “Prof. of Bigotry” that referred to his “miserable theology” and instructed him to “learn to be a Christian or else get out.” The fall of Princeton Seminary As time went on, momentum was clearly on the side of the liberals within the PCUSA, and in 1929 they managed to “reorganize” the governing board of Princeton in such a way as to give control to liberals. Nichols states that with this development, Machen “was left no real choice but to resign.” As a result, with a small band of supporters he founded Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) in Philadelphia in 1929, with the intent to recreate a seminary in the image of Old Princeton. Among others who left PTS to join with Machen in this endeavor were Cornelius Van Til and John Murray. Some PTS board members also resigned in order to be on the board of WTS, including Samuel Craig, the founder of Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (or, as it is more commonly known today, P&R Publishing) In 1930 Machen produced another significant book, The Virgin Birth of Christ. Liberals, of course, denied that Christ had been born of a virgin because they were unwilling to believe the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nichols writes that this book became “the standard scholarly defense of this crucial, orthodox doctrine for decades to come.” The final battle A decisive showdown between conservatives and liberals in the PCUSA finally occurred in the mid-1930s. In 1933 the PCUSA (along with six other denominations) released an official report entitled Re-Thinking Missions. It “advocated a paradigm shift in missions premised on the notion that Christianity is not the exclusively true religion.” This was the liberal view: Christianity should accommodate people of other religions rather than proselytize them. A battle within the PCUSA ensued between conservatives (led by Machen) who believed that Christianity is the one true religion, and the liberals who were religious pluralists. To make a long story short, the liberals won. In response, Machen founded the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM) so that conservative Presbyterians could give money to missionaries who believed in evangelizing non-Christians. Having a missions board that is not under the authority of the church is not the Biblical ideal, of course, but the intent was good. However, the General Assembly of the PCUSA declared the IBFPM to be unconstitutional and proceeded to discipline its supporters. Nichols notes, On March 29, 1935, making front-page news in The New York Times – "Presbytery to Try Machen as Rebel," ran the headline—Machen was officially defrocked and stripped of his credentials. Machen appealed this decision but his appeal was rejected by the General Assembly in 1936. Then in June 1936, Machen and his supporters founded the Presbyterian Church in America. In 1939 its name was changed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) due to a lawsuit filed by the PCUSA. Machen had a lot of work on his hands as the leading figure of both WTS and the OPC. He was becoming worn out and exhausted. Then in December 1936 he took a train out to North Dakota to help a struggling congregation there. He caught pneumonia and died on January 1, 1937. His death was a tragic loss for the cause of truth. But he had fought a good fight and left numerous books that would help to strengthen believers in their faith. He also left the institutions he founded that would continue to maintain a testimony against theological liberalism. Conclusion Gresham Machen was widely recognized as one of the greatest Christian scholars of his generation. He used his God-given talents, education and social standing to uphold Biblical Christianity in the face of unrelenting attacks from theological liberals who sought to undermine the faith. Machen was the conservative scholar of highest standing in this struggle, and his efforts encouraged many Christians to stand fast for orthodoxy. Of course, Biblical Christianity would have survived even without Machen, but he demonstrated that genuine Biblical scholarship supported the truth of the Bible. The conflict wasn't between educated, intelligent liberals and uneducated, ignorant conservatives as some believed. The liberal scholars could not refute Machen's work. Christians did not need to fear that their religion was being disproven by modern scientific discoveries, as the liberals alleged. In his own way, Machen lifted high the standard of orthodox Christianity, providing a rallying point for those who continued to believe the historic faith. The tide of opinion in his day swirled furiously against Biblical Christianity, but he was a rock against which the waves of unbelief harmlessly broke....

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

Mina and Marco in Egypt Open Doors is a non-denominational mission working in over 60 countries where Christianity is socially or legally discouraged or oppressed. The mission recently reported that last year during Ramadan, two young boys from Egypt watched in horror as their father and other faithful believers were brutally murdered because of their faith in Jesus. The children were passengers on a bus carrying pilgrims on their way to the monastery of St. Samuel. Their father, a security guard at the monastery, was also on the bus. "Deny Jesus, or die," was the choice given to each person. The younger boy, Mina, said: They forced our father to get out of the bus first. The terrorists shouted that he had to convert to Islam. But my father said “no.” Then they shot him. Although the lives of both of the brothers were miraculously spared, the tragic death of their father still plays through their minds on a daily basis. The older son, Marco, vividly recalled his last moments of his father: My father was still breathing. He couldn’t talk anymore, but he wiggled his fingers, signing us to go away. But we didn’t want to leave him there. I leaned my father against my chest. Soon my clothes were soaked with his blood, but I didn’t care. The father of Mina and Marco was a persevering father, a father training his children in the way they should go. It is not at all unusual for parents in North America, or anywhere else in the world, to be concerned about their children’s physical welfare. Moms and dads want their little ones to be warmly dressed, and to have nutritious meals. It is not unusual either for parents to want children to have things to which they themselves did not have access when they were little. These might include piano, flute or violin lessons, or swimming, karate, and soccer practice. As well, and most importantly, parents can, or should be, concerned about the spiritual welfare of their offspring. This encompasses teaching a child to pray, to have personal devotions and to participate in family devotions, to attend church, to understand and practice fasting and to have discussions on, and knowledge of, life after death. Siao-Mei in China Sometimes, strangely enough, it is the other way around – sometimes children encourage parents to be faithful. There is a story told by a man named Amelio Crotti, about the persecution of Christians in China in the 1960s. A mother and her daughter, a child of five, were imprisoned by the Chinese authorities because the mother had protested the arrest of her pastor. Other prisoners in the jail were indignant at seeing a little five-year-old within the confines of the prison especially because the little girl often cried because she was cold and hungry. “Have pity on your small daughter,” they reprimanded the poor mother, “It is quite reasonable for you at this point to agree that you will not go to church any more. There is no doubt in our minds that you must say that you will stop being a Christian so that your child will not have to suffer the degradations which are imposed upon all of us here in prison.” The mother, after listening to the other prisoners for days on end, and beginning to feel very guilty at depriving her child of food, clothing and proper shelter, finally gave in to them. She recanted her faith and was released. Two weeks after her release, however, she was forced by the authorities to stand on a stage in front of some 10,000 people and shout, “I am no longer a Christian.” The little daughter was in the audience when she shouted this denial. Afterwards, on their way home from this horrific and humiliating public confession, the little girl spoke to her mother. “Mother, today I think that Jesus was not too happy with what you said.” Her mother replied, “I only said those words because I love you. You wept in prison because you were hungry and cold. I wanted you to be warm. I wanted to take you away from that misery.” The little girl, whose name was Siao-Mei, smiled as she answered at her mother, “I promise you that if we go to jail again for Jesus’ sake, that I will not weep.” Ashamed that she had denied her Savior, the mother went back to the prison and told the people who had arrested her that she had acted wrongly, that her love for Jesus was greater than anything the earth could offer, and that her daughter had more courage and strength of character than she herself had. As a result, both mother and child were imprisoned again. Only this time the little girl did not cry at the cold and the hunger. Both mother and child persevered and trusted God. Leah Sharibu in Nigeria There are other stories. On the evening of February 19, 2018, more than one hundred girls were sitting down together for a meal at a secondary school in the town of Dapchi, Nigeria. As they sat around the dining table, gunshots were heard outside. It was very frightening for the young girls, especially when a bullet hit the front of their building. As the sound of the gunshots increased in volume and frequency, the Christians among the girls decided to hold hands and run away. They were very aware that they were probable targets. Teachers saw them running and tried to stop and reassure the frightened girls. But the sound of the gunshots was growing closer. Continuing their escape, the girls made for the dormitory of a Christian friend – a girl named Leah Sharibu. Upon reaching her building, they called out loudly for her to come. Leah was caring for a sick roommate. Aware of the danger, however, both for herself and the roommate, she heeded her friends’ warning. Not willing to leave her sick friend alone, Leah tried to carry the girl. Running with her burden as best she could towards the fence surrounding the school, she often tripped and fell. The sick girl eventually persuaded Leah to put her down, and managed to make it to the staff quarters on her own. But Leah herself, and some of the other students, continued to head for the fence gate through which they hope to obtain safety. Unfortunately, this was precisely the place where the Boko Haram truck was parked. Leah was one of the girls captured and put on the truck. Many of the other girls hid in the thick bushes behind the school. They hid throughout the night until a teacher found them the following day. By then the terrorists, with Leah and other young captured women, were gone. Many parents arrived to ascertain the safety of their children that morning. There were both tears of happiness when parents embraced the daughters who were at school, and tears of anguish for those parents whose daughters had been taken prisoner by Boko Haram. Leah’s mother, Rebecca Sharibu had also come. Rebecca lived in the town of Dapchi. It had been a very long night for her as she had been informed by a friend that some of the students had been abducted. As soon as she was able in the early morning hours, by the light of a torch, she walked to the school. And she prayed as she walked. When she came to the school, she stood among a crowd of other parents. She silently watched ecstatic reunions as girls who had hidden were joyfully embraced. Leah was not one of those girls. The school chaplain took roll call and Leah was the only Christian girl missing. At this point, mixed messages began to come in and government officials confessed that they were really not sure where exactly the kidnapped girls had been taken. It was not until about a month later, on March 21, 2018, that Rebekah was told that Boko Haram had returned the girls they had stolen from the school. But at the hospital where the released girls had been taken for treatment, Rebekah could not find her daughter. Speaking to some of Leah’s classmates, she learned what had happened. Knowing she was a Christian, the terrorists had ordered Leah to recite some Islamic incantations before she would be allowed onto the truck to be taken home. The girl adamantly refused and said: “I will never say these things because I am not a Muslim.” Becoming angry, the captors had threatened Leah that if she wouldn’t denounce Christ, she would remain a prisoner. This threat did not daunt her faith. She steadfastly refused to deny Christ. The other girls watched as Leah was left behind, a prisoner of Boko Haram. They cried and waved to her until they could not see her any longer. When Rebekah heard how her daughter had been left behind, she fainted and was taken to the hospital. Yet there was a joy in her as she recovered from the shock. For years she had led Leah in devotions each morning, instructing her daughter in the Word of God. Her daughter was now bearing the fruit of these devotions – fruit for the Lord. Rebekah consequently said: I am so proud of my Leah because she did not denounce Christ. And because of that, I know God will never forsake her. When she went away to school, I gave her a copy of the Bible so she could have personal devotions even when I am not there. As her mother, I know her to be an obedient daughter, respectful and someone who puts others before herself. Leah surely epitomizes Proverbs 22:6 made flesh. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” There are, and due to God's grace there always will be, many persevering fathers, mothers and children – many who cause us to remember that: …. since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider Him Who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Hebrews 12:1-3) As of May 11, 2026, Leah continues to be a captive in the hands of cruel Boko Haram. Please pray for her. This article was first published in the July/Aug 2018 issue of the magazine....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

Do we "like" sin?

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Contests, Photos 2026

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

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

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.
Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

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

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....

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