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!

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:

  1. 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;
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one word: lust. As far as it goes, this is true. But we need to get behind that word, so to speak, to find out what we actually mean by it. A good place to start is by studying the words of James in his Epistle: “From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? You lust and have not. You kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain. You fight and war, yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:1-3). I have highlighted out three phrases here, because it seems to me that they are key to understanding lust (and incidentally not just lust, but all sorts of other sins that James alludes to). Now, I don’t always use the King James Version but did here, because it uses the word “lust” where other translations use “passions” or “desires.” “Lust” gives the better flavoring here, because while desires and passions can be both good or bad, lust is what happens when passions and desires go awry, which is what is happening here. Lust, according to James, is at root a desire to have something that we haven’t got and which isn’t rightfully ours, to seek to obtain it but always fall wide of the mark, and consequently to fail to be satisfied. It is a vicious circle in which failure to obtain the satisfaction we desire drives us to seek it again in other places. This, by the way, at least partly explains why pornography, as with drugs, is often a gateway habit, with users going on to seek harder and harder stuff in order to be satisfied. But of course true satisfaction never comes. Sexual desire isn’t bad, until porn twists it Like all other vices, pornography is driven by the twisting of good and noble inclinations in a direction to which they were never meant to go. Pardon the pun, but there are no “original sins.” There is “Original Sin,” but there are no “original sins” in the sense of actions that are entirely thought up by the devil or by man with no reference to God. Rather, all sins are perversions and mockeries of something good that God has given to man. Imagine a father who buys his son a toy drum, only to later find him using the stick to whack his little sister. The stick was meant to be whacked. It was meant to beat something. But it wasn’t meant to beat people. And so, although some of the actions involved are nearly identical to what the stick was meant to be used for, in his mind and in his actions he has twisted it out of all recognition so that it is now actively used for vastly different purposes than the one intended. This is how pornography works. God has given us the good and noble inclination to want to be satisfied. Physiologically, he has given most of us the good and noble need to be sexually satisfied. Why do I call it good and noble? Because it is the consummation of and the most intimate part of the marriage relationship, which the writer to the Hebrews tells us is honorable (Hebrews 13:4). And without it, humanity would die. What pornography does it to take this God-given desire for satisfaction, and the physiological need for fulfillment, and wrench it out of all recognition, fixing the gaze on another object than the one intended. Twisted, it can’t satisfy Yet the irony is that by using the gifts that God has given us for entirely different and incompatible purposes than the ones intended, we find that fulfillment eludes. If the sexual drive was created to lead us towards intimacy, how can pornography, which is entirely non-relational and involves people who have never even met, fulfill? The answer, as hinted at by James, is that it can’t. To the extent that it appears to users to provide some fulfillment, it does so only in the way that scratching an itch does – entirely temporary relief, but with the catch that when the itch returns, it will be even harder to appease than before. Herein lies the pornography trap. We are designed to find fulfillment in a real relationship, but it is partly the fact that pornography is non-relational that makes it so appealing. Relationships are hard. Life is often a monotonous routine. Living with another sinner is often far from easy. But as for the people in the pictures or the video, you don’t need to worry about their sins. You don’t need to live with them and deal with their issues day after day. And so the thrill and excitement of being taken out of normal life into some fantasy world where real satisfaction apparently resides can become intoxicating. No faithfulness is required to obtain satisfaction there. No commitment is required to achieve satisfaction there. No dealing with another person in an ongoing relationship is required to get satisfaction there. And yet the irony is that true, lasting satisfaction is the one thing it can never bring. Lots of reasons to stop, one remedy What then is the remedy? That might seem like an odd question. Surely I’m not about to suggest that there is one remedy for all of this? Actually I am. There are plenty of reasons and inducements for somebody who has a pornography habit to break it, but ultimately there is only one remedy, which I’ll come on to that in a moment. But first here are some reasons and inducements. 1. Come to see how much it dehumanizes, both yourself and others Pornography is by its very nature dehumanizing. Not just for the people who make it, but also for the one viewing it. By its nature it objectifies and commoditizes people, which means that if you are a user of pornography, you are both an objectifier and commoditiser of people. That’s not a good thing to be. 2. Understand that it cannot bring you the satisfaction you desire As mentioned, the use of pornography is rooted in a desire to be satisfied. Yet as any counselor of those with a porn habit will tell you, it has never yet brought anyone true joy or lasting happiness. If you are looking for satisfaction in something which demonstrably cannot bring you what you are looking for, it’s probably a good time to question whether you are seeking satisfaction in the right places. 3. Recognize how ridiculous it looks There’s something to be said for just sometimes stepping out of yourself and your circumstances, so to speak, and looking at what it is you are actually doing. What do you call fantasizing about having some sort of sexual encounter with a person you’ve never met, never will meet, and if you did meet them it would never take place? Isn’t it about as absurd a scenario as it’s possible to conjure up? 4. Stop referring to your habit as an addiction The word addiction has become one of the most abused words of our day, and is often used as an excuse for responsibility avoidance. While I have no doubt that pornography produces certain chemicals in the brain that can take a powerful hold on us, the idea that we become passive victims is not borne out either biblically or practically. Biblically, pornography falls into the category of sexual immorality, and Scripture is plain that this is a sin that we should avoid, can avoid, and must avoid, chemicals notwithstanding. Practically, the fact that many “porn addicts” break their “addiction” shows that, though undoubtedly hard, it can be done. “Porn addiction” is in reality a “porn habit,” and it is there to be broken with willpower and determination. 5. God tells us that those who don’t break with it will be excluded from the Kingdom of God In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul says this: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Despite the wonderfully elaborate attempts of many modern Christians to ignore, twist, deny, camouflage or dispute much of this, there it is. Seems pretty clear to me. Make of it what you will. The solution? No half measures Yet finally, as I mentioned above, whilst these are all good reasons and inducements to break the porn habit, they are not the remedy itself. What is that then? Biblically speaking there is only one, which is this: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). That’s it. All the reasons and inducements in the world will not help the user of porn to break his or her porn habit unless they are prepared to do the one thing necessary. Flee from it. Don’t walk, run. Don’t dabble, don’t skirt along the edges, don’t case furtive looks. Get away from it. Have nothing to do with it. This article was first published in Reformed Perspective in the July/Aug 2017 issue of the magazine. Rob Slane lives with his wife and six children in Salisbury, England, about 90 minutes drive from Wales. He is the author of A Christian and Unbeliever discuss Life, the Universe, and Everything and contributes to the Samaritan Ministries blog where a version of this article first appeared under the title "The pornification of society, part 2."...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism project

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Church history, People we should know

There was a man: Ulrich Zwingli

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

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.
Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Step 1. Figure out what you’re really trying to say Step 2. Don’t let anyone or anything distract you from saying it ***** Scott Klusendorf is a full-time pro-life apologist, which means he gets screamed at a lot. One of the more common squawks goes something like this: “You aren’t pro-life; you’re just pro-birth! You want to tell women what they can do with their bodies, and don’t give a rip what happens to the kid after it’s born!” How would you respond? God tells us that sometimes silence is the best response. He warns us that trying to be heard over a red-faced, spittle-spewing, murder-marketer’s screams will only make us look just as foolish (Prov. 26:4). But what about when the accuser really wants a response? What about when there is a listening audience gathered round? How should we answer then? We could point to the pro-lifers we know who donate to, or volunteer at, pregnancy centers. We could list everyone we know who’ve adopted or fostered children. And for good measure we might mention the way our churches care for the elderly and the sick, and the unemployed, and just generally show love for our born neighbors too. If we’re feeling feisty, we might even go on the offensive and ask, “How much time and money do you donate to care for others?” knowing that the typical critic is doing nothing or next to it. That’s an answer that might shut them up. But it’s not the answer Scott Klusendorf gives. He goes a different direction because he understands the abortion debate is largely one of truth versus, not simply lies, but evasion. The other side doesn’t want to debate whether the unborn are precious human beings like you and I; instead they sidetrack the discussion to any other topic. They’ll talk about how poor some mothers are, and how unwanted some babies are. They’ll attack men for daring to speak on the issue. In the latest pro-abortion stunt, groups of women will parade around in red dresses patterned after victims’ attire in a dystopian novel about political leaders who get away with ritual rape. The accusation that loving unborn babies is akin to rape is as bizarre as it is repugnant. But as much as insults hurt, they don’t do the same damage as suction machines. That’s why our focus has to be on the unborn, and sharing where their worth comes from. As much as abortion advocates want to sidetrack the issue, we can’t let them divert us from highlighting how our country’s smallest citizens are being murdered. How do we stay on message? By absorbing the insult. If they want to argue that pro-lifers don’t give a rip about children once they are born, we can grant their point and play a game of “what if…” Klusendorf’s response to attacks goes something like this: “What if I was the cold-hearted jerk you’re making me out to be? What if I was the worst human being in the world? How does me being a jerk have any impact on the humanity of the unborn?” When Kristan Hawkins, president of the Students for Life of America, was asked why pro-lifers weren’t offering solutions for the foster-care crisis she played the “what if” game too. What if the accusation was true? What if pro-lifers were only concerned with the unborn? She asked her accuser: “Are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?” She continued: “There is no other act of violence that kills more people every single day in America and across the world, than abortion. There’s nothing wrong with me fighting, and spending 100% of my time doing it. Just like there’s nothing wrong with the American Diabetes Association putting 100% of their money, their research and time behind curing Juvenile Diabetes…. The reality is, you don’t really care what I do. That I support children in third world countries. Or that I might be volunteering in a soup kitchen....  It’s just an argument to stop the actual discussion from happening, which is that abortion is a moral wrong and it should be stopped.” There’s an old joke about a pastor who, in his sermon’s margins, wrote: ”Point weak here; thump pulpit harder.” The world has no strong points, so they have to pound the podium till they bleed, shrieking their insults to try to drown out the Truth. They don’t want to have the debate. We can’t let them distract us from it. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism explains, we’re on Earth to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. When we make His glory our first concern, we won’t sweat it when someone attacks our name – that won’t stop us from talking about God’s Truth. When we’re enjoying His love we won’t worry about having the world’s approval – that can’t stop us from defending unborn children made in His image. And when we recognize the world only hates us because they hated Him first (John 15:18) we will rejoice in the good company we are keeping. This article was first published in the May/June 2019 issue of the magazine....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Real Talk: Lead with intention or lose the mission

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

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

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.
Science - Creation/Evolution

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

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Some is better than none “There is nothing wrong with starting a hefty book like Calvin’s Institutes and only getting a hundred pages read. Think what the Church today would be like if we all read the first hundred pages of Calvin.” – Ben House What kind of impact will you have? Whether it is municipal, provincial, or federal, there always seems to be an election just around the corner and Tim Bloedow’s way to influence these elections is worth considering. Some years ago he passed on a strategy he’d gleaned from one Dr. Glenn Martin. The professor was convinced that every serious Christian should try to influence the vote of at least 100 people. He himself wasn’t satisfied unless he attempted to influence at least 1,000. This was back before social media was much of a thing, so he would write these 1,000 people and tell them how they should vote and why. We’ve got more means now than he did then, so this next election can we have that kind of impact? A brief rebuttal of post-modernism “Some of you may believe that you cannot discover Truth. If this is true, you have actually discovered a truth. You might as well continue searching for more.” - Thor Ramsey, A Comedian’s Guide to Theology How much do our children owe? Parents try to leave their children with an inheritance, not debt (Prov. 13:22), but Canada continues to debt-finance their federal and provincial government budgets. They spend money they don’t have to pay for promises made to this present generation. But while this generation gets more than they paid for, the next generations will be saddled with paying off the more than $2.3 trillion combined debt of our federal and provincial governments. Individually what we owe differs some, depending on what province we live in, but according to the Fraser Institute, even in Alberta it amounts to $41,000 per person, and it rises to nearly $69,000 per Newfoundlander. So what’s a billion… or a trillion? When our debt is in trillions that’s pretty hard to fathom. So let’s start with a smaller number and see if we can wrap our heads around it. Just how much then, is one billion? Well… • A North American’s average age expectancy is 2-3 billion seconds • A billion liters would fill 400 Olympic-size swimming pools • 170 African bull elephants weigh the equivalent of one billion grams • A bit over one billion minutes ago Jesus walked the Earth And what’s a trillion? Dr. D. James Kennedy did an interesting bit of calculating in his book The Mortgaging of America. He notes that, “if you had gone into business when Jesus Christ was born – a business that was so unprofitable that… you lost a million dollars a day, seven days a week, it would still take you 700 more years from today to lose a trillion dollars.” The log in our own eye When the London Times asked notable personalities across Britain to write on what they thought was wrong with the world, they purportedly got this response from author G.K. Chesterton: “Dear Sirs, I am. Yours truly, G.K. Chesterton.” Fcat or foitcin? An email mkanig its way ronud the Ietrnent calims: It deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are. The olny iprmotnant tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it woutiht a porbelm. Tish is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed eervy ltteer by istelf, but the wrod as a wohle. Azamnig, huh? But is it ture? Yes and no. Lsat lteerts are irtomanpt but wehn the wdros we raed are lses flaimiar or qtiue lhtgney or rbleemse oehetr wdors it bmoeecs duicflift to urnneadtsd eevn wtih frsit and lsat lterets paceld ctlrcroey. Parental dictionary If words were defined just for parents: bathroom: used by the entire family, believed by all except mom to be self-cleaning feedback: what you get when your baby doesn't appreciate dinner grandparents: people who think your children are wonderful even though they're not sure you're raising them right independent: how we want our children to be, as long as they do everything we say ow: the first word spoken by children with older siblings puddle: a small body of water that draws other small bodies, wearing dry shoes, into it show-off: a child more talented than your own sterilize: done to your first baby's pacifier by boiling it and your last baby's pacifier by blowing on it sweater: garment worn by child when its mother is feeling chilly top bunk: bed where you should never put a child wearing Superman pajamas Some choices are wicked When American abortionist George Tiller was murdered in 2009, pro-life leaders knew that whatever they said in response would be misinterpreted by the media. That left most too cautious to speak out, but it pushed columnist Ann Coulter to do so. In an interview with Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly she talked about the murder using rhetoric that pro-abortionists use to justify killing the unborn. She started by telling O’Reilly that she didn’t like thinking of Tiller’s death as murder, preferring instead to call it “terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” O’Reilly, misunderstanding what Coulter was doing, started to protest, which prompted Coulter to take it further, putting a twist on another well-known bit of abortion rhetoric. “I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists,” she told O’Reilly, “but I don't want to impose my moral values on others.” Putting her own spin on a best-selling pro-abortion bumper sticker she told viewers, “If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot an abortionist.” When abortionists bring up issues like “privacy,” “choice,” or “imposing morality” on others, they’re trying to evade the only relevant issue in the abortion debate: are the unborn human beings? If they aren’t, then no one should object to abortion; if they are, then everyone should! But instead of arguing this issue, abortionists avoid the debate entirely using slogans that assume what they are trying to prove – that the unborn aren’t human. Coulter exposed this evasion by showing how their slogans make no sense when applied to an acknowledged human being, abortionist George Tiller. Seamus Coughlin attacks the "personally opposed" evasion in the video below (which is cartoon, so some of the brutal is taken away, but it still should not be watched with kids around). ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

When there is smoke…

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

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