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

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!



Apologetics 101

What Truth sounds like: sometimes calm isn’t appropriate

Some years back, Justin Trudeau made it a requirement that all Liberal MPs had to support abortion. MP Lawrence MacAulay had, to that point, been known as pro-life, but he indicated, via a series of tweets, that he would follow his party leader Justin Trudeau's new requirement for his MPs. MacAulay wrote:

"I'd like to clarify my comments to The Guardian the other day. I am personally pro-life, and have long held these beliefs; however I accept and understand the party position regarding a woman's right to choose. Despite my personal beliefs, I understand that I will have to vote the party position should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons."

Broadly speaking, there are two sides of the abortion debate:

  1. those who know it is a baby and recognize that this is a life and death situation
  2. those who don't understand (or at least claim not to understand) that abortion ends the life of a precious human being

But there is a third group. This group is made up of those who know it is a child, know it is a life and death situation, and knowingly advocate for death.

This is the group Lawrence MacAulay joined. He called himself "personally pro-life," so he understands a life is involved. And yet, knowing what he knows, MacAulay pledged support for the murder of 100,000 Canadian children each year. This is the most indefensible of all positions – the most outrageous stand of all.

So how should we respond when someone in public office takes such an outrageous position? We can write about them to the local paper, and we can write to them via an email or letter, and when we do, we should then be civil…but we should not be calm!

Calm isn't appropriate

We communicate things in how we say them, just as much as by what we say. That's why when we sing to God, it should be with gusto – mouthing the words, even if they are wonderful words, sends a mixed message, or simply doesn't praise Him at all.

In the same way, a calm, quiet response to Lawrence MacAulay's betrayal wouldn't match up with what he'd done. The confusion he created certainly cost children their lives. Any young woman who was considering abortion at the time who then heard this professedly pro-life MP agree to support abortion would have had to understand this as an acknowledgment that abortion isn’t really a life or death matter – it can’t be if he’s not even willing to take a stand. That's the implicit message he spread.

And in how we respond, there’ll be an implicit message sent in how we say what we say. So if someone is promoting the slaughter of the unborn, we can't talk to him like we would if he was proposing an increase in the GST by a per cent or two. (Sadly, if MacAulay had done that, he'd probably have gotten more heated responses than he ever got for his tweets.) This isn't about money, but about lives, so if our response doesn't have some heat in it, we're not doing it right.

Does that mean we should just go off on him? SHOULD WE TYPE OUR LETTER IN ALL CAPS? Should we call him every name in the book?

Of course not.

But we should use powerful words. We should use clear words even though we know they will offend. There is no getting around offending someone in this situation - people will get offended when you confront them about the blood on their hands. But we should not offend him with spurious insults, or with demeaning talk.

Here is the letter I wrote this MP at the time:

Dear MP Lawrence MacAulay,

As a pro-life citizen, I don’t appreciate your party leader's stance. But your recent tweets left me more disappointed in you than him. Justin Trudeau, at least, can pretend he doesn’t know better. But why are you personally pro-life?

Of course the answer to that is simple – you know it is a baby. So let’s look back at what you tweeted and insert in your own pro-life perspective. Here then, is what you really said:

"I'd like to clarify my comments to the Guardian the other day. I am personally against the killing of unborn babies and have long held these beliefs; however I accept and understand the party position regarding a women's right to choose to kill her unborn baby. Despite my personal belief against killing babies, I understand that I will have to vote to kill unborn babies – my party's position – should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons."

Being personally pro-life and yet politically pro-choice is the most damnable of all positions in the abortion debate. It means you know what is going on, but don’t have the courage to act. Please reconsider.

Jon Dykstra

If I were to have a second go at it, I would have started differently. "Don't appreciate" and "disappointed" aren't the sort of terms you use to tell someone to stop promoting mass murder – far too relaxed.

However, I'm not sharing this as an example of some perfect letter. There is no such thing, so that shouldn't be our standard. But it is worth reflecting on what we could improve on for next time.

While my beginning could have been better, I got the right tone in the second half. No euphemisms, nothing to minimize what he is doing. My tone matches my message – the words I use bring with them a brutal clarity: this is killing children – this is damnable.

Conclusion

Christians are too often too calm. We live in a crazy culture in which there is a right to murder unborn babies; murder is also being touted as a “treatment” for the elderly, sick, disabled, and maybe soon even the mentally ill; and adults and even children are being told they are the wrong gender and that the fix is to have healthy body parts mutilated. That is crazy!

But too often our tone and the word choices we use simply don't match the overall claim that we are making. Can we talk of being "disappointed" or not "appreciating" the actions of a man like Lawrence MacAulay and really expect to convince our fellow Canadians that 300 children a day are being slaughtered in our country? That's not the right vocabulary. Back in 2014, at this same time that MacAulay was issuing his tweets, three Mounties were murdered in Moncton, N.B., and the newspapers were filled with words like "heartbreaking," "horror," and "grief-stricken." Those are the kinds of words we use in the face of a travesty.

How we sound does matter. If we're going to convincingly communicate the truth of what's being done to the unborn, the elderly, and the gender-confused, we need to talk like we mean it. Instead of being "disappointed," we need to be "devastated." Instead of being "regretful," we should be "shocked."

A deeper problem might lie not in our vocabulary and how we talk, but in our hearts and how we feel. It is hard to speak about being outraged when we aren't actually outraged. Apathy is understandable in the face of an evil like abortion that is decades old, or even an evil like transgender mutilation, which is mostly happening to people we don’t even know. But apathy in the face of evil is also sinful. If we speak of being disappointed because that's all the passion we can muster, then we need more than a change of vocabulary – we need a change of heart.

Please forgive us our apathy Lord. Please turn around those who love the shedding of blood. And please, Lord, save the children and adults who are being killed and mutilated!

A version of this article first appeared in the July/August 2014 issue.



News

Saturday Selections – Sept 13, 2025

On the death of Charlie Kirk

American Christian and conservative leader Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on Wednesday. Kirk (1993-2025) wasn't as remarkable for what he said (though he did get things mostly right) as he was for how he spoke up (boldly, as a grateful child of God) and for where he was willing to go. Kirk made dozens and dozens, and maybe hundreds, of appearances – captured as YouTube clips – on campuses across the United States. He'd set up a booth and take on any and all questions from liberal students who, it so often seemed, had never even heard an intelligent conservative Christian speak before. It was at one of these events that he was murdered.

The link above goes to a collection of articles, assembled by Tim Challies, reflecting on Kirk's assassination. The video below is of Kirk stepping up for the unborn. May Kirk's courage inspire many more Christian young men to be just as strong and courageous (Joshua 1).

Tim Challies, on how to write a great book review...

...which is a great primer for writing a book review for Reformed Perspective too. If you've got a great book you'd like to review, let us know.

Organ transplant investigations expose grisly stories of patient abuse

This is an American story, but one that should concern Canadians because in our murder-as-medicine MAiD-approving country, wouldn't it be all the more likely that a dying patient might be euthanized for their organs?

Taming technology (10 min. read)

Some real help on offer here for families who want to rethink how technology is taking over their home.

How to face apparent contradictions in the Bible

Michael Kruger has three tips to deal with passages in the Bible that seem contradictory:

1) don't be scared of them
2) don't apply today's conventions to yesterday's writers
3) be humble and patient: that we don't have an explanation now doesn't mean there isn't one, or that it won't show up later

My Soul Among Lions, Psalm 2

I remain fascinated at the many very different, great treatments that can be given to the Psalms.....


Today's Devotional

September 15 - Resurrection

“…even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.” - Ephesians 2:5 

Scripture reading: John 11:17-28

When our Lord Jesus Christ raised his friend Lazarus from the dead after having been dead for four days, the Jewish leaders had a serious problem on their hands. No one can be raised from the dead and >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

The life of Thanksgiving

Serving #966 of Manna, prepared by D. VandeBurgt, is called "The life of Thanksgiving" and is based on Romans 12:1.















Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

Separating Christianity from politics

The agenda of “Christian” secularists ***** This first appeared in the June 2013 issue. It wasn't the only reason, but it was biggest – when abortion was legalized in Canada in 1969, and in the US in 1973, North American Christians got heavily involved in politics. And as they did, they were criticized for "violating the separation of church and state." The other side – the secular humanists – used this jargon to try to delegitimize the Christian opposition to their agenda. The accusation that Christian activism violates the separation of church and state is simply false. The church and the state are separate institutions, and they remain entirely separate even when Christians engage society from an explicitly Christian perspective. Christians are citizens and have just as much right to participate in society and politics as anyone else. While it’s not hard to understand why secularists don't want Christians bringing their faith with them into the political realm, it is a mystery as to why some Christians will also accuse explicitly Christian politicians and political activists of violating the separation of church and state. One such example is the book A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State by Darryl G. Hart. This book is noteworthy because Hart is a well-known elder in the OPC. He speaks for a constituency within the OPC and other conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America. Religion out of politics = impossible The basic thrust of this book is perhaps best stated by one of the endorsements on its dust jacket. Respected Christian historian Mark Noll writes, “Darryl Hart is a serious Christian who wants to get religion out of politics.” It’s important to notice the difference between two different concepts specified here. Hart’s book title talks about the separation of church and state. Noll’s description of the book mentions getting “religion out of politics.” These are not the same thing. The separation of church and state refers to organizational and functional separation between two entirely different institutions. The separation of church and state is a good thing and it is Biblical because the Bible establishes both the church and the state as separate entities with different purposes and functions. Separating religion from politics is a completely different matter. Religion is (generally speaking) a belief system whereas politics consists of activities associated with the government. Separation of religion and politics is impossible, because all political activity is based on ethical concepts that are rooted in religious ideas. When someone is discussing these kinds of issues, and switches back and forth between “separation of church and state” and “separation of religion and politics” as if the two concepts meant the same thing (like Hart does in this book), confusion is the result – confusion in the reader’s mind to be sure and one wonders if it also reflects confusion or fuzzy thinking in the writer’s mind. Back to when faith “knew its place” Towards the beginning of the book Hart states his purpose this way: "My argument is that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless for resolving America’s political disputes, thus significantly reducing, if not eliminating, the dilemma of how to relate Christianity and American politics." Christianity, in his view, is a private, personal religion. You practice your Christianity in your family and your church, but certainly not in the political sphere. Hart claims that those who advocate a distinctly Christian approach to politics are being unbiblical. His purpose is to straighten them out: "I want those advocates of Christianity’s public role and political responsibility to take seriously Jesus Christ’s own words when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." At one time in American history, sixty or so years ago, evangelical Protestants knew that those words involved an ambivalence about the rulers and principalities of this world. Now otherworldliness seems a fossil of an older time when faith knew its place." Christ Himself said that His kingdom “is not of this world.” Therefore, in Hart’s view, Christ’s kingdom has nothing to do with government and politics. Christianity is ambivalent about politics. As Hart sees it, Christianity needs to become otherworldly again and get back in “its place,” that is, in the closet rather than in the public arena. In arguing thusly, Hart recognizes that he is advocating a view at odds with John Calvin. As he puts it, "To say that using Christianity for political purposes is a distortion of the faith is, of course, to dissent not only from Jerry Falwell or Jim Wallis but also from much more significant church luminaries, from parts of John Calvin to the encyclicals of John Paul II." His position, then, consciously differs from the evangelical position, the historic Reformed position, as well as the Roman Catholic position. American history and the errors of Christendom Much of his book recounts aspects of American history. In considering his own country’s history, Hart is puzzled that American Protestants “came to regard the Ten Commandments” as “the assumed source of virtue and morality for decent Americans.” Apparently he sees the Ten Commandments as only applicable to the church. He just can’t understand why any Christians would think otherwise: "That American Protestants thought their exclusive faith could provide the moral standard for a republic conceived in religious neutrality is one of the more surprising twists in the history of biblical religion." Actually, it’s not surprising at all. The vast majority of citizens in the new republic were Protestants, and it would have been unthinkable that public moral standards would be anything other than Christian standards. Historically, most Protestants did not believe that Christianity should be divorced from political affairs, as Hart advocates. Hart believes that Protestant theology in the United States went wrong right from the start. The Puritan founders of America and their theological descendants “repeated the errors of Christendom” by thinking that Christian ethical norms applied to government and society, rather than just the church. These “errors” were then perpetuated down through the country’s history. American Protestant theology was fundamentally flawed because it saw an active role for Christians as Christians in the social and political affairs of the nation. In contrast to that “flawed” view, Hart warmly describes the perspective of a nineteenth century Presbyterian minister named Stuart Robinson. For Robinson, "The kingdom was narrowly religious, located ordinarily within the affairs and ministry of the church, the place where it was appropriate for citizens of the divine kingdom to confess that, "Jesus Christ is Lord." The civil realm, as such, was not a site of Christian activity and should not be." In this respect, Robinson offered a corrective to the dominant view that Christianity was relevant to all of life, including public affairs. The “reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty” Hart points out that many Christians believe that Christ is Lord of all, and therefore He is also the Lord of government and politics. He brushes that argument aside: “The all-or-nothing logic inherent in appeals to the Lordship of Christ,” Hart writes, “fails to do justice to the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era.” In the Old Testament, Israel had a political as well as a spiritual component. In the New Testament, the church had an exclusively spiritual focus. Christ no longer carried any political authority. "The Lordship of Christ, then, was in the Christian era to be seen and employed within the institutional church. The state’s affairs were to be rendered to the state." Or, in other words, Christ rules the church but not the state; He is not the Lord of the state. This may seem to diminish our view of Christianity, but Hart says just the opposite is true. The really important things are the specifically spiritual things such as the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life. This is what Christianity is really all about, and as a result, political activism detracts from the key message of Christianity. As he puts it, “the argument of this book is that using the Christian faith as the basis for culture or politics, by seemingly making it so important, actually trivializes Christianity.” So in his view he is actually defending Biblical Christianity against a warped version of the faith, namely, a version of Christianity that sees it as applying to all areas of life, rather than just the specifically spiritual matters that are most important: "The question pursued in this book has been whether Christian-inspired policy, arguments, or candidates are appropriate on Christian grounds. My conclusion is that such involvement is inappropriate, because using Christianity for political ends fundamentally misconstrues the Christian religion." Failure of the secular position Hart is right about the priority of spiritual matters, of course. It is true that our individual relationship with God is much more important than political affairs. But his main point that Christianity is basically irrelevant to government and politics is simply wrong. Consider just one Scripture passage, Romans 13:1-7. In this passage the civil ruler is said to be “God's servant for your good.” He is also “an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.” Hart would, of course, agree with this, i.e., that the civil government is established by God. But here’s the rub: the civil ruler must distinguish between good and evil in order to carry out his duties. How will he know what is good and what is evil? As “God’s servant,” he will need to look to the Word of God. Where else does God indicate what is good and what is evil? Therefore, if the civil ruler must look to the Bible to fulfill his God-assigned task, Christianity is immediately relevant (essential, in fact) to government and politics. Hart’s effort to divorce Christianity from government and politics comes crashing down. Another problem is Hart’s support for “religious neutrality” in the public arena. Religious neutrality suggests that Christianity must play no role in politics and government. What does this mean for pressing issues like same-sex marriage and abortion? What is the “neutral” position on same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing. Is allowing babies to be killed “neutral”? Or is forbidding them from being killed “neutral”? The idea of a position on abortion being neutral is absurd. Obviously, neutrality is impossible. Conclusion In a book of over 250 pages on the role of Christianity in politics, Hart does not even discuss the issues of homosexual rights and abortion. My fear is that he avoids those issues because the so-called “neutral” view looks a lot like the secular humanist view. In fact, Hart’s whole argument that Christianity is a private affair that should be kept out of the public arena dovetails extremely well with the secular humanist position. But if the Christian worldview is kept out of politics and government the result will not be neutrality, it will be a non-Christian (or even anti-Christian) worldview carrying the day....





Red heart icon with + sign.
Religion - Pentecostal

What do Pentecostals believe about the miraculous spiritual gifts?

What do Pentecostals believe? That's quite the question – how does one fairly and accurately describe the beliefs of a group that numbers in the hundreds of millions? Turn that tables and imagine for a moment that a Charismatic magazine – let's say, Pentecostal Perspective – tried describing what it meant to be a Reformed Christian. That would be tough too. If their focus was too narrow they might investigate the Christian Reformed Church and conclude being Reformed means having women ministers. Or maybe they would drop by some Free Church of Scotland congregations and decide that being Reformed meant doing without instrumental accompaniment, or conversely, after attending a Canadian Reformed service, conclude organs seem to be a Reformed requirement. Definition So we don't want to get lost in the differences that exist between different Pentecostal denominations. We'll keep our focus quite broad here (although that has its own problems) and stick to the one universally-held Pentecostal belief – that the miraculous spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy, that were a part of the Apostolic Church, continue to be a part of the Church today. These "continuationists" or "charismatic" believers also exist in other denominations, so this belief isn't unique to Pentecostals. But it is uniquely foundational to it. You can be Baptist, Roman Catholic, or Anglican and be charismatic or not, but there is no such thing as a non-charismatic Pentecostal. Now, Christians of all sorts know and agree that God continues to do miracles today – that's why we pray and ask God to heal the sick – but it is a Pentecostal belief that Christians can expect to be agents for these miracles – that some will be given the gift of healing, others the gift of prophecy, and yet others the gift of tongues. This universal stand prompts a universal question, one you can ask any and all Pentecostals and charismatics too: if these miraculous gifts, described in the New Testament, are still with us today then why aren’t the manifestations more…well…miraculous? Questions for Pentecostals As Rev. Holtvlüwer showed in his article "Tongue Twisters" in the March 2004 issue, when the Apostles spoke in tongues they were speaking in a variety of foreign languages they had never learned. That’s miraculous indeed, and is it any wonder that listeners were “amazed and perplexed” (Acts 2:12)? But today few tongues speakers claim to be talking in identifiable earthly languages. Instead many say they are speaking in the “tongues of angels” and cite 1 Corinthians 13:1 as a proof text. It’s here that the Apostle Paul says, “If I could speak in the tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” But this approach to tongues-speaking has problems: This is the only time the “tongue of angels” is ever mentioned in the Bible, and it is clear in this passage that Paul is using hyperbole to make a point. He isn’t claiming to actually speak in the tongue of angels; he’s only emphasizing the importance of love. This is made clear in the very next verse where Paul writes, “If I…can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge…but have not love, I am nothing.” Is Paul claiming that he is actually able to fathom all knowledge? Clearly not – that would make him God. It should also be clear that Paul wasn't claiming to speak in the tongue of angels. No one knows what language angels speak, so it is impossible to verify whether a person is indeed speaking this language. Someone suddenly able to speak Spanish or Chinese could have their claim easily tested, but not if they say they're speaking "angel." This isn't a question of sincerity – this isn't to say that Pentecostals are pulling something over on the rest of us. We shouldn't think they are lying. But there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Even in an emotionally-charged state, one cannot start speaking Chinese unless a miracle is involved. But Pentecostals – or at least the vast majority of them – don't suddenly start speaking a new foreign language. Instead, they start doing what, in any other context, would be called babbling. And if someone were in a distraught or otherwise emotional state, it isn't hard to believe they could start blurting out nonsensical "words," but that wouldn't involve a miracle. The issue here isn't one of sincerity, but labeling: Pentecostals have been taught that this is speaking in tongues, but it is something very different from what happened in the biblical accounts. It is also puzzling when you consider that speaking in tongues also occurs in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, a cult that denies the Trinity. Can Christians and cultists share the same gifts? Similarly the gift of healing today seems far less miraculous than the gift described in the New Testament. While Peter, John, and Paul healed people who had been crippled from birth (Acts 3:1-10 14:8-10) Pentecostal churches have started ministries aimed at aiding the disabled, rather than healing them. And consider how today’s gift of prophecy is a letdown as well. Rather than the infallible prophecy described in the Bible (Deut 18:22) many Pentecostals admit that their prophecy can be mistaken1. To sum up, instead of the awe-inspiring miraculous gifts described in the New Testament, the gifts manifested in Pentecostal churches seem to be something else entirely. And entirely less impressive. Cessationism Even as our focus here is on Pentecostals, we'd be remiss if we didn't get at least a general understanding of what the other side believes. "Cessationists" (the root here is “cease”) believe that some of the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor 12:8-10, 28-31 & Romans 12:6-8 stopped or ceased soon after the Apostles died. This list of gifts includes prophecy, speaking in tongues, teaching, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, discernment, interpretation, encouraging, and apostleship. For almost all Christians, the question is not whether some of these gifts have ceased, but rather which ones, as even Pentecostal churches believe that the role of the apostles has ceased. Thus there is a very real sense in which even Pentecostals are "cessationists" (though on a trip to New York I did come across a number of churches that claimed to have Apostles). More commonly, "cessationist" refers to a person who believes the miraculous gifts of the Spirit – specifically healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy – have ceased. But even as cessationists deny that prophecy occurs today (because the Bible is complete) that isn't a denial that God can give people inner guidance. We’ve probably all experienced a time when we were in the right place at the right time and led to say just the right thing to one of our brothers or sisters. But while we would call this God’s guidance, a Pentecostal might well call this prophecy. This is not just a matter of semantics – it is one thing to say you think God is leading you to speak something and quite another thing to declare: “Thus says the Lord…” Prophecy as it is described in the Bible is without error (see Deut. 18:22) so any Pentecostal who claims to be prophesying is making quite a claim indeed, and is making a claim that no cessationist would dare make. God is still doing miracles As we conclude, it's important to clarify that rejecting Pentecostalism and holding to cessationism doesn't mean denying God can and does still deliver miracles. The gift of miracles might be over, but miracles certainly do keep on occurring. In the video below one remarkable example is shared: pro-life activist John Barros tells about how God translated his English preaching into Spanish so a couple about to get an abortion could be confronted with the Gospel message to repent and believe. There are also accounts of Muslims being confronted with the Gospel in their dreams, and God blinding the eyes of government officials who are searching for illegal bibles. While God does seem to ordinarily use "ordinary means" to spread His Gospel, there is a reason we still pray for miracles – our God can do anything! Endnote 1 C. Samuel Storms (pages 207-210) in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? and Eric Davis' "Addressing Continualist Arguments from 1 Corinthians 14"...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult biographies, Book Reviews

God's Smuggler

by Brother Andrew Autobiography 1967 / 288 pages This is an amazing true story about God’s miraculous interventions to get Bibles to his persecuted Church in both Communist countries and Muslim ones. There are miracles all around us, but the rising sun, our pumping hearts, and babies’ wriggling toes do their thing with such regularity as to seem ordinary to us – we take them for granted. Not so the miracles in God’s Smuggler. Here “Brother Andrew” (1928- ) relates one extraordinary answer to prayer after another: a needed cake delivered by an off-duty postman, money of the right sum arriving at just the right time, the instant healing of Andrew’s crippled ankle. Then, in his work smuggling Bibles behind the Iron Curtain, this Dutchman came to rely on the extraordinary becoming regular. Border crossings into Communist countries were always tense, but each time Brother Andrew would ask God to “make seeing eyes blind” and again and again God would do so. The same border guards who had just taken apart the car in front of them would simply wave them through or, if they did inspect their cargo, the guards would completely miss the Bibles crammed in everywhere. It was through these regular miracles that God used Andrew and his coworkers to deliver His Word to millions in the persecuted Church. I'll share one of his miraculous accounts, which I also shared with my children, about Andrew on an early smuggling trip, this time to Yugoslavia. "The roads in Yugoslavia were extraordinarily hard on cars. When we weren't climbing fierce mountain trails, we were fording streams at the bottom of steep valleys. But the worst threat to the little VW was the dust. Dust lay over the unpaved roads like a shroud; it sifted in on us even through the closed windows, and I hated to think what it was doing to the engine. Every morning in our Quiet Time, Nikola and I would include a prayer for the car. 'Lord, we don't have either time or the money for repairs on this car, so will you please keep it running?' "One of the peculiarities of travel in Yugoslavia in 1957 was the friendly road-stoppings that took place. Cars. especially foreign cars, were still such a rarity that when two drivers passed each other, they almost always stopped to exchange a few words about road conditions, weather, gasoline supplies, bridges. One day we were dusting along a mountain road when up ahead we spotted a small truck coming toward us. As it pulled alongside, we also stopped. "'Hello,' said the driver. 'I believe I know who you are. You're the Dutch missionary who is going to preach in Terna tonight.' "'That's right.' "'And this is the Miracle Car?' "'The Miracle Car?' "'I mean the car that you pray for each morning.' I had to laugh. I had mentioned the prayer in a previous meeting; the word had obviously gone on ahead. 'Yes,' I admitted, 'this is the car.' 'Mind if I take a look at her? I'm a mechanic.' "'I'd appreciate it.' I had put gasoline in that engine, and that was literally all since I had crossed the border. The mechanic went around to the rear and lifted the hood over the motor. For a long time he stood there, just staring. "'Brother Andrew,' he said at last, 'I have just become a believer. It is mechanically impossible for this engine to run. Look. The air filter. The carburetor. The sparks. No, I'm sorry. This car cannot run.' "'And yet it's taken us thousands of miles.' The mechanic only shook his head. 'Brother,' he said, 'would you permit me to clean your engine for you and give you a change of oil. It hurts me to see you abuse a miracle.' Gratefully we followed the man to his village a few miles from Terna. We pulled behind him into a little courtyard filled with pigs and geese. That night while we preached he took the engine apart, cleaned it piece by piece, changed the oil, and by the time we were ready to leave the next morning, presented us with a grinning new automobile. God had answered our prayer." Cautions While reading this to my girls, I told my children we shouldn’t understand the many miracles Andrew experienced as evidence that he was always acting wisely and praying as he should – he himself acknowledged that God honored one of of his prayer requests despite how he prayed. There's an instance or two early on that reminded me of the old joke about a man caught up in a flood who had to take refuge on his roof and prayed for God to save him. As he was praying a boy rowed by in a boat and asked if the man wanted to join him but the man replied that he didn't need the boy's help because God would save him. Then a helicopter came, the pilot offering a lift, only to get the same response. Eventually, the waters rose and the man drowned. When he got to heaven the man wanted to know why God didn't save him, and God told him He had, sending a boy in a boat and a pilot in a helicopter. Similarly, Brother Andrew turns down offered help (for a needed cake), only to later receive help of an even more miraculous sort (a cake, unsolicited, arriving in the mail, just in time). I don't think that we have to take all of this prescriptively, as what we also should do – we can get in the boat or helicopter, or take someone up on their offer to bake a cake, and not wait for even more miraculous intervention. But we should most certainly take it descriptively as evidence of God’s great love for his persecuted Church. And, when we understand God's great love for His children, and His great power, then we too may be willing and eager to risk much to show His love to others. Conclusion We can also appreciate how aware Andrew was of his complete reliance on God. We all are, all the time, but when times are good we so often forget. Living his life in danger so much of the time, Brother Andrew wasn’t nearly so forgetful. This would also be a valuable tool to impress on a younger generation that while in their lifetimes it has primarily been the culture that has been the biggest enemy of God’s Church, in many places, and at many times, it has been the government. I would recommend this primarily for adults, because it does take some discernment to think through where Brother Andrew is relying on God in ways that we too should imitate, and where he might be getting close, or even crossing the line, into testing God. For a younger audience, just read it to them and discuss afterward. Then it could be good for as young as 8. This is one of the books I read for RP's 52 in 2022 challenge....