Recent Articles | Reformed Perspective

Science - Creation/Evolution

Perfect planet

It all had to be just right for life on Earth to survive and thrive

*****

In our garden is a plum tree. Now this may not sound unusual except that stone fruit trees, like plums, do not grow well on the northern prairie. The cold winter winds can dry out the delicate branches of the plum, killing it.

Yet our plum tree thrives. And it is growing larger and producing more delicious purple plums each summer. So why is it not just surviving, but thriving? Because it is planted in just the right spot; close to the house and a garden shed where these two buildings shield it from the brunt of the west and north winter winds. Conversely, in the summer the tree has good exposure to the east and south, providing it with enough sunlight and warmth to ripen the plums by the end of August.

Perfectly planted planet

Earth is like our plum tree, thriving because it has been placed with care.

In fact, everything in the universe evidences the design of a careful Creator. Nobel Prize-winning professor of physics Charles Townes, in his 2003 article, “The convergence of science and religion,” asserted that,

“we are here only because the laws of physics have certain particular values.”

Townes recognized that these carefully balanced laws of physics, which “may be associated with intelligent planning,” are the reason life exists.

In order for our Sun or other stable stars to exist “the properties of nuclear reaction and gravitation must be just right,” wrote Townes. This is because over-abundant nuclear reactions in the Sun would cause it to expand and eventually explode, while it would be inherently unstable if its gravity was even a little too strong.

The composition of the elements available on Earth is also fine-tuned. According to Townes, the approximately 100 different chemical elements on earth – including carbon and oxygen on which life is based – could only exist if the electrical and nuclear forces were “just right and balanced.” Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle was impressed by the existence of these finely-tuned laws of physics. Even though he was a religious skeptic, Hoyle recognized that:

“a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. …he facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

God placed planet Earth in exactly the right spot for life to not just exist, but to thrive. In their book The Grand Design, renowned physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow gave three important reasons why Earth has the right temperature for life to exist:

Earth orbits only one star, not two or more. About half of the known star systems are binary (two stars). If a planet were in a stable orbit in a binary star system it would be either too hot or too cold to sustain life;
Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. “Eccentricity” is a measure of how elliptical or oval an orbit is. An eccentricity of zero will result in a perfectly circular orbit and an eccentricity of one will be an elliptical orbit resembling a very squashed circle. With an eccentricity of 2%, Earth’s orbit is very nearly circular which keeps our planet’s temperature relatively stable throughout the year. In contrast to Earth’s orbit, Mercury’s orbit has an eccentricity of 20%, causing temperature swings of 93°C as Mercury orbits the Sun.
Our Sun is just the right size, and Earth is just the right distance from it for the Earth to have a temperature at which liquid water may exist throughout the year. The size of a star dictates the amount of energy it gives off, and if the Sun were just 20% larger, Earth would be as hot as Venus (464°C), and if just 20% smaller, Earth would be as cold as Mars (-64°C).

“Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars."

It all had to come together

Our blue and green planet is unique in many other ways that make it habitable.

1. A magnetic field
For example, neither Mars nor the Moon has a global magnetic field, whereas Earth does. Earth’s magnetic field extends out into space, protecting our world from the solar wind – that stream of charged particles released by the Sun. Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars.

2. Right rotation
In addition, the Earth rotates on its axis fast enough and at a sufficient angle of inclination to regulate the temperature across the globe so that it doesn’t get too hot nor too cold. These temperature differences provide us with seasons, but also generate ocean currents that redistribute heat and important nutrients.

“Without our Moon, large variations in the tilt of the Earth’s axis would result, driving cataclysmic changes to our world’s climate.”

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.

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.

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – May 2026

On logic Sherlock Holmes and his faithful companion Dr. Watson once went on a camping trip. Some hours after they lay down for the night and went to ...

People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Stood strong against the tide of liberalism engulfing the Church ***** One of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century was an American Pres...

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

Mina and Marco in Egypt Open Doors is a non-denominational mission working in over 60 countries where Christianity is socially or legally discourage...

Homosexuality, News

Opposing rainbow crosswalk results in human rights trial

Contests

RP’s "Log out and look up" screen-fast challenge is July 13-22

Bring peace to your mind while raising $100 for charity. ***** Are you struggling with keeping screens in their proper place? Do you or your children find it hard not to reach for your device, almost without thinking? Last year, over 1,000 of you joined us in “breaking the spell” for 10 days. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive, making it evident we would all benefit from doing this every year. So for ten days, we're going to get re-oriented. We're asking everyone – as much as it is possible for you – to steer clear from your smartphone, computers, TV, and tablets for the ten days of July 13 to July 22, 2026. Speaking of together, we’re asking you to sign up with an accountability partner – someone who can see how you are doing and egg you on. And you can do the same for them! Need a device for work, or to stay in touch with family? No problem. You are welcome to come up with your own exceptions. Just write them down in advance and stick to them. Some generous supporters have pledged to donate $10 per day for every day you manage to go screen-free from July 13-22. The money will be split between two fantastic kingdom causes – Reformed Perspective and Word & Deed – to a maximum of $20,000 split between both causes. A few tips Commit. Don’t allow yourself to make easy exceptions, even if you are having a hard day. For example, just because you are at someone else’s home doesn’t mean you can enjoy screens again. Don't get sucked in. If you still need screens for basic your job or other functions that are essential, go for it, but ensure that you are only using your tablet and phone for that and only that. For example, if you need a phone for directions, don’t take the opportunity to scroll the news. If you need a computer at work, don’t let yourself go to other websites or play an online game. Out of sight, out of mind. Help yourself by hiding your devices and make them difficult to access. Maybe even take the TV off the wall. Log out. Log out of your social media accounts so that it isn’t easy to quickly open them. Hide your app icons. If you need still need to use your phone, hide all the icons of the apps you want to steer clear of. Come up with a plan. When you find yourself wanting to reach for a screen, what'll you do instead? Make a plan. It doesn’t have to be hard or complicated. Perhaps say a prayer, take a drink of water, try to memorize a verse, do a set of 10 jumping jacks, or read a couple of pages of a book you’ve been meaning to get to. Have alternatives ready and waiting. You and your children are going to need something else to do with your screen time, so you need to have options, otherwise you'll just spend your time pining for your phone. Get out books, magazines, art supplies, a soccer ball, or whatever. For more ideas be sure to check out our article "What can I do anyways? 35 screen-free alternatives. Invite accountability. Let loved ones know what you are doing, and ask them to check in on you regularly to see how it is going. Tell them not to let you off the hook! Don't let this opportunity pass you by. Don't we all need help on this front? So don't let yourself off the hook - let's do this together! Register for the July 13-22 nationwide by filling in the form below. Loading…...

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."...

Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism project

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

Church history, People we should know

There was a man: Ulrich Zwingli

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

Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

"I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed....

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Welcome to the Information Age. With apps like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, we now have a window into the lives of our friends, family, acquainta...

Contests, Photos 2026

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

The fascination with AI media creation, be it pictures, videos, and music, has turned sour for many of us. AI images are increasingly felt to be easy,...

Economics

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

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

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

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....

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

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

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

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

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

“Oh, a coffee maker! Just what Peter and I need – thank you so much!” Bridal showers are a fun, valuable tradition. The bride-to-be’s famil...

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Legislatures make laws, the executive enforces them, judges interpret and apply them in specific cases. Three branches, checks and balances – that�...

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

or why we gave two years to bringing the Heidelberg Catechism to video… and more ***** There is something disarming about the Heidelberg Catechism...

Science - Creation/Evolution

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

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?”...

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. ...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

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

Assorted

When there is smoke…

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

Contests

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

'Your Turn' Voting

Screen Fast

Science - Creation/Evolution

Perfect planet

It all had to be just right for life on Earth to survive and thrive

Perfectly planted planet

It all had to come together

Evolution chicken-egg problem

Only some of what all needed to happen

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – May 2026

People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

Homosexuality, News

Opposing rainbow crosswalk results in human rights trial

Contests

RP’s "Log out and look up" screen-fast challenge is July 13-22

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism project

Church history, People we should know

There was a man: Ulrich Zwingli

Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Contests, Photos 2026

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

Economics

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

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

Science - Creation/Evolution

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

Theology