Recent Articles | Reformed Perspective

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – June 2026

O Canada!

A Canadian woman and a Saudi woman were arguing about which country was better.

The Canadian said, "Canada has more than its share of problems, but at least here I can freely walk up to Parliament Hill, head to the Prime Minister's office, and loudly complain, 'Mark Carney, I don't like the way you're running this country.'"

"But I can do that in my country too!" the Saudi woman exclaimed. "I’m free to walk up to the palace, go to the King's office, and loudly complain, 'King, I don't like the way Mark Carney Harper is running Canada!'"

Source: Adapted from a Reagan joke about Russia and the US

4 of a kind

Grace and Mercy are two words with distinct meanings…but do you know what they are?

Through sheer repetition some Christian words seem to blend into each other and we forget their distinct meanings. But their differences do matter. Below are three short definitions that describe the following four words: Grace, Mercy, Justice and Persecution.

not getting what you do deserve
getting what you do deserve
getting what you don’t deserve

Test yourself. Do you know what definition applies to each word? The answers follow:

Not getting what you do deserve, is God is merciful when He doesn’t send us to hell. We deserve to go to hell, but fortunately Christians don’t get what we deserve.
Getting what you do deserve, is God’s justice requires that sinful man be punished. Jesus took our deserved punishment on Himself and thus fulfilled God’s requirement for justice.
Getting what you don’t deserve is Persecution. If justice is about getting punished when you do something bad, then persecution is about getting punished when you’ve done nothing, or done something good (like handing out a Bible in China). Persecution is, therefore, getting something bad that you don’t deserve. This definition is a little tricky, however, because it can also be a good thing to get what we don't deserve. That's exactly what Grace is! Our salvation and adoption as God's children is ours entirely out of grace – we have done nothing to merit this reward. It is through grace alone.

Another reason everyone should study economics

A story is told about an old man who was called silly names by the neighborhood kids and he couldn’t get them to stop. Then he hit on an idea. The next day, when the children gathered around him, shouting their taunts, he told them that next week he was going to pay them to insult him – if they came on Tuesday, four days later, he would give them each a dollar to shout their insults at him. They agreed, and the immediate impact was that the children stopped hassling him – it seemed they were saving up their insults. Then, come Tuesday, the man did as he promised, giving each of the little bullies a dollar for shouting insults at him. Then he announced that he’d pay them the next day too, but just 50 cents each.

Wednesday they all gathered again, threw their insults, and were given 50 cents each. Afterwards the man announced that he’d only pay them a penny for their insults tomorrow. “A penny?” the ringleader complained, “that’s not even worth it.” And they never taunted the man again.

Source: adapted from Michael Hodgin’s “1001 More Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking”

Do you like being corrected? David did.

We’re supposed to love correction. Not throw a fit in response to it, or even stoically accept it. No, we’re supposed to love it. Proverbs 9:8 is just one of the texts where God makes this point:

Don’t reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you.
Reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

God tells us that reproof is, in fact, a sign that He loves us: “whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Heb. 12:6). This verse makes good sense to any parent – it’s a lot easier to not discipline our kids, to just let it go this time (and the next, and the time after that), but if we love them, then we want to teach them what’s wrong and right, and that will necessarily involve reproof of some sort.

Still, “love correction” is a hard command to follow, so it struck me when I came across King David’s response to the prophet Nathan’s rebuke. As you’ll recall, Nathan came to David after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered her husband to cover it up (2 Samuel 11-12). Nathan came with condemnation, and a curse. Though David confessed his guilt, Nathan informed the king that the LORD would kill the child that he had conceived with Bathsheba. And the child did die.

We would all understand it if David didn’t think all that kindly of Nathan after that. But, despite his great sins, David was still a man of God, and he shows this in his response to Nathan’s reproof. In 1 Chronicles 3:5 we read that, of the four sons David had with Bathsheba, one was named Nathan! Here, then, is a man who was reproved, and seems to have loved the messenger who brought him that correction.

Presuppositions

When a little boy asked his grandfather whether he’d been on the ark with Noah, his grandfather had to laugh, and assured the boy that no, he had not been on the ark.

“But grandpa,” the boy asked, “then why didn’t you drown?”

Are we conservatives?

Dave Rubin, Douglas Murray, and the DailyWire's Spencer Klaven are all self-described "gay conservatives," and how can that be? It's because "conservative" is a term that has meaning in comparison. So long as a position can be placed on a spectrum, there will always be liberal and conservative versions. If an anarchist wants to destroy all of Western Civilization, and I want to destroy only half of it, I would be the conservative anarchist. And if a couple of college ethics professors want to euthanize all disabled babies now, and I want to wait a few years, I am the conservative eugenicist in this conversation. In much the same way, conservative and gay go together just fine too.

That’s why God's people need to understand that if we want to express our loyalties clearly, we need to come out as Christians, not conservatives. Conservative Christians even, but not simply conservatives.

Showing and telling

A half dozen writing tips that highlight what’s to be done, and how not to do it.

Don't use a big word where diminutive verbiage will suffice.
Check carefully to see if you any words out.
Avoid clichés like the plague.
It’s generally a good idea to be specific.
Colorful, vivid, descriptive, multi-layered adjectives are overdone.
Don’t re-use the same words. Use different words. Other words.

Done before the first down

Notre Dame’s famed football coach Knute Rockne wasn’t above employing psychology to give his team an edge. A legend is told of how, when he was about to face the much better University of Southern California (USC) team, he spent the week beforehand scouring the city of South Bend for its largest men. He found a hundred, all 6’5” or taller, and every one of them weighed 300 pounds or more. Then he decked them out in Notre Dame uniforms and the pads and helmets only made them look even bigger.

When it was game time, he marched them out. One after another, these giants ran onto the field, right past the opposing players. The USC coach kept telling his guys, “They can only field 11 men at a time,” but it didn’t matter. None of them played a minute, but the opposition was so intimidated at the sight of them that they dropped passes, committed fumbles, and even ran into each other in their crossing routes. And Notre Dame won the game.

Did it happen? Maybe. But the reason the story is told is because this sort of thing does happen. Think of the men who spied out Israel and got intimidated by the giants of the land before any battle was even fought. Consider today’s battles and how often God’s truth is more loudly defended by non-Christians like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson than by us – we’ve run from the battle and left it up to others, scared of what we might, but haven’t yet, had to face. How often are we beaten before we’ve even begun?

Thankfully, our God is not just mighty – bigger than any giant on the football field sidelines, or standing in front of a Canaanite army – but He is also gracious and forgiving. So let’s fall on our knees, and get ready to put up our fists when God next calls us to fight for His glory.

Source: adapted from Michael Hodgin’s “1001 More Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking”

That speck in your neighbor’s eye

The faults we spot so easily in others may well be the ones we excuse in ourselves. Of course, there is some artistry in our self-deception – we aren’t going to bluntly say, it is wrong for my kids to be curt and impatient, but I’m allowed to be. No, we’ll say it’s wrong for them, but then relabel our own conduct as something more acceptable or even admirable, as this poetic ditty demonstrates:

Stubbornness we deprecate;
firmness we condone.
The former is our neighbor’s trait;
the latter is our own.

Source: Michael Hodgin’s "1001 More Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking"

Berra-isms

Major league player and coach Yogi Berra had quite the way with words. Here are a few of his most famous “Berra-isms,” with wisdom to be found, if you’re willing to ponder.

It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
If you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there.
Ninety percent of the game is half mental.
You can observe a lot by watching.
When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
If you can’t imitate him, don’t copy him.

Science - Creation/Evolution

The day is not an age

Billions of years don’t fit with the Bible ***** When my daughter was young, I introduced her to sketching and how to use colored pencils to enhan...

Interview with an artist

Trees, rocks, water, sky, wildlife - Sheila Van Delft paints refreshment for the soul

Music

When the Church stops singing

or, What I learned from the organ bench ***** The first time I realized something was wrong with congregational singing, I was sixteen years old, si...

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...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – May 2026

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

People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

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

People we should know

That cloud of witnesses....

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

Homosexuality, News

Opposing rainbow crosswalk results in human rights trial

Ronald Reagan once shared a quip about the difference between his country and the totalitarian USSR. “Two Soviets… were talking to each other. And one of them asked, ‘What’s the difference between the Soviet Constitution and the United States Constitution?’ And the other one said, ‘That’s easy. The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of gathering. The American Constitution guarantees freedom after speech and freedom after gathering.” Here in Canada, we still have freedom of speech, but, it seems, no guarantee of freedom after speech. An Alberta woman is facing a two-week hearing before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for distributing flyers opposing the Town of Westlock’s plan to paint a rainbow crosswalk. Benita Pedersen created the flyers in June of 2023, in an effort to encourage other citizens to reach out to their elected officials and oppose the crosswalk. “Based on my personal experiences in interacting with parents and children, I have learned that the practice of ‘gender affirmation’ harms kids more than it helps,” she explained to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). “When I composed the flyer, one of my objectives was to warn parents about the potential consequences of children pursuing the pathway of transgenderism.” She added that the way to solve problems is “by having open conversation.” Others disagree, and human rights commissions make it easy to shut down speech they don’t like. In this case, fellow citizen Laurie Hodge took offense and filed a human rights, stating that the flyer discriminated on the basis of gender, gender identity, and gender expression. Hodge has since become a member of the Westlock Town Council. The wheels of “justice” turn slowly. In October of 2025, the Director of the Alberta HRC referred the complaint to the province’s human rights tribunal, finding that there was a sufficient basis to proceed with the hearing. Human rights commissions and tribunals were under the public eye 15 years ago, in light of complaints against high-profile figures like Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and against Maclean’s magazine. Complaints were made on the basis of hurt feelings. Even if there was no conviction, the process of responding to a complaint – involving tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills and years of hassle – was itself a punishment. The passage of a private member’s bill in 2012 to reform the Canadian Human Rights Act seemed to settle the commissions down. But the recent decision from the BC Human Rights Tribunal to fine school trustee Barry Neufeld $750,000 for speaking against “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI), as well as this case in Alberta, suggest that the sleeping giants are awaking. Let’s not be caught sleeping ourselves. ARPA Canada took a lead in responding to the challenges 15 years ago, and continues to speak out today. We care so deeply about freedom of speech and expression not because our opinions are so important, but because God’s truth is. We love our neighbors, so we want and need to be free to share what God says is best for them and everyone. Find Pedersen's flyer at the end of the human rights complaint shared here....

Contests

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

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...

Evangelism

The life and death of our campus evangelism 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). “St...

Humor, Satire

Alice in Blunderland

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

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

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

Contests, Photos 2026

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

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

Economics

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

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

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 Hemi...

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 ...

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...

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 ...

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

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

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

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

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

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

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

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

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

Past Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

Screen Fast

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – June 2026

O Canada!

4 of a kind

Another reason everyone should study economics

Do you like being corrected? David did.

Presuppositions

Are we conservatives?

Showing and telling

Done before the first down

That speck in your neighbor’s eye

Berra-isms

Science - Creation/Evolution

The day is not an age

Interview with an artist

Trees, rocks, water, sky, wildlife - Sheila Van Delft paints refreshment for the soul

Music

When the Church stops singing

Science - Creation/Evolution

Perfect planet

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