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.

Subscribe Now!

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Create an Account

Save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Magazine
Recent Articles
Past Articles
Book Reviews
Movie Reviews
Daily devotional
Job Postings

More of Reformed Perspective!

Search CATEGORY: Recent Articles

Browse By Topic

Amazing stories from times past
Apologetics 101
Assorted
Christian education
Christian education - Sports
Church history
Culture Clashes
Dating
Economics
Economics - Home Finances
Entertainment
Gender roles
History
Human Rights
Humor
In a Nutshell
Indigenous peoples
Internet
Interview with an artist
Letter Writing
Marriage
Media bias
Music
Parenting
People we should know
Politics
Pro-life - Abortion
Pro-life - Adoption
Pro-life - Euthanasia
Pro-life - Fostering
Religion
Religion - Mormons
Religion - Pentecostal
Religion - Roman Catholic
Remembrance Day
Science - Creation/Evolution
Science - Environment
Science - General
Sexuality
Soup and Buns
Theology
Most Recent
Politics

The Rhinoceros Party: politics has always been absurd, but 30 years ago, even more so

Politics may seem especially absurd these days, but it didn’t start here. In Canada, the wackiness goes back at least a few decades, to the founding of the Rhinoceros Party.

Founded in 1963 by Jacques Ferron, this party claimed to be inspired by a Brazilian rhinoceros, Cacareco, who had been elected to a city council in Brazil in 1958. The Canadians needed a rhino closer to home though, so the movement chose Cornelius the First, a rhinoceros in the Granby Zoo near Montreal as their leader.

The party existed from 1963 until 1993 when it was officially dissolved, but it was resurrected in 2007, though with an arguably cruder edge to its humor. That edge might reflect the new times in which the party found itself.

Big promises

The Rhinoceros Party promised what some would say any other party did: the completely impossible.

For example, at one time or another the Rhinoceros Party promised to:

  • Abolish the Law of Gravity.
  • They also hoped to give the unemployed the right to strike.
  • They sought to reduce the speed of light since it’s much too fast.
  • The Rhinos wanted provide higher education by building taller schools.
  • They promised to end crime by abolishing all laws.
  • They were in favor of adopting the British system of driving on the left instead of the right. This would be brought in gradually starting with large trucks, then buses, and then small cars and bicycles.
  • They sought to Declare war on Belgium. In one of the Tintin books, the Belgian hero killed a rhino. War could be avoided if the Belgian embassy in Canada delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to the head office of the Rhino Party. Interestingly, though the Rhinos never elected a single representative to Parliament, the Belgian embassy did come through on the mussels and beer.
  • They wanted to impose an import quota on cold winter weather. The only seasons that would be allowed were to be salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar.
  • Preying on Canadians distrust of their southern neighbors, the Rhinos promised to count the Thousand Island in case the Americans had stolen some.

Perhaps the only promise that the Rhinoceros Party might have kept was that if they were ever able to form the government, they would promptly resign thereby forcing a new election.

Just cursing the darkness

In its attempts at humor, the Rhinoceros Party sometimes descended into crudity. Arguably, they were no worse than many of the politicians who currently grace the world stage. They did point out the absurdity of the promises made by many politicians who make promises they have either thought out poorly and find they cannot keep, or who may make ones so grandiose they know in advance they’ll never be able to follow through.

But while humor points out the absurd and the weaknesses of Canadian parties and politicians, it doesn’t suggest an alternative. The Rhinoceroses in the party tore down the pretensions of the proud, but failed to replace them with anything more reasonable.

Retiring the Rhino

The original Rhinoceros Party met its demise in 1993. In order to stay a registered party, each party had to run candidates in 50 electoral districts, a feat that was too difficult at the time for the Rhinos. Consequently, in protest, the party chose to abstain from the 1993 election. The chief officer of Elections Canada ordered that the party be dissolved and money from the sale of assets was to be sent to the Canadian government’s Receiver General. Party leader Charlie MacKenzie refused, and after two years of back and forth, Elections Canada declined to prosecute MacKenzie making him Canada’s self-described “least wanted fugitive.”

James Dykstra is a sometimes history teacher, author, and podcaster. This article is taken from an episode of his History.icu podcast, “where history is never boring.” Find it at History.icu, or on Spotify, Google podcasts, or wherever you find your podcasts.

IF RHINOS JOINED THE CHP

by Jon Dykstra

One of the best policy proposals the Rhinoceros Party of Canada ever made went something like this:

“Currently, convicted murderers get life, and unborn babies often get death. We’ll swap that around.”

It was a good policy told with punch, and short enough to fit on a t-shirt. The only problem? I’m not sure it ever happened. I thought it did, but when I started searching for the when and where, I found there’s nothing online to back up my hazy recall. It also strikes me as being out of step with the rest of the party’s generally frivolous stands – it’s too emphatically pro-life.

So if it wasn’t the Rhinos, might it have been the Christian Heritage Party (CHP)? They are pro-life – Canada's only pro-life party – but it struck me as a bit too "quippy" for them. It almost seems like a combination of the two parties: a satiric Rhino-ish take but one that doesn’t just tear down, but offers a Christian alternative. And yes, a CHP vet remembers them running something like this in years past. Turns out the CHP has a little Rhino in it.

 

Full Article
Science - Creation/Evolution

Big Bang Christianity?

Can we fit the Big Bang into the Bible? **** Cosmology is the most important subject in the world. Why? Because it is the story of the world: its...
Indigenous peoples

Truth & reconciliation is possible, but not as it is being popularized
News

Upcoming documentary asks, how can we end abortion in Canada?
News

Saturday Selections – Apr 8, 2023

Christ is risen (2 min) The resurgence of sea shanties might be a bit of a lockdown silver lining – a musical form that lent itself to collaboratio...
Amazing stories from times past

Rev. Alfred Sadd (1909-1942): a great man, and a faint shadow

The December 8, 1942 issue of The Times, the British daily newspaper based in London, published a small but complimentary obituary/article on the death of a Reverend Alfred Sadd. So who was this Reverend Alfred Sadd? All about the ocean First seeing the light of day in Maldon, located in southeastern England, on November the 7th, 1909, Alfred was born into a wealthy timber and boat building family – a family which was blessed with eight children. His father, Henry Sadd, died while the boy was young and he was raised by his mother with helpful support from other family members. The Sadd household belonged to the Congregational Church ­– at that time a Protestant church in the Calvinist tradition tracing its roots to the Puritans. (Today, sadly, the Congregationalist Church is no longer doctrinally sound.) Young Alfred enjoyed sailing and became a member of the Sea Scouts – part of the Scout movement which placed great emphasis on boating activities. Alfred knew every nook and cranny of the River Blackwater, a river close to his Maldon, Essex home. The young boy, who loved nature, collected oysters, fished and sailed around Northey Island watching the numerous birds who made their home in the area. At the age of fourteen, Alfred was sent to the Leys School in Cambridge. Boarding there, the teenager probably had a Mr. Balgarnie as master when he was a student. Mr. Balgarnie happened to be the inspiration for the teacher in James Hilton's classic book Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Not a natural academic, Alfred developed into a jack-of-all-trades, a person skilled at many jobs. He built houses, continued to be active in the Sea Scouts, repaired boats and also acquired a degree in physiology. Nevertheless, Alfred, good-natured and interested in everything and all those around him, eventually came to the conviction that he was meant to study theology in Cambridge. Becoming a missionary Perhaps because his heart was so set on serving God and, consequently, others, Alfred Sadd joined the London Missionary Society. (Eric Liddell – 1924 Olympic gold medalist in the 400-meter race – had also served as an LMS missionary and was sent to China by the Society.) In the mid 1930s, Alfred was commissioned by the Society to go to Tarawa in the Gilbert Islands, in the central Pacific Ocean. The station there was one of the most isolated stations of the LMS occupied by British missionaries. Alfred had no serious objections to going to such an outpost. He loved the sea and thought to import his scouting knowledge to the area, using it alongside his evangelical outreach. His standard form of introduction was saying: "Hello, I'm Sadd. But not really." Tarawa, the capital of the Republic of Kiribati, was one of 32 atolls that formed the island nation. An archipelago of atolls on the western side of Kiribati, it was divided into North Tarawa and South Tarawa. Home as it was to an array of flora and fauna, including a wealth of marine life, Alfred loved it. The seas around Tarawa teemed with tropical fish, shellfish, and sharks. Plant life in the area included coconut palms, banana trees, and papaya trees. And Alfred’s work in this lovely place was blessed as he preached and lived alongside the islanders. Dedicated, Alfred loved his surroundings and his work. Coming home on a six-month furlough in 1938, he enthusiastically regaled his family with numerous stories of the people to whom he ministered, as well as the beautiful island on which they lived. Staying put When the Second World War began, Pastor Alfred Sadd was initially in a quandary. Should he evacuate, as the Europeans on the island were urged to do, and return home? But then what would happen to his beloved congregation? The Japanese, a grave danger especially after their attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, did not seem to be on the prowl in his immediate Tarawa neighborhood. A number of weeks passed after the Pearl Harbor attack and nothing much seemed to change on the islands. Without question Alfred had come to the conclusion that he would stay. Consequently, he wrote home: "God has something bigger ... He intends me to do." Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Tarawa was subject to a bombing raid. Concerned for the people in his church on the island of Tarawa, Alfred prayed much. It was now February of 1942. Even at this time, however, no Japanese soldiers had showed up on the shore and again he felt that he and his flock were relatively safe. Six months after the Pearl Harbor raid, however, the Japanese did set foot on the island. They arrived violently and frightened both parishioners and non-parishioners with their long bayonets. When Alfred came alongside the harassed islanders, riding his bicycle and smiling encouragement, the Japanese soldiers spread a Union Jack in front of him and ordered him to drive his bicycle over it. When he refused, they confiscated the bicycle and he was taken to a commanding officer. Agreeably he strode in front of his captors, walking ahead of them in such large strides towards this commanding officer, that he left them behind. It annoyed the soldiers fearfully. The officer in charge again ordered Alfred to walk on the British flag. He smiled, approached it, but instead of walking on it, he turned to the right. There was another order, and this time when he came to the flag, he turned to the left. Once more, infuriated by his insubordination, the officer told him to stomp on the flag. Instead, Alfred Sadd picked up the ensign, gathered it in his arms and kissed it. The result of this patriotic outburst was that the British pastor was sent, along with nearly two dozen other island prisoners, to work in hard labor. Seventeen of these men were soldiers, or coastwatchers, men who had been designated to monitor Japanese advances. Most of them came from New Zealand. Five of them, like Alfred Sadd, were civilians. Standing in the way After Afred had worked in hard labor for a number of days, there was an American air raid. This air raid motivated the Japanese to come to the decision to execute all prisoners. Many of the condemned prisoners were very not very old, barely out of school. They were afraid, uncertain and heavy-hearted. Alfred felt great compassion for these young men. As they stood in a row, waiting to be beheaded, he stepped to the front of the line. Courageously, he stood before them and spoke to them, cheering them on with words of faith. Perhaps at this point he remembered what he had written to his family at home not too long before this time: "God has something bigger ... He intends me to do." In any case, when he had finished speaking to the prisoners, he remained at the head of the line, almost as if shielding them as long as he could from the terrible fate that the Japanese had in mind. He thought more of their fears than his own. Alfred, consequently, was the first to be beheaded. It was October the 15th of 1942. Another Shield Easter is a commemorative time – a time when we remember the death, resurrection and, a little later, the ascension of our Lord. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane with eleven of His disciples just prior to being arrested, He was also concerned for their safety. They did not have any clear idea of the great plan of salvation. They were not even faintly aware of what God intended to do and they were opposed to the unfolding of events. Peter even took out a sword to stop the arrest. Jesus did not praise Peter for taking out his sword. Rather, He told Peter to put away the sword in order to protect him as much as to protect those who came to arrest Him. Mark well the words of John 18:4-9. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to Him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am He.” Judas, who betrayed Him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So He asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He. So, if you seek Me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill the word that He had spoken: “Of those whom you gave Me I have lost not one.” Twice Jesus proclaimed that He is the great I AM. He had come for this specific hour and would let nothing stand in the way of His purpose which was and is the salvation of His people. Much as Alfred Sadd's courage and love for his fellowmen is to be lauded, it is but a faint shadow compared to the courage and love Jesus showed for His elect. Praised be His name!...

Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

Christian Economics in One Lesson

by Gary North 2015 / 268 pages Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is what its title suggests, just one economic lesson explained in the first chapter – that we focus on the obvious impact of a government program, and don’t consider what otherwise might have happened with those dollars. It’s the seen vs. the unseen. That one lesson is then repeatedly applied to different situations in the 24 chapters that follow. In chapter 4, it is applied to public work projects: when the government builds a new sports stadium we can see the job created by its construction. What’s unseen is all the jobs that might have been created by businesses if they hadn’t had to pay the taxes to build that stadium. Overall, Hazlitt is making a general argument for less government and more economic freedom, but is making it on the basis of practicality: that a free market approach will make us all, overall, more prosperous (download the book for free). Effectiveness is the fruit, not the goal In his Christian Economics in One Lesson, Gary North makes his argument for free market economics on a very different basis: obedience. He also thinks the free market is the most effective way of making us all richer, but he sees that, not as a goal, but as a side effect – the fruit – of being obedient to God’s commands do not covet, and do not to steal. As his title suggests, he is riffing off of Hazlitt, and his chapters are a reworking of each of Hazlitt's. Economics is sometimes treated as a being simply about the math, about some sort of neutral accounting, pitting the different economic systems against each other to find out which creates the greatest benefit for society. Both socialists and capitalists could even agree that economics is about dealing with the problem of scarcity – there is only so much to go around, so how do we make the most of it? But North is arguing that economics is really a matter of ethics, and applying God's guidance on money, work, property, and covetousness to the real world. Then the better way is the way that obeys God’s commands. Now, like Hazlitt, North thinks the best system is the free market, and not the sort of so-called capitalism that involves getting government contracts and special favors. None of that crony "capitalism." This is, instead, a free market where people make exchanges voluntarily, and consequently, both sides benefit. No temptation to tweak But even as Hazlitt and North both hold to the free market system, it is significant that they got there very different ways. Hazlitt got there because the free market works – it is the most prosperous of all systems, doing more to raise people out of poverty than any other economic system before it. North arrives there because the free market is what results when we are obedient to God, respecting our neighbor's property and pushing back against our own covetousness. So, both support the free market. But for those like Hazlitt who arrived there for practical reasons, there will always be the temptation to tweak, and in doing so, to succumb to socialism. If capitalism works best, who's to say if capitalism plus just a smidge of socialism might not be better? Maybe just 5%? Or 10? How can we know unless we try? But there isn't the same temptation to tinker for Christians who choose the free market for its alignment with God's Word. We won't want to be 5% or 10% less obedient. And it is worth noting it is no coincidence that the economic system that most aligns with God's Word is also the one that best raises people out of poverty. That's simply God's love – He knows what is best for us, and when we obey, especially when we do so on a societal level, it goes better for us. Conclusion North's insight – that economics is about ethics, not efficiency; it is about obedience, and not prosperity – is a brilliant one, and worth the reinforcement that comes in the repeated applications that follow. If this isn’t the most important book I read last year, it is certainly in contention… and it can be downloaded for free here....

In a Nutshell

Tidbits - April 2023

Media-created news If you feel a need to know all that’s going on in the world around you, it’s important to understand how little the media account may actually represent reality. Jonathon Van Maren makes that point in his article “Malcolm Muggeridge on Christ and the Media”: In his slim 1977 volume Christ and the Media, Malcolm Muggeridge describes a scene instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with political protest in our TV age. He was in Washington, D.C. working as a correspondent and came across a group of protestors moping about, holding slackened signs, chatting. Bored police were also present. What were they waiting for? The cameras, as it turned out. Once they showed up – action! “Whereupon placards were lifted, slogans shouted, fists clenched; a few demonstrators were arrested and pitched into the police van, and a few cops kicked until, ‘Cut!’” Moments later, the streets were again silent. On TV that evening, it all looked very impressive. “On the television screen,” revolutionary Jerry Rubin once observed, “news is not so much reported as created.” Reasons to read “A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.” – C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory If Dad told only dinosaur jokes As you might expect with dinosaur jokes, all of these are oldies. And some of them are even goodies. What do you call a dinosaur that never gives up? Try-try-try-ceratops What dinosaur makes a good police officer? Tricera-cops. What did the dinosaur call her blouse shop? Try Sarah’s Tops. Why don’t dinosaurs drive cars? Too many Tyrannosaurus wrecks. What do you call a T-rex in a cowboy hat? Tyrannosaurus Tex How do you invite a dinosaur to a cafe? “Tea, Rex?” Where does the T-rex spend its money? At a dino-store What do you call a sleeping T-rex? A dino-snore What do you get when a dinosaur scores a touchdown? A dino-score What did the dinosaur use to build his house? A dino-saw Why did the dinosaur wear a bandage? It had a dino-sore SOURCE: Charles Keller’s Colossal Fossils: Dinosaur Riddles, and the world wide web A need for the outrageous? There’s a fellow I read occasionally because he has some unique insights into our culture. But I rarely quote him, because the way he talks is generally outside the bounds of what even Christians find acceptable. I’m not talking about truly offensive speech, but more that he’ll call spades spades right when everyone else is avoiding mention of dirt-moving equipment altogether. He explained: “…I personally decided to say things that are outside the Overton Window, knowing that this came with risks. My bet was that the good I could do was likely to outweigh the possible negative outcomes. You might make similar choices. The idea then is not to live in fear, but to be smartly and strategically courageous.” The “Overton Window” is a term to describe the range (window) of acceptable discourse – what makes for polite conversation. And this Window can be shifted. For example, publicly stating that homosexuality is sinful fell inside this Window when I was kid, but it doesn’t anymore. Why did things shift? Because some on the outside were willing to publicly state outrageous things like “homosexuality is good!” By repeatedly making these “out of bounds” statements they normalized the thought, and started pulling the Window in their direction. The eventual result was that what they were saying wasn’t viewed as outrageous any more. This Christian writer has taken that lesson, and decided to state his positions baldly, even when they fall well outside the Overton Window. He’s doing so in an attempt to pull that Window back where it belongs. The problem with his approach is that he’ll sometimes sound rude and crude, even to the Christians who agree with him. I’ve had a different approach, generally trying to make my case in as winsome a manner as possible. I want to frame what are becoming outrageous positions – that euthanasia is murder, the unborn are as valuable as you and me, etc. – as if they actually fall within the Overton Window, as they obviously should. But the problem with my approach is that no matter how reasonably I might present something today, unless God brings our country to repentance, it’s only a matter of time (only a matter of weeks?) before what was once acceptable is deemed bigoted. And then I’ll either have to be okay with being outrageous, or I’ll have to take back what I’d previously said. So whose approach is better? Well, when saying “what is a woman?” will get you in trouble, then the time might be now for all of us to get comfortable with being outrageous. Don’t go it alone "In more than a decade of pastoral ministry, I've never met a Christian who was healthier, more mature, and more active in ministry by being apart from the church. But I have found the opposite to be invariably true. The weakest Christians are those least connected to the body. And the less involved you are, the more disconnected those following you will be. The man who attempts Christianity without the church shoots himself in the foot, shoots his children in the leg, and shoots his grandchildren in the heart." -- Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in our Holiness A turn of a phrase “Paraprosdokians” take a common figure of speech and put a twist on the ending. Comedian Groucho Marx (“I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn’t it”) was a master, but the authorship of the very best examples is hard to track down. And what makes the very best good too, is that they are in fact true, the proof being in how they parallel Scripture. Don’t argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. (Prov. 26:4) – Mark Twain? When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water. (Prov. 15:1) – unknown Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak. (Prov. 17:28) – attributed, probably incorrectly, to Einstein Truth is hate to those who hate truth. (Prov. 9:7-8) – unknown The Andy Griffith Show on children "choosing" their gender In a Nov. 13, 1961 episode of The Andy Griffith Show titled “Opie’s Hobo Friend,” Sheriff Andy Taylor is concerned with the influence a hobo is having on his son. So he decides to have a talk with the man, David Browne. Browne wonders why the boy, Opie, can’t just figure things out on his own. BROWNE: “Who’s to say that the boy would be happier your way than mine. Why not let him decide?” SHERIFF TAYLOR: "Nah, I'm afraid it don't work that way. You can't let a young’un decide for himself. He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it. Then, when he finds out there's a hook in it, it's too late. Wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter that it's hard to convince ‘em that other things might be better in the long run. All a parent can do is say 'wait' and 'trust me' and try to keep temptation away." I almost titled this, “More sense in the 60s” but realized this wasn’t an example of things being better and people being smarter back in the day. Instead, it was the opposite, showing that they were wrestling with similar problems then too. Maybe that’s one reason why Solomon warns us “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions” (Eccl. 7:10). We won’t appreciate the blessings of today, nor the courage of our parents, if we keep imagining that yesteryear was so much better. Gary North on breaking your TV habit Gary North (1942-2022) was a Christian economist and such a prolific writer he must have followed the advice he offers here and entirely kicked his TV habit. “Put a piggy bank next to the couch where you watch TV. Every time you watch a one-hour show, put $2 into the piggy bank. If someone else watches, and you're a free rider, have that person put in $2. Then break the piggy bank – or at least empty it – in the last week of December. Put the money in your bank account. Then write a check for this amount. Send it to a charity. In short, put a price on your time. Pay the price. Economics teaches: ‘When the price rises, less is demanded.’ You will cut your TV habit by 50%. If not, make it $3.” Source: Gary North’s Tip of the Week, January 3, 2015...

News

Saturday Selections – Apr 1, 2023

Matt Maher: It's Yours (4 min) The first 30 seconds are misdirection but stick around for the transition for this great one. Not so long ago the AMA was puffing the tobacco industry  When we aren't in a position to evaluate something for ourselves – when we don't have the needed expertise – then the next best thing we can do is evaluate the trustworthiness of the experts we're forced to rely on (Matt. 7:20, Prov 12:17). And the AMA's long involvement with the tobacco industry – a product that has harmed millions – gives us reason to doubt either their ethics or their expertise, or both. Then skepticism is also reasonable when we are relying on their take to shape what we think about a novel vaccine. 5 things you should know about about the Trinity Our God is three in one. That's something we may never fully grasp, but because we love God we should be interested in seeking to grasp in part. And this short introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity is a great place to start. Social media means there's no "backstage" for our kids  For kids, school can feel like a performance. They have to think through what they say and do every minute of the day, not only in class, but even in the hallway, because there's always an audience around, always looking to critique. That's brutal, but at least coming home can be an escape... except that social media means even time away can be "performance time" – the critics are still ready. How to be a prolific writer For an aspiring author, these are a half dozen great tips. Creationist on the Babylon Bee Podcast (1 hour) President of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR.org) Dr. Randy Gulizza spent a fascinating hour on the Babylon Bee Podcast talking about how creationists can find deeper and deeper design because they know to look for it, even as evolutionists try to explain complexity via genetic breakages. ...

News

Did the “fountains of the deep” make Joe Rogan lose sleep?
Assorted, Indigenous peoples

Tragedy, resistance, and change: Glimpses into the Lejac Residential School near Fraser Lake, BC
News

Saturday Selections – Mar 25, 2023

How do evolutionists explain how the first cells replicated? (14 min) To evolve, cells would need to be able to replicate, so how do evolutionists ex...
History

The long road to Christian broadcasting in Canada

How Christian activism successfully changes governmental policy ***** The presence of Christian radio and television stations in Canada is a relativ...
News

Saturday Selections – Mar 18, 2023

St. Patrick's bad analogies In honor of St. Patrick's Day just past, and our God who has made Himself known, and yet remains incomprehensible. Case studies – 2 Canadian, 1 Australian – show how ideology is preventing inquiry When it comes to the free exchange of ideas, Christians are often portrayed as suppressors because we have a problem with pornography and blasphemy - we do want to put some restrictions on "speech." But God has told us that iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17) , and that one person questioning another can help us find the truth (Prov. 18:17). Thus there is a biblical basis for allowing speech we disagree with: to help us better seek the truth. But what basis outside of Christianity is there for freedom of speech? Whatever reasons are offered will either be founded on a Christian foundation (if only you dig deep enough) or aren't strong enough to stand up to groupthink, as is evidenced by the reaction to the three follks here, who are guilty of wrongthink. Britain's 1984 moment The "conservative" government across the ocean has just voted for criminalizing the thoughtcrime of silent prayer outside abortion clinics. The silver lining here is that when the Devil overreaches – when he uses the iron fist, rather than the siren song – his lack of subtlety makes it possible for even the most tongue-tied among us to clearly present the antithesis: that the world must choose between bowing the knee to God, or standing with the baby-killers and the thought-police. That's clarity we can be grateful for. Fight for your pastor Shepherds not only have to contend with wolves but they are called to tend sometimes contentious sheep. So what are we doing to sustain them in their role? Are you fighting for your pastor? 3 rules of rational parenting derived from... economics? A Christian professor taps into economics to explain why you should never give in to your child's tantrums – this is a parenting lesson unlike any other :) This is a coat! (4 min) For parents everywhere.... (h/t Anita) ...

News

Saturday Selections – Mar 11, 2023

"Cascading problems" showcase your body's design (2 min) Your cells need oxygen, and that creates a problem because, how are they going to get it? You need a respiratory system to distribute that O2. But oxygen doesn't dissolve all that well in the bloodstream – to carry it you need hemoglobin. To get the right amount of hemoglobin you need your kidney cells to regulate their production. And hemoglobin needs iron, but too much iron is toxic to you, so you'll need a mechanism to regulate the amount of iron your intestines absorb. And you'll need some means of transporting that iron to where it needs to go. And on and on it goes. One problem requires you to solve another and another... and all at the same time. Should we treat Big Tech like Big Tobacco? "A mounting body of evidence suggests that social media contributes to the skyrocketing rates of anxiety and depression among teens." This article suggests the government as the solution, but if parents understand the need, they are already in a position to act. Marie Kondo has kind of given up on cleaning after her third child Did you know that the queen of tidying up wrote her bestseller The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up as a single woman of 27? Now, as a mom of three at 38, she has discovered that if the choice is between a perfectly tidy house or feeding the kids, the kids win every time. Tim Challies on Asbury: a cold take The Asbury Revival is over, but for two weeks in February, something was happening on the campus of Asbury University – students and a growing crowd of thousands of others prayed and worshipped non-stop. For those of us at a distance, there was no pressing need to evaluate what was happening, and as Tim Challies suggests here, we could simply offer guarded optimism. Woke ideology now dominates Ontario public schools This is a secular account, but even the irreligious are saying enough is enough. How the Canadian government funds the Left Here's a practical argument for small government: for decades now Canada's federal government has been using taxpayer dollars to fund a leftwing agenda via the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The Amish go green (4 min) When this video came out 10 years ago, it was meant to be humorous, more than satiric. It could only be more on the nose now if the speaker had flown in on a private jet to impress on the Amish how they must do their part. ...

Documentary, Movie Reviews, Pro-life - Adoption, Watch for free

Rescued: the heart of adoption and caring for orphans

Documentary 62 min / 2012 RATING: 7/10 There is something a little unsettling about watching a documentary that passionately encourages adoption. RC Sproul Jr. and Kevin Swanson, two of the many folks interviewed, readily assure watchers that not everyone is called to adopt. But then they go on to note how care for orphans is a godly act, an act that pastors should encourage off the pulpit, and an act the Church is currently not giving enough attention to. There are so many children who need parents, that it’s hard to watch and not wonder, “Are we just being selfish deciding not to adopt?” And, of course, that’s the very point: we’re not all called to adopt, but maybe a lot more of us are called to adopt than we think and we just haven’t thought through it all that carefully or prayerfully. These folks want us to think it through again…or for the first time. At just one hour this is a very “shareable” adoption resource, especially since it is now available to watch for free online. That makes it easy to point out to friends and family whether they are interested in adopting a child, or whether they've never thought about it before. It is attractive, with good interviewees, and has a solid Christian perspective. So watch it, share it, and talk about it. ...

Assorted

Tolerance

The common word on the streets today is “tolerance.” That idea, however, is wrong – very wrong... dead wrong! There’s no such thing as tolerance. No one is tolerant. Tolerance is a myth; indeed, it is a dangerous myth. Anyone who claims to stand for tolerance, anyone who says he is tolerant – whether he’s aware of it or not – is lying. “Wait a minute. I disagree. I’m tolerant, no matter what you say. And, furthermore, I resent being called a liar.” You’re a liar! “Now, hold on. How can you say that? You don’t even know me. How can you call me a liar?” Because you’re lying — that’s what liars do. “It simply isn’t right of you to pre-judge me, your reader, when you have never met me.” Oh? Why not? You seem to be agitated over a simple statement that I made out there in the blue. I didn’t ask you to chime in. You put yourself in the category of liars. “I can’t have people going around calling others liars without challenging them. After all, by implication, since I’m a tolerant person, you included me.” If you are truly tolerant of differing points of view you wouldn’t go about challenging those who say something that disagrees with yours. If you’re truly tolerant, then why don’t you cheerfully agree that I have every right to go about telling your friends and relatives that you’re a liar? “That wouldn’t be right. I don’t like people to make unfounded judgments. And, besides it would be a nasty thing to do.” Are you saying that you’re intolerant of such a claim? Or of anyone who makes it? “No. I’m tolerant of views that differ from mine.” Then, you wouldn’t mind if I talk to your friends — right? “Wrong.” What makes it wrong to do so? “The fact that it’s simply untrue.” But I say that it is true. “Let’s stop this bickering right now. Would you be satisfied if I conceded that you have the right to be wrong?” Ah! So, you’re so tolerant that you are ready to tolerate “error “to make it go away? “That isn’t so. I accept only those things that are true.” So you don’t tolerate error? It doesn’t matter to you whether others are in error or not so long as you are right? Does that mean you are tolerant of error in others and, therefore, of what you call my lies and my position of intolerance? “I want others to know the truth too.” Then, why don’t you accept the truth that you’re a liar? “Because it’s not true.” ‘Tis. “Taint.” ‘Tis. “Prove it” You claim that you’re tolerant when we know that it’s not true. So you say/deny that you tolerate error in yourself/others. “There you go – calling me a liar again! And, I certainly don’t know that it’s true.” All this discussion and you haven’t yet gotten the point? I say you’re a liar simply because you’ve already demonstrated that you are. You claim to accept truth alone, yet you won’t admit that you’re a liar or that you’re intolerant. That’s two lies right there.  “You’re impossible!” That’s number three. “OK, there’s one thing I can’t tolerate – you! You’re intolerable.” Good. First thing you’ve said that’s right so far. You’re coming along. But since it’s true, that too proves you’re a liar. You said that you are tolerant, but let me ask you, are you intolerant not only of my intolerance but of intolerance in general? Seems that a tolerant person would have to be in order to be consistent. “Well...” See, that’s the reason why anyone who claims to be tolerant isn’t. You said that you resented being called a liar. That sounds like an intolerant attitude to me. You can’t tolerate intolerance or you’re tolerating what you claim to abhor. Put it the other way: you claim to abhor what you ought to tolerate – if you were truly tolerant. That position is contradictory in itself. To be intolerant of intolerance is contradictory. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, you can lie about it. Let’s move on. Why do you think that intolerance is dangerous? “Don’t think that it is.” Every Christian does. Are you a Christian? “Yes.” Jesus said that He was the way to the Father (if you remember) and that nobody can come to the Father but by Him. The apostle also said that there is no other Name under the sky by which a person may be saved—but only by Jesus’ Name. “Yes, but . . .” No ‘buts’ about it, so far as the Bible is concerned. No one can be saved except by Jesus Christ. All other ways are erroneous, indeed, nothing but lies. So they are dangerous, leading people astray, away from the only true way to God. Right? “But I tolerate other people’s views.” Why? That’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to them. The idea again is that you can tolerate error in others, but not in yourself, right? It doesn’t matter what happens to them – just so you can be tolerant. Is that it? “That’s not fair.” Who’s talking about fairness? By what standard do you determine whether or not something is fair? But, let’s go on rather than getting into a round of that. Do you believe in Christian missions? “Of course.” Then you believe in intolerance. The whole concept of missions is based on a doctrine of intolerance—intolerance of the evil religions of men that lead them to eternal damnation. Moreover, and of greater importance, these false religions dishonor the true God. Missionaries believe that false beliefs must be destroyed before they destroy those who hold them. God doesn’t tolerate false belief or unbelief. Read Romans 1. “I have read it. But we can be polite.” Of course, often we can. But who’s talking about politeness? And by the way, tell me, did Jesus tolerate the Pharisees and the Sadducees? “Well . . .” Do you remember some of the things He said to them and about them? “Certainly.” Was Jesus always polite when he did? Why are you tolerant when Jesus wasn’t? You’re a Christian. Follow Him! “I give up. You’re hopeless!” You mean intolerant? Dr. Jay Adams (1929-2020) was the father of modern biblical counseling and authored more than 100 books. This is from his blog which can be found at  Nouthetic.org. This first appeared in the March 2009 issue....

News

Saturday Selections – Mar 4, 2023

Trick shot basketball (5 min) Everyone talks basketball in March, so here are some highlights from the "That's Amazing" crew and the Harlem Globetrot...
Theology

The problem with "pan-millennialism"

“I’m not amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial. I’m pan-millennial.” “Huh?” “Yep, I’m pan-millennial—I believe it will...
In a Nutshell

Tidbits - March 2023

Why is so much Christian fiction bad? Back in the June 30, 2007 issue of WORLD magazine, Marvin Olasky “interviewed” the long-departed novelist F...
Adult biographies, Articles, Book Reviews, Church history

10 great Christian biographies

A reason to read Christian biographies is to see and be encouraged by what God has done in other people’s lives. They're a way to learn about how Go...
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 25, 2023

Cell membranes are amazing! (11 min) Each one of your cells has its own protective shell that has to be able to let food in, allow garbage out, and repel invaders. And there was no time for these abilities to evolve separately because a cell needs all these abilities from the get-go... otherwise it will die. Why do Christians make such a big deal about sex? When the world throws slurs at the church - "Why are you guys so obsessed with sex!" – we might be tempted to deny the attack. But as Rebecca McLaughlin notes "Whenever people ask me why Christians are so weird about sex, I first point out that we’re weirder than they think. The fundamental reason why Christians believe that sex belongs only in the permanent bond of male-female marriage is because of the metaphor of Jesus’s love for his church." The most dangerous type of Christian parenting Parents worried about how their kids are going to embarrass them are focused more on their "spiritual reputation" than their children's actual spiritual sanctification. Is this the dawn of a sexual counter-revolution? Another secular critic is rejecting the world's approach to sex and love and marriage, because of all the damage done. But while secular folks like this are starting to see through the lie, they still need someone to point them to the Truth. The Second Commandment, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and images of Jesus The focus of this article is on pictures of Jesus in story bibles, but the point being made is relevant too, to the popular The Chosen TV drama about Jesus's disciples, but which also features Jesus Himself. Some Christians argue it is different to portray the incarnate Jesus – rather than the invisible Father or Holy Spirit – because He did have a physical body. This article offers up what the "Westminster Divines" thought. There are also practical considerations: when Jesus is portrayed, there's the matter of accuracy. Historically, European artists have portrayed Him as European, making it easy to forget His Jewishness... and might that have contributed to anti-Semitism? In making a visual representation of Christ it seems unavoidable to, at least in part, recast Him in a contemporary hue. In keeping with our time, The Chosen's producers have given women a more prominent placement than they have in the Scriptures, with perhaps the most notable being the healing of the paralyzed man of Luke 5:17-25. It was men that arranged for their friend to be lowered through the ceiling; in the series two women, Tamar and Mary Magdalene, are credited with the idea. Don't just vote (2 min) Every election cycle there's a push to get everyone to vote. But why are we trying to make it easier (with mail-in ballots) for uninterested people to vote? ...

Assorted

“good” vs. good

Our political leaders think they know what’s best for us. But by what standard are they judging what’s good? *****  Why should Christians participate in political action in the first place? That’s an important question to answer, since Christian involvement in politics is largely misunderstood by the world, and not always clarified that well by Christians themselves. So, again, why should Christians get involved in politics? To advocate for society to be built on Christian principles, since we know these principles are what God commands in His Word. We also want to advocate for the freedom for God’s people to do what He has called us to do. Don’t force your morality on me! Now, the world around us will ask us to kindly keep our religion to ourselves and they’ll tell us we shouldn’t try to force our morality on them. Other Christians can also be among the most vocal opponents of applying an explicitly Christian approach to public policy. You might hear them argue that while God’s Word is authoritative for us and for how we live, it isn’t authoritative for the world around us. Who are we to think that we can apply our faith to public policy? Isn’t it inappropriate to apply biblical principles to those who do not believe? We might be tempted to think that if someone’s choices are not hurting anyone, then do we still need to advocate for Christian policy? This might be particularly so when it comes to the whole area of sexuality: if two men are living together, or a couple is shacked up before marriage, should we really care? Maybe we should just keep to ourselves and avoid any sort of “political” conversations around marriage, or gender, or family.  The “common good” But if we rule out a Christian approach to politics, then what’s left? The alternative typically proposed relies on the idea of “the common good” or “the public interest.” Policies are presented as being good for various groups of citizens. So, for example: decriminalizing abortion is presented as giving women the right to choose legalizing euthanasia is presented as a means of relieving suffering redefining marriage is presented as allowing people to love whoever they want Other examples would include how certain housing policies are presented as strategies to reduce homelessness and policies allowing safe injection sites might be presented as preventing overdose deaths. In these cases, does the government care about the common good? In their minds, yes. But their perspective of the common good is often different from a Reformed Christian’s perspective. The fact is, every policy springs from a particular worldview. Our worldview directly impacts how we define policy issues and how we propose solutions. If I think that choice or autonomy is the ultimate good, then abortion and euthanasia would seem to be good things. But if I know that God’s law places important limits on choice and autonomy, I’ll understand that abortion and euthanasia must fall within those limitations. Policy decisions impact real people, but how we view that impact depends on how we see the world and our place in it more broadly. And we must also examine the worldview of our policy-makers as we consider the policies they champion. A “faith” in science or liberalism or secularism or autonomy or anything else will affect how they view law and policy.  For the true good of our neighbors Because of differing ideas of the “common good,” some Christians might say that we should only advocate for policies based on social scientific evidence that the world can agree with. But if we forget about the biblical worldview behind our evidence, it will often be interpreted in a way that is detrimental to those around us. For example, as governments seek to redefine the family, the prevailing attitude is “all kids need is a loving family - it doesn’t matter what the family structure is.” It can be easy to fall into this thinking. After all, aren’t loving gay parents better than an abusive mother and father? We begin to look at extremes instead of a biblical starting point for the family. And we fail to hold to an objective foundation for what is truly good for the people affected. Christians need to be confident in both the wisdom and goodness of our God, and consequently certain that principles set forth in the Bible will yield policies that are good for Canadians. It is in the Gospel where we find the truth about humanity and the world. Therefore, we should also seek to influence our society with God’s law. As Christian philosopher James Smith explained in his book Awaiting the King, “if we are convinced (convicted) that in Christ and His Word we know something about how to be human, then shouldn’t we seek to bend social practices and policy in that direction for the good of our neighbors?” This applies not just to life issues like euthanasia and abortion, but also when we’re talking about the family, gender, and sexuality. There too, we need to recognize God’s good design for human beings before we can understand what is truly good for our neighbors. And when we know what God thinks, then the facts will fit too – as ARPA Canada explained in a recent policy document, the natural family as God designed it is statistically most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. The world’s “good” exposed As confident as we can be that God knows best, we can also be certain that the world’s “good” will eventually be exposed as anything but. I recently learned about one organization that focuses on trying to help the “survivors of the Sexual Revolution.” That’s language you don’t often hear in the broader culture, because our society views the Sexual Revolution as a beneficial liberation from the constraints of sexual morality. But victims abound, including many who didn’t survive: prostituted and abused women, people who have undergone “sex reassignment” procedures, children who have lost a parent due to divorce, and of course the many aborted children. A recent example of harm caused by the Sexual Revolution is the enactment of a national, criminal ban on conversion therapy. The ban assumes that biblical views on gender and sexuality are harmful to people struggling with their gender or sexuality. In reality, the law hinders people who are struggling from receiving the help they need. This brings us back to the question of worldview. A Christian worldview in this instance presents the truth about God’s design for humanity, the reality of a fallen world, but also the way of restoration. Conclusion The world will criticize us for advocating for biblically based policies, and characterize it as trying to “force our own morality on others” or as “getting involved in something that doesn’t concern them.” Other Christians may even find fault with bringing the Bible to bear in the public square. But it is because we care deeply about our neighbors that we want to share and advocate for what is true and good. And it is because of God and His Word that we know what is true and good. So when we hear of a policy decision, we need to step back and look at biblical principles and what God’s Word says about what is glorifying to God and good for our neighbors. From there, we can analyze whether the government truly understands what is good for our neighbors based on God’s good design. As Nancy Pearcey writes in Love Thy Body: “Christians must be prepared to minister to the wounded, the refugees of the secular moral revolution whose lives have been wrecked by its false promises of freedom and autonomy.” Advocating for Christian policy is not selfish nor oppressive. It is truly for the common good....

News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 18, 2023

Recycling plastic is bad stewardship (7 min) Recycling paper and cans can make sense. Despite what we've been told, recycling plastic most often doesn't. How long have you been battling sin? Tim Challies on how "In some way each of us carries a heavy load through this life. In some way each of us finds it a long marathon more than a brief sprint. In some way each of us is called to endure with fortitude, even for a very long time." 1984, China, and Sydney WorldPride 2023 As George Orwell wrote, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four" - it is the freedom to say what really is, including that men can't become women, and homosexuality is a sin. Declare that anywhere around Sydney this upcoming week, and you will not be tolerated or celebrated for your diverse thinking - you will be instead a candidate for the "two minute hate." Trans "medicine" is based on bad science A new study is debunking the “Dutch Protocol” research that was being used to promote and legitimize "trans" treatments. Creationist Christians were always aware that ideologically-driven bias exists in "Science" but now the trans agenda is making that increasingly plain to everyone else too. A biblical identity for adoptees Adopted children can struggle with their sense of identity. How can we help them to cultivate a biblical identity? Coherence - amazing evidence of our design (1 min) If you've ever had to replace a missing screw from this or that gizmo in your house, you already know the importance of coherence – it isn't enough to have a screw; you need to have the exact right screw that the gizmo has been designed to work with. The coherence in our bodies – eyes that precisely fit eyeball sockets, wrist bones that each, individually fit alongside the other wrist bones, muscles that attach at just the right points, arteries that carry blood to exactly where it is needed, etc. and etc. – is clear evidence of our own brilliant design. ...

Soup and Buns

Friends or acquaintances?

Loneliness can make you pretty sad. In lonely times, you may ponder your relationships and realize that they are superficial. Perhaps you have wanted to strengthen them and not known how. Perhaps you have tried, but you have not yet been successful. It may be that a little analysis and understanding could head you in the right direction. In the realm of relationships, there are four categories that people fall into: strangers, acquaintances, companions, and friends. Strangers are those whom you haven’t met yet; the other three categories can somewhat overlap. Acquaintances and companions Acquaintances are people whom we have met. They may be neighbors, fellow students, customers or co-workers. They may also be the majority of the members of our church. We know them by sight and reputation, and may feel comfortable having a conversation with them. The level of the conversation is usually superficial, pleasant, and relevant to our activities or the weather. Companions are the people whom we are together within a specific group. We function together because we are together. But as soon as we graduate, retire, or move away, we rarely stay in touch with most of them. The group defined our activities and without its structure, we drift apart. Friends Friends are on a level above these categories. Some will be close and one or two may get the title of “best friend” within your lifetime. Friends enjoy, love, and encourage you. They stick by you in difficult times, and are never an intrusion. Friends don’t keep track or keep score. Friends understand you and share your deepest griefs and your highest joys. They help when necessary and possible. This connection rarely disappears, for even if busy friends live far apart, they still value contact. I read about a tribe in an African country where each person is assigned a friend when he is young. This person is his official best friend, and they are to care for one another throughout their lives. It is considered as sacred a relationship as marriage. What a remarkable way to honor friendship, instill loyalty, provide security and prevent loneliness! The people there didn’t move away from home, so outside of death, this friendship was a certainty in a person’s life. It was stability, a fact to be counted upon. To call everyone a “friend” on a daily basis is sometimes easier than trying to subdivide into all of these categories. But it can be helpful to analyze and determine which of your companions you might like to encourage to become your friends. From one to the other How do you change the categories? A friendship must be built. Proverbs 18:24 states, “A man that has friends must show himself friendly.” From this we learn that selfless effort is the way to get started. I'll note it is somewhat like a dating relationship, even as I'll quickly add I am not talking in any way about a sexual attraction. Two people are determining whether the other person’s company is worth an investment of their time. Usually, one person is more proactive in pursuing the relationship at the beginning. It helps to know that. This is not necessarily because the friendship is undesired by the other party. Rather, it is just because the other person is busy, isn’t as eager for company, or is kind of lazy about that sort of thing. Let’s face it, it’s easier to relax at home than to get out and interact with people. Think about your companions and choose someone who might be “friendship material.” Now it is time for both action and patience. Think of an activity that you might enjoy together and call with an invitation. Or just call to say hello and talk for a while. If it goes well, try it again after a week. Take joy in the slow progress, and be patient because depth takes time. If nothing comes of it, still give it a try at another time, and/or choose someone else to befriend. Don’t be discouraged if the person doesn’t issue invitations to you or initiate the call, as long as he or she is glad to hear from you and spend time together. Some people aren’t good at initiating but they enjoy responding. On the other hand, if you are accustomed to responding and not initiating, and you really want friends, you might want to pray for courage to get the process going instead of feeling sad that no one is calling you. As we put forth the efforts to build friendships, we can also pray and ask God to provide for us in this way, because a friend is a gift from God. We should also realize that others may need to have our care and friendship. It is important not to get so caught up in our own little worlds that we neglect growing closer to the members of our congregation. This first appeared in the December 2007 issue of Reformed Perspective. Find more of Sharon's articles by clicking here. This column is one of several dozen collected in her book "Soup and Buns," which you can purchase by contacting the author at sharoncopy1@ gmail.com. ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
   
Bench Press Theme by Evolve Digital  & Third Floor Design Studio