Recent Articles | Reformed Perspective

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or billions of years: why would He do it like that?

I recently set about the task of making an enclosure to keep animals, and I want to tell you how I did it. This may seem to be a strange topic for Reformed Perspective readers but please bear with me and I trust that all will become clear.

Quite the creation

My aim was to create a large, secure enclosure and so I began by marking out an area within my back yard. You may think it somewhat eccentric, but for some very good reasons (which I won’t trouble you with) I had to begin the construction at night. So right after I had marked out the area and unraveled some fencing, I erected an enormous halogen lamp over the whole site, which, when turned on, flooded the area with light, which was good.

The following day I began to clear the enclosure, which was somewhat waterlogged. I bailed out most of the water, but took care to leave some behind, as I needed a little in order to provide ponds for the aquatic animals. By the end of the day, I have to say I was well pleased with the result.

When I came back to the site the next day, I began to shift some of the water I had left in the enclosure into ponds by digging holes in some places, and then piling the dirt up into mounds elsewhere to create dry patches. Once this was done, I spent the remainder of the day putting in some plants and food for the animals to eat. By this time, the whole thing was starting to take shape really nicely.

My main task on the following day was to take down the halogen lamp, which I had only intended as a temporary measure, and to put some smaller, permanent lights around the outside of the enclosure, which when fixed up, looked really quite wonderful.

The next two days things began to get really exciting. First I put some fish and other aquatic creatures into the ponds and I also brought some birds into the enclosure. Then on the following day I introduced some land animals into the enclosure.

At this point, the whole thing was almost finished, except for one thing. It had always been my intention to get my son to look after the enclosure, and so the last thing I did was to show him what I had made, telling him that it was a gift to him and giving him some quite specific instructions as to how I wanted him to perform the task of looking after it.

You perhaps won’t be surprised to hear that at the end of all that I took the next day off and had a well-earned rest. Surveying all that I had done, I can honestly say that I was extremely pleased with the way things had turned out. The whole thing had taken me a total of 24 years from start to finish, but it was well worth it.

*****

“Now hang on a second. Did you just say 24 years?”

“Yes, that’s right, 24 years.”

“But from what you said above, it sounded like the whole thing took you six days with one day of rest at the end.”

“Yes, it did sound like that, didn’t it? But if I told you that one day is as four years to me, would that begin to make a little more sense?”

*****

Well no it wouldn’t, but hopefully you’ve got the point by now. The time frame above clearly cannot be stretched out from six days of work into 24 years, yet this is essentially the position taken by those who advocate theistic evolution when they attempt to stretch the creation account in Genesis into billions of years. What I want to do in the remainder of this article is to ask whether there are any compelling reasons why we might want to engage in this particular “stretching exercise.”

Why would it take so long?

Sticking with the above introductory analogy, let me pose the following question: why might such a project end up taking 24 years, rather than six days? There are five possible reasons:

1. I might actually need 24 years to complete a project because of the sheer amount of work involved (although anyone who has seen the plethora of unfinished projects in my shed might wonder whether even 24 years would be enough time).
2. I might be impeded by one thing or another – resources, health or weather, for example.
3. I might just be plain lazy and so somehow manage to turn a six day job into a 24 year job.
4. I might need to take a long time in order to make sure the work is of sufficient quality.
5. I might have some other purpose for having taken 24 years, when I could easily have done it much quicker.

Now of all these possibilities apply to men, but only the last one might apply to God. Though the volume of work, unforeseen impediments, laziness and the issue of quality might be factors in the length of time it would take me to build my enclosure, all Christians would agree that none of these things would be factors for God in the creation of the Heavens and the Earth.

The amount of work involved was no obstacle to God, nor could anything have impeded Him in the process. It goes without saying that laziness, whilst applying to men, does not and could not apply to God, and it also goes without saying that the quality issue is not a factor with God, and He could have produced a Universe of the same perfect quality no matter what time period He took to complete it. In other words, there was nothing whatsoever that could have prevented Him from finishing His creation in a nanosecond, six days or 13 billion years – whatever He willed to do.

A reason for six days

Which leaves us with only the final possibility – that of having some other purpose for taking time to finish a job. With men, it is difficult to think of a single reason why anyone, given the option of building an enclosure such as the one described above in 6 days or 24 years, would deliberately choose to do it in 24 years. That would make little sense. If a man were just as able to produce work of excellent quality, whether it took him 6 days or 24 years, why would he choose the 24-year option? Furthermore, if his purpose in creating the enclosure was because he wanted to give it to his son as a gift, wouldn’t it be odd if he deliberately chose to take 24 years to complete it rather than six days?

Now someone might conceivably use this very point to question why God would have created in six days, rather than a nanosecond. After all, He could have finished it all in a nanosecond if He had wanted to. There is, however, a very good reason why this was so, since His purpose was to give the world as a gift to man to tend and keep. The six days of work and one day of rest sets a pattern for how men are to live, worship and take dominion over that gift. This is clearly seen in the reason given for keeping the 4^th commandment: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

But what good reasons exist why God might have chosen to create in 13 billion years rather than six days? If I am to take the claims of theistic evolution seriously, what I want to know is why He would have done it this way and not done it that way.

Arguments for or against theistic evolution are usually discussions of whether the word "day" (Yom) must be taken literally, or what “the rocks” say, or whether evolution undermines the foundation of the gospel itself. These arguments have been covered very ably by others, but what I want to do is to come at the issue from a different angle. My question is simply this: If God could have made the Heavens and the Earth and all that in them is in six days, what arguments from Scripture and from the purposes of God are there to support the idea that He actually decided to take billions of years and evolutionary processes to do so? In other words, why would He do it like that?

Bring glory to God

In order to test the claims of those who affirm theistic evolution, we must begin by asking the following question: what is God’s overarching creational purpose? Revelation 4:11 supplies us with the answer to this: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created.” In other words, God’s purpose in creating all things was to bring glory and honor to himself.

There are essentially two ways that God gets glory from his creation. One is from the very fact of his creation itself being wonderful and reflecting his glory. There is a sense in which even if there were not one single believer on planet Earth, the creation would still praise Him and He would still be glorified. The Psalms are particularly rich in descriptions of God’s natural order praising Him, for instance verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 148: “Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” But although the creation can and does praise Him, by virtue of their being glorious and reflecting His glory, is this the praise that God ultimately seeks?

Imagine that Beethoven had premiered his 5^th Symphony to an empty concert hall and so at the end there was complete silence. Would the lack of people to applaud the piece diminish it at all or call into question the genius of its composer? Of course not! The music is glorious regardless of whether anyone actually listens to it or applauds.

In much the same way, God’s creation exalts Him and brings Him glory irrespective of whether there exists another being to acknowledge it. Days 1 to 5 of Genesis – prior to the creation of man – are all described as good. But just as Beethoven’s intention was never just to create a symphony and have it played to an empty concert hall, God’s intention was never to create the world and leave it without a creature to praise and thank Him for it. Beethoven’s 5^th is great, regardless of who listens to it, but how much more glorious does the piece become when an audience is there to hear and gives a standing ovation at the end? By the same token, God’s creation is glorious, regardless of who is there to appreciate it, yet how much more is God glorified when He receives the praise of angels and men?

His overarching purpose was therefore to create a being that was not only made in His own image, but also capable of and willing to give Him glory. The Westminster Shorter Catechism famously begins with the question “What is the chief end of man” and gives the answer, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This can be flipped on its head to become “What was God’s purpose in creating man? That He might be glorified and that man might share in His happiness.” That, in a nutshell, is why God made us and therefore why we are here. We are to reflect his glory in everything we do, we are to enjoy Him and the gifts He gives us, and we are to return praise and thanksgiving to Him in our worship. This fits perfectly into the six days of work and one day of rest worship paradigm, where the pattern for our lives is established and ordered. But how does this fit in with the paradigm given by theistic evolution?

Earth made for us

Theistic evolution assumes that it took billions of years for the earth to even exist, yet alone become inhabited. Yet this is at variance with Isaiah, who says that “the Lord did not create the Earth in vain,” but rather “formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). If God’s purpose for the Earth was for it to be inhabited by men, and that it would be vain not to be inhabited by them, what possible reason would He have had to leave it uninhabited for so long?

Genesis 1:26-28 is clear that the whole purpose of the created order was that it was a gift for His image bearer who was to be given charge over it. If this was the purpose of God’s creation, what possible reasons would He have had to put this off for something like 13 billion years?

The Scriptures plainly teach that God’s purpose for man was not only to bear and reflect his image, but also to praise him in his worship: “I will praise You, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will tell of all your marvelous works” (Psalm 9:1). If this is God’s purpose for man, what possible reasons would he have had to defer receiving praise for billions of years?

Deferred glory, dominion

God’s purposes and His glory simply cannot be reconciled with the theistic evolution paradigm. To come back to the original analogy I used earlier, if my purpose was to create an enclosure and to give it to my son, so that he might tend it and return to give me thankfulness, in what way would I be achieving my purpose if I deliberately took 24 years to complete it when I could have finished it in six days? How then was God’s creational purpose and His glory fulfilled if he took 13 billion years and a multitude of dead animals along the way, when he could have done it all in six days and minus the carnage?

Furthermore, where is man’s dignity in all of this? Psalm 8 states that man is crowned with glory and honor (Psalm 8:5). In the six day creational paradigm, it is easy to see why this is so. The Earth was made for man and given to him as a gift. He was then given responsibility for it and God “made him to have dominion over the works of his hands” (Psalm 8:6). The theistic evolution paradigm robs man of this highly exalted position for over 99% of the history of the creation, and for billions of years the Earth was apparently left to its own devices, without a dominion taker and without one bearing the Imago Dei.

In conclusion, a straightforward reading of the Genesis account clearly suggests that God finished the Heavens and the Earth, including His image bearer, in a period of six days. This entirely accords with God’s purpose in creating all things – that He might receive glory and honor. The onus is therefore on those who advocate theistic evolution to show from the Scriptures and from the purposes of God why and how He would have used billions of years of slow graduated changes, without mankind to glorify Him, in order to bring this about. My contention is that theistic evolution is not only incompatible with the straightforward Genesis narrative, it also misses the entire purpose God had for His creation. As far as theories go, it falls well short of His glory.

This was originally published in the July/August 2013 issue under the title “Why would He do it like that?”

Theology

The Pursuit of Wisdom: do it ‘til you die

Some might assume that, as they grow older, they will grow in wisdom. But the Bible tells us that’s hardly a given. One of the themes of the book of...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Some is better than none “There is nothing wrong with starting a hefty book like Calvin’s Institutes and only getting a hundred pages read. Think...

Assorted

When there is smoke…

You think you know someone. Five years – truly, has it already been five years that we have spent morning, noon and night working side by side? H...

Science - General

Wild about beetles

From a young age some people are fascinated by beetles. For example, English author A. A. Milne wrote a delightful poem concerning a boy and his pet. ...

Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom

One of the greatest social theorists of the twentieth century was a libertarian – some would say conservative – economist named Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek spent his life arguing that free enterprise is not only necessary for economic prosperity, but also essential to maintain political liberty. For much of his career, he faced overwhelming opposition to these views, but he did eventually gain some mainstream acceptance, winning the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek’s life and legacy An important book about Hayek has recently been published, written by Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London, England. It’s called Friedrich Hayek: The ideas and influence of the libertarian economist (2012), and it summarizes Hayek’s life and key insights. Hayek was born in 1899 in Vienna, earned a doctorate in law from the University of Vienna in 1921, and a doctorate in political science from the same university in 1923. At the University of Vienna Hayek became a close associate of Ludwig von Mises, the leading figure in the “Austrian School” of economics, which emphasizes the importance of the free market. Hayek and Mises then set up an economic think tank and Hayek undertook economic research. His research demonstrated that bad government policy was the cause of the “boom and bust” cycle of many countries’ economies, and he predicted that the USA was about to experience such a bust. Shortly thereafter, in 1929, his prediction came true, with the Wall Street Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1931 Hayek took up a position teaching economics at the prestigious London School of Economics in England. He became a naturalized British citizen in 1938 after Hitler took over Austria. The Road to Serfdom In April 1945 Readers' Digest released an abridged version of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. While the original is 250+ pages, this version is just 60. It can be read for free online here. There is also an 18-page cartoon summary that was meant to create interest in the longer book. You can find the comic at Mises.org/books/TRTS where you can also download the original, both of them also free to download. Because of World War Two, Hayek began to focus more on political science. He was afraid that totalitarian ideas were going to sweep the world, not just in the more vicious forms of Nazism or Communism, but even in the softer form of socialism. He believed that the moderately socialistic direction of the Western countries in the mid-twentieth century would ultimately lead to authoritarian government. To articulate this view, in 1944 he wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom, which was very controversial and quickly sold out its first print run. Butler notes that this book was: read by the young Margaret Thatcher, who later said she found it "the most powerful critique of socialist planning and the socialist state." It made Hayek’s name in America, too, where tens of thousands of copies were sold, and Reader’s Digest distributed another 600,000 copies of its own condensed version. Due to this publicity, Hayek gave lectures across the USA and became a visiting professor at Stanford University. In order to help spread libertarian ideas, in 1947 Hayek assembled 39 British, European and American scholars who supported individual freedom to found an organization that would promote the intellectual case for the free society. Because this meeting was held at the Swiss resort of Mont Pelerin, it was called the Mont Pelerin Society. This increasingly important organization still exists today to pursue the same goal. Shortly after World War Two, a former Royal Air Force fighter pilot named Antony Fisher went to Hayek to get advice on how to promote free enterprise in the face of popular socialist assumptions. Hayek convinced Fisher that the best thing would be to found a think tank that would generate intellectual arguments for freedom. A few years later, in 1955, Fisher set up the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the first of several free market think tanks that would become very influential by the late 1970s and 1980s. Fisher would later play a role in the creation of Canada’s Fraser Institute, as well as like-minded think tanks in other parts of the world. Rise to prominence In 1950 Hayek became a professor at the University of Chicago. While there he wrote one of his most famous books, The Constitution of Liberty, articulating the foundations and principles of a free society. In 1962 he moved back to Europe to be a professor at the University of Freiburg in West Germany. As mentioned previously, he won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. And over the course of the 1970s he wrote a three-volume set called Law, Legislation and Liberty, once again expressing the intellectual case for the free society, as opposed to socialism. Besides the Nobel Prize, Hayek also received other honors. Butler points out that in 1984, Queen Elizabeth II made him a Companion of Honour (he described it as "the happiest day of my life"), and in 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George H. W. Bush. Hayek died in 1992, after seeing his ideas receive acclaim in many academic circles, as well as influencing the policies of some English-speaking democracies (especially Margaret Thatcher’s Britain) and some newly-liberated Eastern European countries. Freedom versus socialism Among Hayek’s many insights, two are of most significance for Christians. First, he argued that modern societies are much too complex to be centrally planned by government (i.e. socialism doesn’t work). Secondly, he argued that attempts to engineer societies to conform to some concept of “social justice” inevitably lead to authoritarian government (i.e. socialism leads to tyranny). Many people believe that if human societies were completely planned and run by governments, they would be much more efficient and fair. In Western societies today there are so many different kinds of products, of so many different shapes and sizes, that the situation is virtually chaotic. So if the government could decide what is produced, all of the products could be standardized, leading to economic efficiency. As well, there is a considerable amount of inequality in society, because some people benefit much more than others in a free market system. Through central planning, the government could equalize incomes, and thus enhance social justice. 1. Too complex for central planning But Hayek points out that societies are much too complex for any human organization to be able to centrally plan successfully. Societies are spontaneous orders, with millions of people every day making economic decisions of various kinds. How could a government possibly be able to aggregate and apply all of the information that would be necessary to anticipate these economic decisions every day? It’s simply impossible. Any attempt to do so would lead to all kinds of economic problems (think, for example, of the old Soviet Union). Consider one particular example of this problem, namely, the determination of salaries in a centrally planned economy. Should a nurse get paid more than a mathematics professor? Should a butcher get paid more than a coal miner? There are thousands of different occupations, and the central planning authority would have to determine each of their salaries relative to each other. How could they possibly know what was right? Hayek correctly argued that the free market takes care of this efficiently without central planning. People pay us for the goods and services we produce because they value those products. So market rewards do depend, in a very real sense, on the value that we deliver to other members of our society. They also reflect the scarcity and skill of the producers, the numbers of customers who want the service and the urgency or importance that buyers attach to it Therefore a person’s salary reflects a number of economic factors, not the political calculation of a bureaucrat. If there are too many people pursuing a particular occupation, their salaries will go down. If there is a shortage of people in a particular occupation, their salaries will go up. In a free market society, economic information is communicated through prices. Prices are signals that indicate “to everyone where their product is most highly valued, and prompting them to steer their efforts and expertise in those directions.” Say, for example, that there is a shortage of tin. Because there is not enough of it, its price will rise. Due to the price increase, companies that use tin will use less of it or find a substitute for it. The extra demand for the substitute will in turn bid up its price, and prompt those using the substitute to seek yet other materials to substitute for that; and so it goes on. The entire market order adjusts to the shortage of tin, even though hardly anyone knows what caused it. The overall point is that free markets automatically adjust to changing conditions. It’s part of the nature of the free market to process all kinds of information and respond to it spontaneously. Central planners could never hope to know all of this information and to be able to respond to changes in the economy so rapidly and effectively. Besides the fact that socialism doesn’t work, its tendency is to lead inevitably to authoritarian government. A central planning government must determine how labor, land and other productive resources are used in the economy. It has to coordinate all these different factors so that they work towards the completion of the government’s plan. In such a situation, everyone would have to do what the authorities have determined is necessary for the achievement of the government’s objectives. Individuals must expect to be uprooted and deployed at the direction of the authorities, since personal life now counts for nothing compared to the good of the collective – a good that is defined by those same authorities. Butler summarizes the point this way: “When governments believe they can ‘run the country’ just as they might run a factory, our lives and property become a mere input at their disposal.” 2. Inequality can be a good thing A centrally planned economy can redistribute resources between people and therefore lead to a situation of greater material equality. However, the loss of freedom necessary for such an endeavor is quite high. As well, the economic benefits of inequality are lost. In the economic sphere, inequality is not always a bad thing. Yes, you read that right: inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. Butler describes Hayek’s insights on the economic importance of inequality this way: Inequality is not just the outcome of the market process: it drives the market process. The high gains made by successful producers act as a magnet, pulling people and resources to where the greatest value can be captured, and away from less productive and less valuable uses. So people and resources are attracted to where they will make the greatest possible contribution to future incomes. And this is a continuous, dynamic, growing process. The inequality that so many people resent is, in fact, the very attraction that steers effort and resources to their most productive applications, pulling up incomes at every level. Hayek argued that the government should have a minimal role in society. Mostly it should be concerned with national defense and enforcing the rules (laws) that protect people from each other. It would also provide public goods such as roads, land registries, organized responses to natural disasters, and other things that governments can do best. He also saw the need for government “to support needy groups such as people with disabilities, those incapable of work, orphans or the elderly.” Needless to say, the government can fulfill these tasks without becoming socialistic. Conclusion Hayek was not a Christian scholar and he was not trying to promote a Christian perspective. Nevertheless, his scholarship dovetails well with Biblical Christianity because he believed in the need for a private property-based economic system. The Bible establishes private property as an essential institution and assumes a private property-based economy. In this respect Hayek’s intellectual work supports an economic system much like what the Bible demands. There are few twentieth century thinkers that were as important and influential as Friedrich Hayek. Whereas so many academics think that mankind is smart enough to re-engineer societies through governmental power, Hayek was humble enough to concede that human beings are very limited in their knowledge and that their efforts to re-engineer any society are bound to be detrimental. While not everything in his thinking can be embraced by Christians, his overall perspective on economics and society provides a powerful intellectual antidote to the socialistic fallacies that are still common in North American colleges and universities today. Hayek and his ideas are featured below in a couple of epic rap battles vs. his economics arch nemesis, John Maynard Keynes. ...

Politics

5 ways God’s providence should impact how we approach politics

This is an edited version of a devotional given at an ARPA Canada “God and Government Conference,” May 4, 2019, in Aldergrove, BC. ***** God is in control. It’s a simple enough truth, but if we understood it, really understood it, I think it would change the way we approach politics. So I want to look now at government through the lens of God's providence. God's providence means that He governs and upholds his creation, all of it, from little rocks to whole galaxies, and plants and animals too. His providence also encompasses the flow of history and the decisions of individual human hearts. In short, God’s providence means that God rules, and that because He rules nothing comes about by chance. Nothing happens apart from God's will. Nothing surprises God or ever presents God with an unsolvable problem. Nothing is ever beyond his control. At some level, everything happens because God wants it to happen in fulfillment of his good and perfect plan. That means when a nation is blessed with good government, we know this is by the will of God. Good governments don't arise by chance. They don't come from nowhere. Instead, they come to us a gift of God's goodness and mercy. They are from the hand of the Lord. At the same time, when a nation endures a period of poor government or when the Christian Church endures oppression at the hands of government, this, too, is from the hand of God. Also in such times, God is in charge. In all the adversity experienced by the Church, the Lord is still advancing his own good purpose to eventually unite all things under one Head, even Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10). So let’s consider now how working with the doctrine of God's providence will have some blessed effects for those engaged as Christians in the work of politics. 1. Reflecting on God's providence would lighten our mood! When governments do foolish things or act in ways that diminish our freedom and make life more difficult for us, that can be very discouraging. However, when we remember that God is sovereign over everything and that even Satan can do nothing apart from the will of Christ, we get a different feeling about difficult political realities. The world is not spiraling out of control; God is still in control! What's happening is part of his plan and his plan involves working out everything for the glory of his Name and for the good of those who trust him. 2. God's providence should increase our patience. God's providence is connected to God's ultimate purpose and we know that this is a long-term project; our Father in heaven is playing the long-game. Knowing this enables us to continue in hope even as the going gets rough. 3. God's providence should increase our hope for change. We read in Proverbs 21 that the: "king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wills." The imagery here probably comes from agricultural practices of the ancient world. In parts of the ancient world, there was the practice of digging canals and smaller waterways that could be controlled by a series of large valves. If a farmer wanted to channel water to a particular part of his land, he would simply close one valve and open another. It wasn't difficult to do and the effects were quite dramatic. Just as easily as a farmer redirects water in a channel, so easily God redirects the heart of a king; He turns it wherever He wills. Even when the king imagines that he is acting with complete autonomy and sovereign power, it's actually God who is directing his decisions. Notice that God's sovereignty extends not just to the actions of the king but to his heart, that is, to his inner self, the place of his thoughts, desires and wishes. For God to influence a ruler in this deeply personal matter is not difficult. For this reason, even in the most trying of times, we can expect positive change. Even when the trajectory doesn't look good, God can make things happen. Walls can come down quickly. Closed doors can be opened when we no longer really expected it. Events can happen that totally change the political landscape – and we didn't see them coming! 4. God's providence should increase our courage I would say that this is true because knowing God's providence decreases the feelings of intimidation which we may experience. When government and the media seem large, overwhelming, and irresistible, we are not afraid. I'm reminded of what Jesus said to Pontius Pilate: "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). The fear of the LORD who rules the world in his providence takes away the fear of people. Fear paralyzes us but living confidently in the light of God's all-encompassing providence motivates us and encourages us to speak and act according to our convictions. 5. God’s providence encourages us to engage in politics Saying this may seem counter-intuitive. Wouldn’t the confession that God sovereignly turns the hearts of kings wherever He wills make Christians passive? Wouldn't the doctrine of providence encourage us to simply wait for God's next move? I would say that the opposite is true. The more we reflect on God's sovereignty, the more we think about his providential control over the world, the more we will be motivated toward political engagement. God's work of providence encourages us to work in our sphere and responsibility. After all, in his providence, God uses the work of human beings. He uses our prayers, words and our political witness to accomplish his work of providence. Yes, of course, God can and frequently does act directly upon his world but in many cases, God works indirectly and through the actions of people. Ephesians 1 says that God has a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth. By God’s providence, this plan is coming to fulfillment. However, this fulfillment involves human prayer, human actions, words and witness. The fulfillment of God's plan involves each one of us working with our own gifts and opportunities for the glory of God. Imagine that you didn't know there was a plan. Imagine that you didn't believe God was firmly in control. Imagine that you didn't know that in the end God wins and his Kingdom is established in righteousness forever. Imagine that life was a crapshoot so that you just didn't know where it would end. Would that motivate you to action? I don't think so. But when you know that God wins and that everything is somehow part of the pathway to final victory, then you can feel a surge of energy. Something good is coming. God's victory is coming and you can be part of the process. This article was originally published in the May/June 2019 issue of the magazine. Rev. Schouten is a pastor for the Aldergrove Canadian Reformed Church....

Being the Church

Retirement: What are you retiring from? What are you retiring to?

After a life-time of experience, it’s time to simply “exhale” ***** “Retirement is unbiblical,” she told me, her fist firmly pounding her desk. Alice had been the company bookkeeper for about 50 years. She lived and breathed the daily routine, and now that she was approaching 80, she was reluctant to give it up. She believed that if she ever retired, she’d probably just pass away within a few months. Her work defined her. Retirement conjures up a wide variety of emotions and ideas: anticipation, excitement, perpetual vacation, travel. But also anxiety, apprehension, and a loss of purpose. The closest that the Bible comes to mentioning retirement is in Numbers 8:25: "At the age of 50, they (the Levites) must retire from their regular service and work no longer. They may assist their brothers in performing their duties ...but they themselves must not do the work." Work even in Paradise But it’s worthwhile to go back even further, to the beginning of Genesis to determine that work isn’t the result of sin but it’s part of God’s creation order. In fact, our very first image of God “in the beginning” is a God of work; creating the universe, creating day and night, plants and animals, mankind. “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested (ceased) from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” (Gen. 2:2) After God created Adam, He put him to work: pick fruit, tend the garden, and give names to each living creature. Work is part of the creation order. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” There is delight in work. Work is also worship. It is how we use our God-given talents each day in God’s Kingdom. It is only once we understand the value and the role of work that we can understand the value and the role of retirement. Is it true that, as that desk-pounding retiree declared, “retirement is unbiblical” …perhaps with the exception of the Levites who had to pack it in at age 50? Time to reflect The notion of retirement is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Canada Pension Plan was created in 1965, setting the retirement age at 65. Interestingly, the life expectancy back then was 66.8 years for men and 73 for women. That’s not much of a retirement. Today, someone at age 65 can expect to live to age 90; that’s another 25 years! We’re living longer and staying healthy longer. What do we do with all that time? There’s the rub. As you approach your retirement – probably somewhere between the age of 65 and 75 – consider taking a sabbatical; a few months off. Maybe even a year. Rest, relax, travel, visit the kids, do a few of the things that you've always wanted to do. But before boredom sets in, before you spend endless hours in your deck chair or riding around on a golf cart, you need to spend some valuable time reflecting on your life, focusing on your areas of expertise, knowledge and wisdom. It’s also important to spend considerable time in prayer, realizing how God has led you throughout your life, and to be open to His leading during this next chapter in your life. Pull out your latest resume or CV and reflect upon all that you have done: your various jobs – good and bad, your career challenges. Create a list of the areas of expertise that you have developed over the years. That could be a brief list or it could evolve into a novel. Your history will shape your future. What you have done, and accomplished, and even failed at, will help you determine how you can share your experiences with others. Time to share You have learned a lot and done a lot in your life. Now it’s time to share it with others; especially teaching and training and mentoring the next generation. When our oldest daughter began her new career as a teacher after graduating from college, she was clearly nervous. I told her that, after all of those years of education and training, she simply had to “learn to exhale.” Just breathe all of that knowledge over those children. That’s what retirement can become for you. After decades of learning, doing and experiencing life, it is now time to simply “exhale”; breathe all of your knowledge over younger men and women as they shape their careers. There is, however, something even more important to share with others. It’s your spiritual journey. It’s about how God has shaped you and molded you and walked with you throughout your life. Tell them your story. It’s invaluable. As you mentor and train others, teach them your Christian perspective on leadership, on stewardship, on the right way to treat employees. Teach young men and women the importance of work/family balance. Remind them that their treasure is in heaven, not in the accumulation of wealth or toys or real estate. Most of us can expect to live 20 to 30 years after we reach retirement age. That's an entire career! Prayerfully take a sabbatical to determine where God wants you to serve next and who you should be mentoring. Then approach this new chapter in your life with the same zeal that you had in your former career. Except that now you will have the benefit of wisdom and experience. More importantly, you will have the benefit of walking with God throughout your life, feeling His presence as you made those thousands of good and bad decisions. It’s time to exhale. A version of this article first appeared in “Faith Today” magazine....

History

The case against the draft

Why no State has the right to take what belongs to Christ ***** Across the Western world, military recruiting is sputtering. In 2022 and 2023, the United States Army missed its enlistment targets by tens of thousands, prompting emergency bonuses and lowered entry standards. In Berlin, after declaring a “turning-point” rearmament, the government now admits its Bundeswehr is so understaffed that legislation to reinstate compulsory service may be introduced as early as next year. And in The Hague, Dutch defence planners warn that Swedish-style selective conscription may be the only path to their target of 200,000 active and reserve personnel. When volunteerism fails, governments reach for the oldest lever in the toolbox: obligation. Whether it’s described as a shared burden, a civic duty, or a matter of national survival, the reality is the same: someone will be compelled to serve. And not just in times of war. In Canada, calls for mandatory national service are growing—not to defend the nation, but to shape it. A 2024 article in The Hub, a generally conservative publication, argued for conscription as a peacetime tool to bolster civic unity and “career preparedness.” The idea is that young adults should be required to serve the government for one or two years – perhaps in the military, or in civil programs – because it would make them more employable, more mature, and more engaged citizens. In effect, conscription becomes a finishing school for State-formed adulthood.1 One national survey showed that half of Canadians would support mandatory national service.2 Some might argue that national service could build character or instill discipline, offering young adults structure in a time of cultural drift. But the deeper question is this: under whose direction will that discipline unfold? In a nation that funds the killing of the unborn and the elderly, that redefines the family under the influence of radical sexual ideologies and then silences dissent in the name of inclusion, can we entrust our sons and daughters to mandatory programs of moral formation? What kind of conscience formation can we expect from a State that denies the image of God? The same applies to military service. In 2011, Canada joined in the NATO bombing of Libya – it was a campaign that helped destabilize an entire region. Should a Christian be compelled to fight in such a conflict, even if he cannot in good faith regard it as just? These are not hypotheticals. They are the practical consequence of giving the State dominion over the body and the conscience. For Christians, this renewed talk of conscription demands moral clarity. The draft is not merely a regrettable policy choice – it is, in most forms, a theological offense. Whatever name it takes – universal call-up, selective lottery, or “national service” – compulsory service often claims the body and conscience of the individual in a way that only Christ may rightfully claim. This is not to deny that civil government bears the sword (Rom. 13), or that, in times of extraordinary peril, it may call its citizens to take up arms in defense of the innocent. But even then, the State may not rule the conscience. It must still respect the individual’s accountability before God. When the draft is imposed without regard for faith, vocation, or moral conviction, it ceases to be an act of justice and becomes a form of spiritual seizure. It commands not just action, but allegiance. And that is no longer civil authority – it is idolatry. It wasn’t even needed in WWII Canadian soldiers playing with Dutch children, 1945: During World War II, approximately ten percent of the population served in the military. Of the more than 1 million personal, just 13,000 conscripts had been sent overseas by wars’ end, and of those less than 2,500 actually made it to the front lines before Germany surrendered(Photo by Private Floyd Watkins, Canadian Scottish Regiment, Nijmegen, Fall 1945, and is used under CC 1.0 Public Domain dedication) But what about the draft for World War II. Wasn’t that a good thing? It’s true that many draftees served bravely in World War II, and yes, we owe them respect. In Canada, however, conscription was politically explosive, and conscripted soldiers only started being sent overseas in 1944, after a plebiscite. Just 12,900 conscripts in all were sent overseas – barely one percent of Canada’s wartime force. The vast majority of Canadian soldiers in WWII volunteered. This undermines the claim that victory required forced service. When the cause was seen as just, free men responded. If free men will not fight, that is a referendum on the cause and the leadership. You are not your own – so the State cannot own you “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Paul wrote these words to address sexual ethics, but the theological truth reaches further: the body of a believer belongs to Christ, not to any earthly power. That ownership has sweeping implications. When a government claims the authority to compel military service – disregarding conscience or conviction – it denies that Christ is Lord over the whole person. It effectively declares: “Your life is ours. You will serve, fight, kill, or die… because we command it.” Conscription reduces image-bearers to instruments. It treats men and women not as persons with moral agency and dignity, but as the raw material of State ambition. The citizen is no longer someone to serve, protect, or persuade, but someone to use. Yes, Scripture affirms that governments are instituted by God (Rom. 13). But never as gods. Earthly authority is real, but always bounded by God’s higher claim. When the State begins to treat citizens as its property, overriding conscience and laying claim to their bodies, it crosses a sacred line. In such cases, patriotism can become a form of idolatry. We see this clearly in regimes like North Korea, where the State claims total control. But what if the same violation of conscience and ownership is happening quietly, legally, and patriotically, and for just two years at a time, right here at home? Forced service violates both sacrifice and conscience History bears witness to believers who have fought with honor and integrity, even laying down their lives. But Scripture insists that every true offering – whether of time, money, or life – must be freely given. The problem with conscription is not that it calls men to defend what may be right, but that it demands such service by coercion. It does not persuade the conscience; it overrides it. It removes space for discernment, prayer, and conviction, and replaces it with mandate, penalty, and shame. This is more than a problem of method; it is a violation of moral authority. Conscription does not ask whether a prospective soldier, before God, can judge the war just. It simply commands. If he hesitates – still weighing Scripture, justice, or prudence – it threatens him with fines, prison, or public disgrace. Reformed theology has long upheld the sanctity of conscience under Christ. As the Belgic Confession teaches, we obey civil authorities “in all things which do not disagree with the Word of God” (Art. 36). But when the State demands what conscience forbids – compelling a believer to fight in a war he cannot, in good faith, regard as just – then obedience to God must take precedence. As Paul writes, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Righteousness cannot be manufactured by threat of punishment. Forced sacrifice is not virtue but violation. It flows from fear, not faith – from State power, not spiritual freedom. In such cases, resistance is not rebellion. It is fidelity to a higher law: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The litmus test of statist idolatry How can one tell when the State has become an idol? One simple test suffices: Does it claim the right to your life? Not merely your taxes or your labor, but your very blood? When a government asserts the power to compel its citizens to fight, kill, or die – regardless of conscience – it declares that the preservation or ambition of the political order outweighs the vocation and spiritual integrity of the individual. It elevates the needs of the State above the authority of God. History shows where this logic leads. In its extreme forms, totalitarian regimes have demanded absolute allegiance – even human lives – for the sake of national survival or ideological purity. Think of China’s one-child policy, or the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union against non-compliant citizens. Conscription may appear more restrained, but it rests on the same premise: that the individual belongs to the State, and may be spent for its ends. True defense must be free The moral and theological case is clear. But even on practical grounds, coercion signals weakness, not strength. A nation that must force its citizens to defend it has already lost something deeper than territory – it has lost trust. Advocates of conscription argue that emergencies demand drastic measures. If the nation is under threat, they ask, how else shall we defend ourselves? But a society worth defending will inspire its citizens to defend it freely. If the cause is just – and the leadership trustworthy – free men will step forward. If they do not, that failure is not a crisis of manpower, but a verdict on the moral authority of the State. To preserve liberty by destroying the citizen’s most basic liberty – obedience of conscience to God – is a contradiction. A nation may survive military defeat. It cannot survive the spiritual surrender the draft requires. One Lord of life and death Ultimately, the question is stark: Who has authority over life and death? Scripture teaches that civil government, under God, bears the sword to punish evil and protect the innocent (Rom. 13). In this sense, the State holds real – but limited – authority in matters of justice and defense. But that authority is never absolute. It is the authority to restrain evil, not to claim ownership of a person’s body or to override his conscience before God. When the State demands unquestioning obedience – disregarding moral conviction, vocation, or faith – it crosses a sacred boundary. It begins to act not as God’s servant, but as His rival. The State may levy taxes, build roads, and punish evildoers. But it may not lay claim to what belongs to Christ alone. When it does, it trespasses on holy ground. Let the Church say so – without apology. In almost every case, the draft is evil: it denies Christ’s lordship, violates human dignity, and compels men to act against conscience. No rhetoric of crisis, no appeal to national survival, can sanctify what God has not commanded. Let the State honor the Lord of conscience. And let the Church stand firm in the freedom for which Christ has set us free, declaring with calm, unyielding faith: We belong to Christ, and not to you. End notes 1 https://thehub.ca/2024/07/24/scott-stirrett-the-time-has-come-for-mandatory-national-service-for-young-canadians/ 2 https://www.timescolonist.com/economy-law-politics/half-of-canadians-support-mandatory-national-service-survey-reveals-9434252...

Assorted

The conceited apple-branch: a Romans 12:3-8 fable?

News

Health-adjusted life expectancy plummets

Canadians can expect 3.5 fewer years of good health compared to a decade ago, according to recent data published by Statistics Canada. Life expecta...

Assorted

A crowd can make you crazy

Crowds are scary. Many of the stupid, foolish and sinful things we do involve a crowd, even if the crowd is just one or two other people. Examples:...

Assorted

How to plan for your next chapter as a senior

By the year 2030, one in four Canadians will be over the age of 65. In my role as the CEO of two seniors’ living centers in Edmonton, I’m seeing h...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – March 2026

Still true in some places… Johan had left Edmonton to go up northward, near Neerlandia, for a bit of skydiving. Late Sunday evening he was found in a tree by a farmer. “What happened?” asked the farmer. “My parachute didn’t open!” Johan replied. “Of course not,” said the farmer. “Around here most nothing opens on Sunday.” Even if your wife is a ninja…. In his book, This Momentary Marriage, John Piper takes on the task of teaching men what it means to be men. Building on Ephesians 5:21-33 he points out a number of roles males should take on including one he wishes was “too obvious to need illustration,” that of protector. He notes that this role is not given on the basis of ability, but gender alone – this is what real men do: “If there is a sound downstairs during the night and it might be a burglar, you don’t say to her, ‘This is an egalitarian marriage, so it’s your turn to go check it out. I went last time.’ And I mean that – even if your wife has a black belt in karate. After you’ve tried to deter him, she may finish off the burglar with one good kick to the solar plexus. But you’d better be unconscious on the floor, or you’re no man. That’s written on your soul, brother, by God Almighty. Big or little, strong or weak, night or day, you go up against the enemy first. Woe to the husbands – and woe to the nation – that send their women to fight their battles.” Great podcast for the kids If you’re looking for a podcast to play for your kids on a long drive or family trip, you may want to check out Angela O’Dell’s explicitly Christian “Real Cool History for Kids.” These 15-minute-or-so episodes are aimed at kids 6-12, and with more than 150 to choose from mom and dad can pick a topic that will interest them too – O’Dell covers everyone from Queen Elizabeth to Karl Marx and Charlie Kirk to Bonnie and Clyde. Our family has been listening off and on for years now, and have really enjoyed tackling two or three at a time. She is very clear about bringing a biblical worldview to the show (and in her dinosaur episode, she even comes out as a 6-day creationist!) – I don’t know that we’ve ever heard a take we didn’t agree with. Check out “Real Cool History for Kids” at AngelaODell.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Chesterton and Charlie on Original Sin Chesterton spoke of how some religious sorts were disputing whether Man was even in need of washing – was he actually sinful? How ridiculous, Chesterton argued, for men incapable of even imagining sinlessness in their dreams, to “deny human sin, which they can see in the street.” “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” Charles Spurgeon made the same point this way: “Any man who declares children to be born perfect was never a father. Your child without evil? You without eyes, you mean!” Pious sounding evasion When evangelist Ray Comfort first heard the St. Francis of Assisi quote, “Preach the Gospel; where necessary, use words” it, rather ironically, left him “upset beyond words.” This quote is used to encourage a type of “lifestyle evangelism” that involves “less talk, and more walk.” Instead of preaching the Word to their unbelieving friends and neighbors, Christians are supposed to just let their light shine by living good lives. There is something to this idea – God tells us we can impact the unbelieving with the way we live our lives (1 Pet. 3:1-2). But that doesn’t negate the need to use the Word (Rom. 10:14). Comfort exposed the empty piety of the St. Francis quote with a story. In a refugee camp thousands of children were on the brink of starving to death even though there was food enough to give them. Why weren’t they being given the food? Because one of the aid workers had held up a sign that said: “Feed the starving children. Where necessary, use food.” Such an approach would be insane, but, Comfort insists, no more so than thinking we can preach the Gospel without using words. Earth thrown in “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were those who thought most of the next. The apostles themselves, who set out on foot to convert the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English evangelicals who abolished the slave trade, all left their mark on earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this one. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in.’ Aim at earth and you will get neither.” – C.S. Lewis Are creationists pitting Scripture vs. science? We who hold to a recent (in the last 6,000 years or so), six-day creation are sometimes accused of pitting Scripture versus science. After all, doesn’t mainstream science tell us the universe is billions of years old? Now, if that’s what we’re calling “science” then it is true, us six-day sorts do know we’ve got a problem. But when mainstream scientists hold as their a priori assumption that only naturalistic explanations are valid, they’re the ones picking a fight. After all, Romans 1 and Ps. 19 affirm (as do our own eyes) that all of creation testifies to its supernatural origins. And that’s not the only Scripture vs. secular science conflict. Genesis 1:27 declares “male and female He created them” but the medical and psychological experts won’t stand for such binary bigotry. The Bible says children are a blessing but we’ve got experts lamenting each new addition’s carbon footprint. While God presents life-long monogamy as best, mainstream science says it simply isn’t natural...though homosexuality is. Yes, this is science – of a sort – pitted against Scripture, but the conflict isn’t of our doing. If we are troublemakers it is only because, standing as we are on the firm foundation of God’s Word, we refuse to be moved. As Douglas Wilson put it: “The Bible teaches that Adam produced death. The opposing view has to say that in some manner death produced Adam.” Those are the two sides, and there is no reconciling them. We who follow a God/man who died and rose, can’t avoid a fight with any and all who say dead men don’t rise and the supernatural isn’t. That’s the fight to be had. So let’s rise to it! Reagan’s principal, on parenting Ronald Reagan remembered his high school principal fondly, recounting how he had his priorities in place. And as principal he was standing in loco parentis and so there is a reminder here how parents should prioritize: “I was in the principal’s office once in Dixon High School, and I wasn’t there just to pass the time of day. Well, at one point he said to me, ‘You know, I don’t care what you think of me now. I’m only interested in what you think of me fifteen years from now.’” Can you put that in writing? In a recent issue of Focus on the Family’s magazine, parent Renae Green shared how she was teaching her 11-year-old to stop tattling. “I told my children that I would only accept and review written complaints.” Implementing this new policy has her daughter thinking twice – is her brother’s behavior annoying enough to warrant working through the paperwork? And, most of the time, her answer is, no. Too proud to seem weak Walter Dean Myers is a children’s author I haven’t read, but his own story sticks with me. Money was tight, and his mother was an alcoholic – when he was 14 she stole the money he’d been saving up to buy a typewriter. His janitor dad, not rich by any means, stepped in and bought the typewriter for Walter instead. But that was the last time his dad showed any interest in his son’s writing. Walter went on to write over 100 books, and, as he told his own son in an NPR interview, Walter’s dad “never said anything good about my writing…. And that really, that really hurt, that really bothered me.” Walter tried to get his dad’s attention by turning some of his dad’s own stories into published work. “I would show them to him, and he would never comment on them. So, when I did that, then I said, he hates me. You know, he hates me.” When his dad was dying, Walter brought him the book he’d just published, “And he picked it up and he looked at it, and then he just laid it down.” It was only after his dad died, and Walter looked through his papers, and saw they were all signed with an X, that he realized his dad didn’t know how to read. And that’s why he’d never said anything about his writing. So here was a son too hurt to ask why his dad wouldn’t read his work, but, hitting closer to home, a dad, too proud to let his son see his shortcoming. Parents, we’ve all learned lessons the hard way, and while those might be embarrassing moments, if we want our kids to sidestep some of the troubles we blundered through, we will need to share our weaknesses. There is such a thing as sharing too early, or too much, but, as this sad story shows, we can be tempted to share too little....

Assorted

The slippery slope is real

Some weeks ago I wrote a piece about a San Francisco pastor, Fred Harrell, who had recently attacked the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. In doing so, I made a connection between Harrell's prior shifts – first, adopting the ordination of women and, second, endorsing homosexual relations – and his most recent movement away from the clear teaching of God's Word. My conclusion was to posit this as evidence of a slippery slope, further noting that in our cultural moment the slippery slope is usually entered at the point of ordaining women to office in the church. It would be an understatement to observe that this post touched a raw nerve for some readers. (One well-known pastor wrote me privately to accuse me of being schismatic. It is a feature of our times, I am afraid, that to defend the consensus on which we have built unity is to be labeled as divisive.) Of the different reactions one that most surprised me was a denial that there is validity to the idea of slippery slopes. My initial response to this criticism is to marvel that people can take this position in light of recent church history. Still, the topic is important enough that I think it good to defend the reality of the slippery slope. Why is the slope slippery? First, let me define what I mean in referring to the slippery slope. The slippery slope simply notes that those who remove the restraint against worldly conformity place themselves in peril of further and more damaging accommodations. The slope becomes slippery when the source of friction is removed. Far from the logical fallacy of which it is charged, there is a logical basis for the slippery slope argument: when the authority of Scripture is yielded to cultural demands, the loss of that authority renders us vulnerable to further cultural demands. Herein lies the wisdom of Scripture: "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). Indeed, the very first Psalm begins with a portrayal of the slippery slope, charting a progression from "the counsel of the wicked" to "the way of sinners" and ultimately to "the seat of scoffers" (Ps. 1:1). That it’s slippery doesn’t mean everyone slides In making these observations, I do not mean that anyone who changes his or her view in the direction of cultural preferences is irrevocably bound to further concessions. It is blessedly true that people and churches have taken a perilous step to the left (or right) and later reconsidered, and to note examples of this happening does not prove that their previous action had not been imperiled. It is because the slippery slope can be escaped by recommitting to Scripture that warnings of peril are of value. Moreover, I do not mean to suggest that those who make any concessions to culture over Scripture have already abandoned the atonement of Christ. I am suggesting, however, that the slippery slope is...well, slippery. Those who remove traction from their feet may very well slide much further than they first thought possible. As Fred Harrell's progression illustrates – together with those of the PC(USA), CRC, RCA, Church of Scotland, and other denominations – the abandonment of clear biblical teaching at one cultural pressure-point (women's ordination), imperils us with further capitulations (homosexual acceptance), and if unchecked will find itself challenged to avoid "touching the Jesus Box" (i.e. denying even the resurrection of our Savior). It starts with women’s ordination Second, I noted that in our time, the slippery slope is usually entered at the point of women's ordination. This tendency is not surprising, since the assault of secular culture against the Bible is most tenaciously focused on gender and sexuality. To uphold biblical gender norms, including the Bible's clear teaching on male-only ordination is the single most inflammatory position that Christians may hold in our culture. For this reason, it is hard to find an example in recent history when a Christian leader or church denomination moved from biblical conservatism to unbiblical cultural conformity when the slide did not begin with the ordination of women to church office. It stands to reason, then, that we should avoid thinking that we can conform to the worldly demands regarding gender and avoid further accommodations of greater significance. What about women deacons? This brings me to the topic of women deacons. Several critics accused me of asserting that to support the ordination of women to the office of deacon is to abandon the gospel. This response is noteworthy because I made no mention of women deacons in my original post. I will admit, however, to being unpersuaded that the move to ordain women deacons in the PCA is unrelated to a broader agenda of cultural accommodation. In saying this, I do not mean to question the sincerity of those individuals who advocate the position that women should hold the office of deacon. But I would note the growing tendency among these same persons to employ women in roles that are as associated with the office of elder. For example, in many churches pastored by ministers who are supportive of the ordination of women deacons, women are placed in the pulpit during worship services for the public reading of Scripture and to offer the congregational prayer. Women are assigned to distribute the elements of the Lord's Supper. These are functions associated with the office of elders, not deacons. Moreover, word has recently come that pressure is being exerted in one PCA presbytery to install a woman as its stated clerk, making her a member of a court composed exclusively of ruling and teaching elders. Where is the outcry against these tendencies from those who say that they are only wishing to ordain women as deacons? Conclusion The slippery slope, then, is real. And the sole restraint against it – against all our sin and tendency to compromise – is our obedience to the voice of the Spirit of Christ speaking in Holy Scripture. Therefore, the counsel given by Jeremiah at another moment of cultural of peril seems urgent: Stand by the crossroads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls (Jer. 6:16). In this way alone will we navigate the perils of our times, fortifying our fidelity to Christ. This article was originally published in the Sept/Oct 2017 issue of the magazine. Rev. Richard D. Phillips has been the Senior Minister of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, South Carolina (PCA) since July 2007. A version of this article first appeared on Alliance for Confessing Evangelical’s Reformation 21 blog under the title “Standing Firm on the Slippery Slope.” It has been reprinted here with permission....

Culture Clashes

When sports is an idol

Eric Liddell showed how Christians should do sports differently ***** In July 1924, Scottish sprinter Eric Liddell refused to race in the qualifying heat of the Olympic 100-meter competition. A devout Presbyterian, Liddell had been heavily favored to win the event’s gold medal. When schedule-makers placed the qualifying heat on a Sunday, however, Liddell resigned from the competition rather than violate his conscience by competing on the Lord’s Day. Liddell’s story has been honored for over 100 years through biographies, children’s books, and the blockbuster movie Chariots of Fire. For Christians, Liddell is a model of godly participation in sports, a demonstration that playing and watching sports may bring glory to God when contained by self-control. Sunday as sports day The challenges Liddell faced, however, have not disappeared in the modern context. Today, youth sports fill up Sunday morning after Sunday morning in the calendars of many Canadian families, impeding church attendance and implicitly inculcating an alternate-catechism. Sunday is also the preferred day for many major televised sporting events including the Super Bowl, the Olympic gold medal hockey game, and the World Cup Final – in addition to standard NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, and CFL broadcasts. A day designed for lasting spiritual benefit has become a feast day for temporary entertainment. Some benefit Scripture affirms that bodily training – including involvement in sports – is of some benefit. However, when this temporary benefit hinders growth in holiness, the Christian should lay aside such a hindrance. Of course, Christians must also avoid the trap of gnosticism, the ancient heresy which taught that the material world, including the body, is inherently evil. Against this, the early Church asserted that the incarnation and resurrection of Christ proves the inherent goodness of the body as designed by God – every human being has a body that is designed by God and must be respected rather than ignored. Paul tells the Corinthians “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31), giving spiritual worth to the regular care of the body. Participation in sports, then, may glorify God by exemplifying stewardship of the body, and valorizing the self-control which marks high-level athletes. This is affirmed by Paul himself when he tells Timothy that “while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). The “some value” of bodily training may be incurred through direct participation or by watching professional athletes compete at the highest level – giving cause to rejoice in the creative wonder of God. These benefits, however, are only applicable to the heart of a God-worshipper. When our human bodies are offered as sacrifices to self rather than “living sacrifices” to God, the temporary benefit dissipates and instead becomes a hindrance – a distraction from the eternal benefit of holiness. A rival religion The temporal must always serve the eternal. If what is temporal, fleeting away, and quickly aging is honored as the ultimate prize of life, then bodily training is of very little value. If, however, the body is disciplined for action in service to God, there is great value in sport. By contrast, the world often presents sports as a rival religion to Christianity. Fans congregate together, watch repeatedly, spend money, make pilgrimages, and speak constantly of their favorite teams. This rival religiosity is reflected in the habits of Canadian families. In addition to exorbitant costs, families are often required to travel long distances for extended periods of time for children’s sports. Perhaps more alarmingly, avid sports fans spend countless hours consuming sports-related content on TV, social media, and audio platforms. Increasingly, the cost of lost time is conjoined with the cost of squandered wealth as recently-legalized sports gambling leads to dramatic increases in the number of individuals reporting sports gambling-related addiction and financial crises. There’s plenty of reasons, then, to want to topple this growing idol. Whose glory? So how should Christians respond to a sports-obsessed world without becoming modern gnostics? Here, the example of Eric Liddell is helpful. Eric Liddell invested a significant amount of time into training. He endured pain, studied other athletes, rose early, and traveled far distances to compete. Yet he did so to the glory of God. When faced with the choice to glorify himself or to present his body as a living sacrifice by keeping God’s law, Liddell did not hesitate – a decision that baffled onlookers. Eric Liddell understood that physical training was of “some value” but, more fundamentally, he understood that godliness is of eternal value. Liddell flourished as a Christian in sport because he did not worship sport. Sport, instead, was for him a means by which he could present his body as a living sacrifice. In later life, Liddell became a missionary to China, pouring out his life for the sake of lost souls in a foreign nation that knew little of his athletic achievements. Ultimately, Liddell would die in that country, having become sick in a Japanese concentration camp during the Second World War. The youth he served inside the camp reported his last words: “It's complete surrender.” Liddell died as he had lived: in obedience to the Master who was able to deliver eternal godliness to his soul, far beyond the “some value” of bodily training. Even as Liddell’s once athletically unmatched body began to fade, his eternal godliness and joy – which his sporting career helped cultivate – became stronger and stronger. Today, the location of the gold medal sacrificed by Eric Liddell and won by Harold Abrahams is unknown. Liddell, however, is seated with Christ on high – having received the reward of his total surrender. And his body – trained by godliness – will soon be raised to immortality. Though his medals are corroding and will one day be consumed by fire, his eternal reward is everlasting. With Liddell as an example, Christians should play and watch sports as if it holds some value, all the while remembering that godliness is of eternal value. Josh Senneker is a Christian political operative from Southern Alberta. He grew up playing Little League baseball and cheering for his two favorite hockey teams: the Calgary Flames and whoever is playing the Edmonton Oilers....

Marriage, Parenting

Three questions for you

Here are three questions you should ask yourself about your communication with those you love. The way you answer these questions provides insight into the areas where your conversations must grow in depth and in maturity. 1) Do your spouse and your children have confidence that they will be able to say all that is on their heart without fear of your response? Is your family accustomed to being cut off or being corrected before they can finish speaking? Do you interrupt because you think you know what is coming? If this is your pattern you are building relational barriers that are difficult to overcome. Those closest to you need to be able to express what is on their hearts so that you can know how to lovingly and wisely engage them to bring truth and healing to your lives. See Proverbs 18:13 and James 1:19-20. 2) Are you an advocate or an accuser in your daily communication? Do your words create safety or anxiety for your spouse and children? If you love the way Christ has loved you, you will want to be a refuge and a place of safety for your family. Your goal is to point those you love to Christ, not to condemn them by reminding them how wrong they are. See Ephesians 4:31 and Proverbs 16:20-24. 3) Are you able to pray with your spouse about areas in your walk with God where you need to grow? It is relatively easy to pray to ask God to help your marriage partner. Don’t be tripped up by your own pride — invite your husband or wife to pray for you in the areas where you need help. See Ephesians 4:31-32. This article was first published in the July/August 2018 issue of the magazine. Jay Younts is the author of “Everyday Talk: Talking freely and Naturally about God with Your Children” and “Everyday Talk about Sex & Marriage.” He blogs at ShepherdPress.com, where this article (reprinted with permission) first appeared....

CAN YOU BUILD IT BETTER?
– the brick-building contest results!

Education

Life skills every high school graduate needs to know

Assorted

A theology of cleaning?

Solomon was a wise man. But as a king, he passed over some vivid illustrations in the futility chapter of Ecclesiastes. Allow me to add the mother’s...

Economics - Home Finances

A business tithe on sales?

Not a requirement, but what an opportunity! ***** Every sale has a story and an opportunity behind it. • Someone trusted you and chose your produ...

Assorted

Blessed are the caregivers

For they will be given care ***** Although we don’t get a diploma and cap, many of us graduate from the role of caregiver when our youngest child spreads their wings and leaves our home. For Ed and Alice Hoogerdyk, their caregiving journey began in 2000, when God blessed them with their one and only child: Zach. Two decades later, shortly after Zach spread his wings and became engaged to a wonderful girl named Megan, a sudden illness and anoxic brain injury changed everything. Ed and Alice were called back to full-time caregiving. Ed and Alice aren’t alone. Ed shared that 160,000 Canadians sustain brain injuries each year and a quarter of older adults are family caregivers, with projections that this will increase significantly in our lifetime. Although we may have other plans for our lives, the LORD’s plan is sovereign. We then must decide whether we will run alongside the Zachs in our lives, or run away from them. Zach ran hard as a little guy. He’s running just as hard now. A string bean becomes a man Ed and Alice were married on August 1st, 1998. Ed was a school teacher, and after they married, took a position in Alice’s hometown of Carman, Manitoba. On July 23, 2000, God blessed them with the joy of their life: a healthy boy whom they named Zach. Two years later, they moved to Calgary as Ed took on a new role as school principal, and they have made that city home since then. Zach was shy. “He didn’t leave my side,” said Alice. She tried to make him more social, but he preferred to stay close and sit on her lap. Someone from her church reminded her to treasure this time, because it doesn’t come back. “He wasn’t Mr. Popular in the class. You could tell he was an only child,” she added. But he had a caring heart, looking out for kids who were left out. This carried on as he became a teen and then a young adult. He despised cliques and was intentional about spending time with young people on the margins. Although he wouldn’t have put the label on himself, Zach was a caregiver. As he grew, so did his love for sports, particularly ball hockey, and then running. He got his love of running from watching Ed. “He came to all my races, or most of them,” said Ed. “The next thing you know, he starts running. His goal was to beat my best running times.” As a young adult, Zach got his friends off their couches, organizing activities like skiing and, you guessed it, running races. He didn’t know what he was going to do as a career until he met a gentleman at a school career fair who pointed him to the masonry trade. “He went for an interview, and as he drove off all the other guys at the masonry industry laughed and said, ‘That kid ain't gonna last a week. He's such a little string bean,’” Ed shared. But Zach ended up flourishing in the trade, to the point that, when his boss had to downsize his crew from 40 to 5 not long after hiring him, Zach made the cut. Ed reflects that this was a stage where the whole family was thriving: Alice was enjoying her job as a controller at a construction and building supply company, Ed was experiencing a “whole new lease on life” with a position as Grassroots Director of ARPA Canada, and Zach was flourishing in his new career as a brick layer, with a boss commenting that “people like you come only once every 25 years.” That is also when Zach met Megan at a young adults’ conference in Calgary on a February long weekend. The two clicked, and in due time they were engaged, looking forward to a life together. But the LORD had different plans. From full of life to life-support In March of 2024, Zach made a trip to Megan’s hometown of Winnipeg. When he left, he had a really sore throat and was losing his voice. Ed encouraged him to go to the doctor, but Zach didn’t think it was necessary. “We dropped him off , and I still have the vision of him walking through the doors, pulling his little carry-on,” recalled Ed. That was the last time they saw him walking. Zach spent the weekend at the home of Ed’s brother and sister-in-law, but he wasn’t getting better. On Monday, Megan took him to a clinic, but by that point he could hardly walk out of the house. From the clinic he went straight to critical care in the hospital, and immediately needed assistance with his breathing. At this point, Alice was at home in Calgary, unaware of any issues, and Ed was just starting a two-week speaking tour in southern Ontario. Megan let them know that Zach was checked into the hospital, and Alice was able to talk with Zach on the phone. He told her he was all right, would likely stay overnight, but would be just fine. An hour later a phone call came that Zach had just had a cardiac arrest. Alice immediately went to the airport and was able to catch a flight to Winnipeg because it was delayed. Ed dropped everything and joined her at the hospital soon after. The news they received wasn’t good. “The doctor put his hand on my shoulder and Megan’s and told us to prepare for the possibility that Zach may lose his life.’” Ed and Alice later learned that Zach was going through a combination of strep pneumonia, influenza A, septic shock, bacterial infection, and then the cardiac arrest. The following hours were a blur of medical care, as the team worked hard to get Zach’s temperature down and his oxygen up. They packed bags of ice all over his body. “I still sometimes do it where I go to my phone and scroll up to the 2024 pictures,” shared Ed. “When you look at March, I'm at this gig and that gig. It’s all go, and lots of hype, and all of a sudden there's a picture of Zach laying in this bed.” “Your whole life perspective changes in a second,” added Alice. “You hear stories from other people. You don't know what it's like until you have it yourself.” Although their life changed in a blink, their Foundation didn’t. “It's amazing. Amazing how the Lord held us up through all of that,” Alice testified. She proceeded to share how they were surrounded by loving care from family, friends, and the church community. “It was always just at the right time to build you up again.” The nurses and others asked “how are you handling this?” To this they replied: “Only by the grace of God.” In the proceeding days, weeks, and months, as Zach’s life hung in the balance, there were points when Ed and Alice asked the LORD to spare him from further suffering and take him home. Zach was still on the ventilator, intubated, and endured multiple instances of septic shock. Eventually his hand was amputated, followed by both his feet. He hadn’t spoken since the cardiac arrest, and it was difficult to know the extent of his brain injury and how aware he was of what was happening around him. But when they wheeled him off to surgery to have his feet amputated, Zach was very emotional. Through this journey the family kept loved ones updated through a blog, titled “Running with Zach.” It didn’t take long before countless people from across the country were journeying with them, reading the health updates, meditations, and accompanying Scripture verses, praying for Zach and his loved ones. A new calling He won’t let go of his mama! It wasn’t just Zach’s life that changed, Ed and Alice were given a new calling: caregiver. Ed knew very quickly that he couldn’t carry on with his job, as it required him to travel regularly. He recalled calling his boss and informing him that “it's obvious to me that this is my new calling. It's as simple as that.” Alice, meanwhile, was able to carry on with her bookkeeping work, as it could be done remotely. Ed admits that they went through some dark valleys in the weeks and months following the hospitalization. “But when the time came, we had to be up at Zach's unit and be there for him.” And just like the early years when he needed his mom close by, Zach needed them in the same way now. “If he needed to get changed, or any kind of care, he needed one of us there,” shared Ed. When Zach no longer received one-on-one medical care, he needed Ed or Alice to be close by. “So, we took turns sleeping in his room. And he definitely needed it. He would look, to make sure I wasn’t leaving, then he would lay down and sleep.” When Zach’s health stabilized, it took Ed and Alice some time to find a good care home for their son in Calgary, as some of the care homes for “young adults” (under age 55) were sketchy, filled with rough music, rough language, and even drug trading. A successful physio session sitting up in the prone position. The Hoogerdyks found something special at AgeCare Seton, particularly with the staff. “If you want to learn about care from a culture, look to the Filipino culture. These people get care. They just live care. Young or old,” explained Ed. “They love Zach and a lot of them go to church. They talk about God and faith.” Zach also receives great care from the rehabilitation he is getting at the Association for the Rehabilitation of the Brain Injured (ARBI). “It is a great place. The team is very, very caring,” Ed commented. “He's gained a lot of muscle back,” Alice said. “I can't put my fingers around his arm anymore. He can ‘beat us up,’ and he takes great joy in that.” Lately, Alice has been challenging Zach to give better hugs, and he squeezes her hard, “laughing his head off.” “That’s not good, Zach,” she responds. “That is not loving your mother,” she jokes and then Zach responds with a laugh. Although he remains non-verbal, Zach is now using a tablet to communicate with his caregivers. “The best time of each day is 4:30-5:00, giving him supper, until we leave between 8:30 or 9:00,” explained Ed. “It is almost as if the family memories are all back. You can say certain sayings we used to say at home and he starts to laugh. So he is in a good mood, with lots of laughs.” They always read a devotional together and pray before leaving for the night. “He is dialed in when you’re reading. I try to keep my finger on the words.” He is also able to make it to church some Sundays. “He is listening,” Alice explained. She gave an example of the pastor sharing a one-liner joke and “Zach was even laughing without prompt, where it’s like he sort of gets it.” Blessed is he who considers the poor Having a good laugh with his pappy. Ed and Alice testified that their loving Father has been caring for them every step of the way. “God gives you strength for every day. Not for the next year, not for the next…. No, he gives it for today. It is a real thing,” emphasized Alice. Both Ed and Alice see God’s hand particularly in how He prepared Ed for this new role with his recent career. A lot of Ed’s work was related to protection for the vulnerable. The transition was from advocating for this protection, to actually providing it themselves. But the work experience had deeper application. It didn’t take long and Ed was convicted, particularly through a family member, to advocate for other caregivers through setting up a platform called “Running for Zach”. “We aren’t the only ones doing this. There is a brain injury every three minutes in Canada and it is the leading cause of disability and death in adults under the age of 35. There is a real, real need.” Ed pointed particularly to Psalm 41:1: “Blessed is he who considers the poor.” He explained that the word “poor” means much more than those without financial means. It is the vulnerable, the weak, those who can’t help themselves. “To consider the poor means to pay close attention to them and then to spend significant time and energy changing their lives.” Always one for a quip, Ed proceeded to connect this Psalm to a quote from Dr. Seuss: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not!” This goes beyond the Zachs of the world. “We are all vulnerable in one way, shape, or form. We’re all weak. The church should be a haven of caregivers and a haven for caregivers. It should be caregiving central.” I asked Ed and Alice how we, as a church community, can better care for caregivers. Ed said the first step is to overcome the fear of approaching and speaking with the caregivers. “It’s fear. Fear that you are going to say something stupid, fear that you are going to cry. If you are exiting church, don’t try to find a different route to bypass the caregiver.” “Quit stewing too much over ‘I’m not sure what to say’ or ‘I’m not sure what to do.’ Doing something or saying something is better than nothing.” He added that “if you can go to the fellowship hall and talk to somebody about your fishing trip the previous week, surely you can go to a caregiver and find out what’s going on in their lives.” Ed and Alice are grateful to be part of a church community where the leadership led by example in this regard, with an elder or deacon coming to visit them every week. Ironically, it has often been the elder or deacon who leaves feeling lifted up. Kion Foundation First trip back to the mountains since the injury. Ed is now working on building a charitable organization called “The Kion Foundation.” Kion means pillar, and the foundation hopes to be a pillar of hope for families navigating acquired brain injuries. Beyond awareness, the goal is to help fill the care gap between a hospital discharge and home, providing things like centralized therapy and support spaces for caregivers to go to and receive help. Ed shared that it would take 2.8 million full-time equivalent workers to replace the 5.7 billion unpaid hours that family caregivers provide each year in Canada. That is a lot of people, including Christians, who are humbly serving outside the medical system. They need support. The Kion Foundation’s board includes Ed’s brother-in-law, Ed Tams, an entrepreneur, as well as Dr. Stephen Neal; Alisa Lieuwen, whose brother was diagnosed with a rare neurological condition that resulted in him becoming quadriplegic and non-verbal; and Wanda Knol, a business owner and volunteer serving the vulnerable. Designed to be a burden Although we can look forward to a world without the effects of sin, we can trust that God has a good purpose for where we find ourselves today. That includes the burdens He gives us. Ed quoted pastor and theologian John Stott: “We all are designed to be a burden to others. You are designed to be a burden to me, and I am designed to be a burden to you.” Instead of doing everything possible to run from these burdens, we can take to heart our LORD’s calling to “carry each other’s burdens and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Zach isn’t running like he used to. But he is running the race marked out for him. Running alongside him, we can look forward to crossing the finish line, where we will not just run, but soar like eagles. “Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” (Heb. 12:1-2) “Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.” (Is. 40:30-31)...

Science - Creation/Evolution

Of baby birds, and death before the Fall

Today we started off the day with a funeral right after breakfast. Bluey Leapey Wieske died during the night. We buried him at the back of the our property, close by where we buried the cow a few months ago. Micah asked me, “Daddy, when I die, can you bury me next to Bluey?” Micah called him Bluey Leapey because of his eyes. They were a kind of blue, and the flickering of his eyelids made Micah think of the name “Leapey.” Micah found Bluey’s nest fallen to the ground from the towering palm trees by the kitchen complex. Bluey had fallen with the nest, then climbed partway back up the tree where Micah found him, stunned, clinging to the bark. For two days Micah researched how to care for injured wild baby birds. He did everything he could to nurture and save the little bird. One clear instruction from the many sources consulted Micah completely ignored: “Do not handle the bird too much.” For some reason, Bluey did not seem to like being placed in the remnant of the nest we gathered up. He much preferred to nestle on Micah’s chest, clinging to his shirt. I fully expected the bird to die within minutes, but he lasted two days with Micah feeding him fruit and bread moistened with water. Micah is seven years old. He is an active, energetic, carefree, very physical child. He is also extremely sensitive. This morning we awoke to hear his wails of lamentation as he discovered Bluey’s lifeless form lying in the carefully prepared nesting box next to his bed. Micah’s weeping continued as we headed out after breakfast and laid Bluey to rest in a small hole dug under a spreading tree in the back field. Why did Micah cry? Is his grief a consequence of his innate understanding that death is abnormal, an enemy, a cursed result of sin and the Fall? Or his is grief abnormal, an enemy, a cursed result of sin and the Fall? Death is good? There are those who, in an attempt to resolve perceived conflicts between science and faith, propose that the Bible be read in the light of modern scientific research. Since scientists claim that multiple lines of evidence point to animal ancestry for humans, and an evolutionary origin to all of life, some Christian scientists believe that the Bible should be read in such a way that it allows for a world in which animal and human life developed over millions of years. Contrary to atheistic evolutionism, this Christian version understands the process not to be the result of random chance, but rather a beautiful, intricate process created and directed by God Himself for His glory. There’s a problem: this theory requires that death and suffering exist in this world long before the arrival of Adam and Eve. (In fact, this theory makes it impossible to even hold on to the Biblical Adam and Eve, but that’s a different story.) The problem is dismissed by Christians who believe that God used evolution to create life on this planet. They argue that when the Bible says that death entered into the world through Man’s sin, this is a reference to the death of humans. It doesn’t refer to the death of non-human creatures. Science has established the presence of catastrophic death and disease well before the arrival of homo sapiens in the history of evolution. According to evolutionary creationists, that’s OK. Evolution requires millions of years of birth, suffering, and death in order to progress. This can be understood to be “very good,” as God declared of His creation, as long as it doesn’t refer to human death. Since Adam and Eve’s respective “parents” or non-human progenitors were not actually human, but only human-like, it doesn’t matter that they suffered and died before the Fall. This is all part of God’s glorious plan of (evolutionary) creation, which He declared very good (Genesis 1:31). It’s really good and beautiful that foxes eat rabbits. Or that little birds fall out of trees and die. It’s all part of how Creation/Evolution works. Behold, it was very good. And it is very good. Why is Micah crying then? According to the thesis that Creation is through Evolution, I guess Micah’s sinful little heart is rebelling against God’s good and perfect creative work. Who is Micah to question what God calls very good? This is the way God has made the world: through suffering and death, Life is perfected. That’s the way it was before the Fall, and that’s the way it continues after the Fall. Not the way it is supposed to be However, the Bible teaches something different. The Bible informs the way I comfort and instruct Micah at this important educational moment. We speak together about the very good creation into which our sin introduced death and destruction as results of God’s curse. This is an important instructional opportunity to show Micah that the wages of sin is death: not just death in the sense of a heart stopping or a person not breathing anymore, but death in all of its horrible catastrophically destructive aspects as it affects Man, relationships, animals, and all of creation. This little bird died because Eve took a bite from a fruit that God had told her not to eat. This little bird died because we are sinners. The creation is groaning and is in bondage to decay because of our sin. But here is the good news. Jesus is making all things new. In the new creation, things are very, very good. There is no more death. In the new heavens and the new earth, Micah will no longer weep over a dead little bird, because Jesus is bringing about the day when the full Life-giving and Life-transforming results of Jesus’ death and resurrection will finally rid the universe of every last vestige of the heart-wrenching sadness and misery that results from our Fall. Rev. Wieske is currently pastor at the St. Albert Canadian Reformed Church. He wrote this article while serving as a missionary in Brazil. The article first appeared in the July/August 2015 issue of Reformed Perspective under the title "Of baby birds, death, and creation."...

Interview with an artist

Anne deJong is taking a palette knife to the Rockies

Rest (12 x 12”)A view from along the Icefields Parkway - alongside her favorite palette knives. Breathe in the crisp mountain air. Allow the hustle and bustle of everyday life to drift away on the breeze. Drink in the beauty of the jagged mountain peaks and the blue, blue lakes. These are the feelings that Anne deJong’s paintings summon up. Her love for spending time in the mountains, and her awe at the majesty of God’s creation she finds there, inspire her. "I take every opportunity I can to hike and camp in the Rockies, and I always come home with hundreds of photos as inspiration for my work. Those stop-in-your-tracks moments where I am filled with awe for the creation around me is what I try to capture on canvas." She wants the viewer to feel like they are there. And she's succeeded – over the years, many who've found similar feelings of tranquility and awe in these majestic Canadian landscapes have connected with her work. How did she become a painter of the mountains? Beginning as a graphic designer, she started to take painting more seriously in 2019. "My Grandpa did a lot of painting after he retired, and he was the one who encouraged me to try painting." Her unique style developed as Anne dove into the use of palette knives, something she discovered while leading an Art Club at Parkland Immanuel Christian School. She loves the thick textures the knives create with oil paint, and uses different strokes to capture motion in long grasses or the rugged cliffs and rocks. At first she painted many different landscapes, but she found herself drawn more and more to the scenes of the Rockies. Original Minis (5 x 5”)Anne likes wrapping her paintings around the edges of the canvas as it gives the paintings a 3d-feel when viewed from an angle. For Anne, the mountains bring to mind the presence of the Lord, as in Psalm 125:2: "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the Lord surrounds his people, from this time forth and forevermore." She explains, “I don’t think specifically of what I believe when I work, but to me the mountains are such a witness to the majesty of our God.” She feels blessed to experience God's creation through the mountains, and to be able to recreate it on canvas. For many artists, getting their work out into the world is a challenge, and it didn't come easily to Anne either. She had to research the selling process and find the best ways to reach people interested in her work. But she has found that people who share similar experiences with the mountains connect with what she paints, so she starts by talking about her experiences in the mountains. Through her website, social media, and in-person events such as art walks and community markets, she has found ways to bring her work to others who find joy in the scenes she creates. And her work has gained recognition and appreciation over the years, and is included in private collections in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, and corporate collections within Alberta. Most recently her paintings have been chosen to be displayed at the Avens Gallery in Canmore, a well-known gallery that focuses on western Canadian artists. God gives great opportunities for His people to display the joy they find in His creation! Learn more about Anne deJong's work on her website and her Instagram page. She also has a newsletter you can subscribe to on her website, which is the best way to learn about her events and latest work. Steadfast (24 x 36”)This is a pre-wildfire view of Jasper National Park’s Pyramid Mountain, from the parkway. It looks quite different now but the mountain is the same – standing strong above the devastation left behind by the wildfire. Send Harm-Mae Smit suggestions for artists to profile at [email protected]....

News, Pro-life - Euthanasia

No jail for man who admits to killing his partner

“An Ottawa man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his ailing husband has been sentenced to two years less a day of house arrest for an act the judge called ‘in every respect an assisted-suicide mercy killing.’” So began a news story from the CBC, which went on to explain that Philippe Hébert, 74, killed Richard Rutherford, 87, on April 15, 2022. Rutherford was struggling with health challenges and a recent cancer diagnosis, and Hébert was tired and stressed by Rutherford’s condition, compounded by fears that Rutherford would be isolated due to Covid restrictions. At the sentencing hearing on February 17, Justice Kevin Phillips explained the light sentence by noting that Rutherford wanted to die. “Phillips said despite the killing being ‘close to murder,’ Hébert was honouring the ‘last wish’ of his husband and friend. Rutherford had the mental capacity to make that decision, and given his medical condition it was understandable, the judge said.” The CBC story, and others like it, painted a picture of how Hébert was a model citizen and was surrounded by supporters in the court room. In law, as in journalism, words matter a great deal. In this case, the reader is led to feel understanding, and perhaps even gratitude, for Hébert’s willingness to honor the “last wish” of his partner. But if we avoid the euphemisms and speak the plain truth, a very different picture emerges. According to the National Post, Hébert woke up to find that his homosexual partner Rutherford was crying. Hébert claims that Rutherford couldn’t go on living and wanted him to help him end his life. In response Hébert promised he would end his own life after killing Rutherford. According to Hébert ‘s testimony, he used an incontinence pad to suffocate Rutherford, then attempted to end his own life, and called 911 for help. Of course, with Mr. Rutherford now dead, we have no idea whether he actually asked to be killed. Decisions and media coverage like this only further erode the sanctity of life. When Canadian law treats murder as medicine, then how can society be all that critical of someone who takes it upon himself to deliver that “treatment”? When killing-is-caring is logically extended, what protection does it give to others who are vulnerable and may be seen as a burden to their caregivers? There is only one line that can be drawn here: that no one should murder another (Gen. 9:6) because our lives are not our own, but entrusted to us by our Maker. That will be too Christian for many, but then we can challenge them to offer any other standard that can hold scrutiny. What other line can they propose that won’t be struck down as by a court because it unfairly limits others? If it is compassionate to murder someone suffering from cancer, why isn’t it compassionate to offer the same “treatment” to someone suffering from depression? By what standard – once God’s law is abandoned – can any one be denied this inexpensive, immediate, and sure cure for suffering?...

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

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

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or billions of years: why would He do it like that?

Quite the creation

Why would it take so long?

A reason for six days

Bring glory to God

Earth made for us

Deferred glory, dominion

Theology

The Pursuit of Wisdom: do it ‘til you die

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

Assorted

When there is smoke…

Science - General

Wild about beetles

Economics, People we should know

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) showed us that free enterprise is necessary for freedom

Politics

5 ways God’s providence should impact how we approach politics

Being the Church

Retirement: What are you retiring from? What are you retiring to?

History

The case against the draft

Assorted

The conceited apple-branch: a Romans 12:3-8 fable?

News

Health-adjusted life expectancy plummets

Assorted

A crowd can make you crazy

Assorted

How to plan for your next chapter as a senior

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – March 2026

Assorted

The slippery slope is real

Culture Clashes

When sports is an idol

Marriage, Parenting

Three questions for you

CAN YOU BUILD IT BETTER? – the brick-building contest results!

Education

Life skills every high school graduate needs to know

Assorted

A theology of cleaning?

Economics - Home Finances

A business tithe on sales?

Assorted

Blessed are the caregivers

Science - Creation/Evolution

Of baby birds, and death before the Fall

Interview with an artist

Anne deJong is taking a palette knife to the Rockies

CAN YOU BUILD IT BETTER?
– the brick-building contest results!