Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Assorted

Tolerance

The common word on the streets today is “tolerance.” That idea, however, is wrong – very wrong... dead wrong! There’s no such thing as tolerance. No one is tolerant. Tolerance is a myth; indeed, it is a dangerous myth. Anyone who claims to stand for tolerance, anyone who says he is tolerant – whether he’s aware of it or not – is lying.

“Wait a minute. I disagree. I’m tolerant, no matter what you say. And, furthermore, I resent being called a liar.”

You’re a liar!

“Now, hold on. How can you say that? You don’t even know me. How can you call me a liar?”

Because you’re lying — that’s what liars do.

“It simply isn’t right of you to pre-judge me, your reader, when you have never met me.”

Oh? Why not? You seem to be agitated over a simple statement that I made out there in the blue. I didn’t ask you to chime in. You put yourself in the category of liars.

“I can’t have people going around calling others liars without challenging them. After all, by implication, since I’m a tolerant person, you included me.”

If you are truly tolerant of differing points of view you wouldn’t go about challenging those who say something that disagrees with yours. If you’re truly tolerant, then why don’t you cheerfully agree that I have every right to go about telling your friends and relatives that you’re a liar?

“That wouldn’t be right. I don’t like people to make unfounded judgments. And, besides it would be a nasty thing to do.”

Are you saying that you’re intolerant of such a claim? Or of anyone who makes it?

“No. I’m tolerant of views that differ from mine.”

Then, you wouldn’t mind if I talk to your friends — right?

“Wrong.”

What makes it wrong to do so?

“The fact that it’s simply untrue.”

But I say that it is true.

“Let’s stop this bickering right now. Would you be satisfied if I conceded that you have the right to be wrong?”

Ah! So, you’re so tolerant that you are ready to tolerate “error “to make it go away?

“That isn’t so. I accept only those things that are true.”

So you don’t tolerate error? It doesn’t matter to you whether others are in error or not so long as you are right? Does that mean you are tolerant of error in others and, therefore, of what you call my lies and my position of intolerance?

“I want others to know the truth too.”

Then, why don’t you accept the truth that you’re a liar?

“Because it’s not true.”

‘Tis.

“Taint.”

‘Tis.

“Prove it”

You claim that you’re tolerant when we know that it’s not true. So you say/deny that you tolerate error in yourself/others.

“There you go – calling me a liar again! And, I certainly don’t know that it’s true.”

All this discussion and you haven’t yet gotten the point? I say you’re a liar simply because you’ve already demonstrated that you are. You claim to accept truth alone, yet you won’t admit that you’re a liar or that you’re intolerant. That’s two lies right there. 

“You’re impossible!”

That’s number three.

“OK, there’s one thing I can’t tolerate – you! You’re intolerable.”

Good. First thing you’ve said that’s right so far. You’re coming along. But since it’s true, that too proves you’re a liar. You said that you are tolerant, but let me ask you, are you intolerant not only of my intolerance but of intolerance in general? Seems that a tolerant person would have to be in order to be consistent.

“Well...”

See, that’s the reason why anyone who claims to be tolerant isn’t. You said that you resented being called a liar. That sounds like an intolerant attitude to me. You can’t tolerate intolerance or you’re tolerating what you claim to abhor. Put it the other way: you claim to abhor what you ought to tolerate – if you were truly tolerant. That position is contradictory in itself. To be intolerant of intolerance is contradictory. You can’t have it both ways. Of course, you can lie about it. Let’s move on. Why do you think that intolerance is dangerous?

“Don’t think that it is.”

Every Christian does. Are you a Christian?

“Yes.”

Jesus said that He was the way to the Father (if you remember) and that nobody can come to the Father but by Him. The apostle also said that there is no other Name under the sky by which a person may be saved—but only by Jesus’ Name.

“Yes, but . . .”

No ‘buts’ about it, so far as the Bible is concerned. No one can be saved except by Jesus Christ. All other ways are erroneous, indeed, nothing but lies. So they are dangerous, leading people astray, away from the only true way to God. Right?

“But I tolerate other people’s views.”

Why? That’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to them. The idea again is that you can tolerate error in others, but not in yourself, right? It doesn’t matter what happens to them – just so you can be tolerant. Is that it?

“That’s not fair.”

Who’s talking about fairness? By what standard do you determine whether or not something is fair? But, let’s go on rather than getting into a round of that. Do you believe in Christian missions?

“Of course.”

Then you believe in intolerance. The whole concept of missions is based on a doctrine of intolerance—intolerance of the evil religions of men that lead them to eternal damnation. Moreover, and of greater importance, these false religions dishonor the true God. Missionaries believe that false beliefs must be destroyed before they destroy those who hold them. God doesn’t tolerate false belief or unbelief. Read Romans 1.

“I have read it. But we can be polite.”

Of course, often we can. But who’s talking about politeness? And by the way, tell me, did Jesus tolerate the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

“Well . . .”

Do you remember some of the things He said to them and about them?

“Certainly.”

Was Jesus always polite when he did? Why are you tolerant when Jesus wasn’t? You’re a Christian. Follow Him!

“I give up. You’re hopeless!”

You mean intolerant?

Dr. Jay Adams (1929-2020) was the father of modern biblical counseling and authored more than 100 books. This is from his blog which can be found at  Nouthetic.org. This first appeared in the March 2009 issue.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 25, 2023

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Being the Church

“good” vs. good

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 18, 2023

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Soup and Buns

Friends or acquaintances?

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

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

The secret thoughts of an unlikely convert

an english professor's journey into christian faith by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield 2012 / 150 pages Rating: Good/Great/GIFT 13 words: Post-modern, lesbian activist, university English professor becomes Reformed Christian homeschooling pastor's wife. Intrigued yet? There is so much to love and so much to learn from this book. One of the biggest lessons is in how God got the attention of this professor. After she wrote an article in the local paper critiquing Promise Keepers she "received so many letters... I kept empty Xerox paper boxes on both sides of my desk, one for hate mail, and one for fan mail." But one of the letters she received wasn't so easy to categorize. It was from a Reformed pastor, and instead of commending or condemning her, it was "a kind, inquiring letter." The pastor wanted to know "how did you arrive at your interpretation? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God?" The letter concluded by inviting "me to call its author to discuss these ideas more fully." After a week of repeatedly throwing out the letter and then digging it back out of the recycling that's what she did. As you might expect from an English professor the writing is delightful. She is also no quiet convert, and her pointed questions uncover wonderful Christian truths but also unmask the shallowness and hypocrisy that is such a prevalent part of the Church. One caution: In the course of her conversion the author is confronted with, and takes on so many different theological issues (adoption, homeschooling, the Regulative Principle, etc.) it's likely readers will find some point on which they disagree. But for a discerning adult, that is a minor issue. And to them this book is highly recommended....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

How to have a proper conversation

or, Confessions of a Loquacious Person ***** Loquacious: tending to talk a great deal We might all think that we know how to have a conversation, having learnt a particular style of conversing from how we were raised. But conversational styles differ greatly from family to family, anything from the children being almost afraid or forbidden to say a word (i.e. “children should be seen and not heard”), to everyone at the dinner table talking at the same time. Family members may have had to wait a long time to be heard if their extroverted siblings hadn’t learned conversational etiquette – “manners” may or may not have been taught, depending on whether the parents ever learned them, or whether they considered free-for-all conversations to be a problem! In my case, I thought that it was normal for family members to talk over one another. But my husband found it completely disorienting as my side of the family got louder and louder, switching subjects frequently and repeating anecdotes when someone in a separate conversation caught a snatch of it and requested to hear all of it right then. Since we loved to hear ourselves talk, we were most happy to oblige, even if we didn’t realize at the time that “talking” was what was most important to us. Loquacious people love to share details about their lives. After church, they might go from person to person telling the same stories and bits of information about their week, their trip, their surgery, or their job challenges. It’s what’s on their mind so they share it with others. But what about the people they are talking to? Do they ask about what happened in other folks’ lives during the past week? When they get home, do they even remember whom they “conversed” with since they did the majority of the talking? This article began with a bit of blaming: “This is how my family did things.” But there’s more to it than that. So let’s take a closer look at why a person talks too much and is not a good listener because, as Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” It’s not simply a learned habit. Self-centeredness      When we talk too much, as mentioned already, it is because we like to hear ourselves talk and we – rightly or wrongly – imagine that others are entertained, inspired, or enlightened by what we have to say. The first consideration should be whether our subject matter meets those criteria! We can all think of people whose conversation could bless us for hours, and others with whom we would be bored. We have probably all been the talker in both situations! We also ought to realize that we like to talk because we like to be in control. Celeste Headlee points out in her TED talk Ten Ways to Have a Better Conversation that we control the conversation so that “we won’t have to hear anything that we are not interested in.” It makes us the center of attention, and perhaps is essential to “bolstering” our own identity. Ouch! But as Headlee concludes, “Conversations are not a promotional opportunity.” Did we even realize that we were being self-centered? We need to, because self-centeredness is destructive to relationships, whereas love for others is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Being a good listener In order to have a proper conversation, we need to be intentional and attentive listeners. One of the most difficult challenges is to realize that when people are relating their experience, that conversation is not about us. As Stephen Covey has said, “Most of us don’t listen with the intent to understand. We listen with the intent to reply.” While someone is talking, we automatically think of our experience that we think parallels theirs, and eagerly formulate how we will present our information. My parent also died. I also have knee/car/kid/plumbing trouble. I also took a vacation to Timbuktu and here’s what I did. To launch directly into our somewhat connected experience shows that to us, their commentary was merely a catalyst to get ours started. And whether we realize it or not, we may be, as Headlee suggests, taking that moment to prove how amazing we are or how much we have suffered! Self-centered. When we truly listen, we should squelch those thoughts because our experience, even with grief, is not the same as theirs. Squelch them, and instead ask follow-up questions, seeking to understand what their experience was like and how it affected them. Think about what they say. Ask them how it affected them and what they think about it now. Tell them you’d love to hear more about it. Tell them how wonderful (or awful) it sounds. Sincerely offer prayer or assistance if the situation calls for it. A proper conversation includes and indeed emphasizes listening. It takes energy and effort to truly listen to the point of caring about the speaker and the content, and not just planning our response while we wait for them to finish, or even worse, interrupt them as soon as they take a breath. To interrupt is to declare that you consider yourself and what you want to say more important than the other person’s words. There may be a good reason to share some of our experiences later, but only after we have sufficiently listened, and only if it may truly benefit the hearer. Listening to your children It is particularly important to learn to listen attentively to your children. Parents need to learn to listen to what their children are saying and to ask questions that show a desire to understand and appreciate them. Listening needs to be done in a non-judgmental manner where the kids aren’t afraid that a rebuke or lecture will flatten them as soon as they speak their mind and open their heart. It may be that an issue will have to be addressed laterif wise counsel or discipline are necessary. But a thorough listening should come first. Proverbs 18:13 gives the admonition that, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” Half-hearing or speeding through the conversation so that we can go do something “more important” is not really listening. We sometimes think as parents that we need to have “the answer” immediately. We are not perfect and it may be best on some occasions to state that we are going to think about a matter for a while before we fully respond. Of course, this takes more time and effort than giving a quick answer while multitasking. But it is time well spent. There’s a popular adage that nobody when growing old will say, “I wish I’d spent more time at the office” or, as a companion to that remark, “I wish I’d cleaned my house better when the kids were young.” But we may wish we had listened more attentively. Scripture says… The Book of Proverbs has a lot to say about our speech. Proverbs 10:19 states: “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent” and 17:28 says: “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” We are taught that our speech is to be truthful (4:24, 6:12), noble and straightforward (8:6-9), wise (10:31), gentle (15:1), knowledgeable (15:7), righteous (8:8; 16:13), and pleasant (16:24). We are commanded that our speech should not be devious (4:24), destructive of our neighbor (11:9), rash like sword thrusts (think about that image!) (12:18), a scorching fire/perverse/slanderous (16:27-28). Proverbs 31:26 says, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.”  In 1 Corinthians 13:4-5, Paul says: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.” Jesus and Paul taught us to love our neighbor as ourself. Should this not include listening carefully with a desire to learn and understand, rather than just popping off the first connection that comes to mind? We can learn to not be self-centered. Quick to listen In James 1:19, we read, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.” What if we would rush in to listen to others, instead of to talk? These verses show us that we should analyze our recent conversations, and perhaps ask friends, family, and the Lord if we have been “too loquacious” and not a good listener. We should ponder Paul’s words from Philippians 2 which certainly apply to how we converse with others: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2: 3-4)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

Arrogance: a necessary element of the liberal worldview

In his book Makers and Takers (2008), Peter Schweizer not only sings the praises of conservatives, he exposes the arrogance of liberals. One example is particularly telling – Schweizer writes about the media’s reaction to a Presidential IQ report that looked at the scores for each American president in the last 50 years. The report found that the last six Democratic (liberal) Presidents had an average IQ of 155, with Bill Clinton scoring the highest, at 182. Republican Presidents (conservatives, or at least, more conservative than Democrats) average more than 40 point lower at just over 115. The lowest Republican score was George W. Bush, at 91. Now to give this some context, Albert Einstein’s IQ has been estimated at between 160 to 180, which puts him a shade below Bill Clinton. And George W. Bush’s reported score was exactly half that given for Clinton. If that strikes you as a little suspect, congratulations – that’s means you must not be a liberal, because a host of them did fall for it. The press including “The Economist magazine, the St. Petersburg Times, London's Daily Mirror, radio talk show hosts and liberal bloggers eagerly ran with the story.” Even editorial cartoonist Garry Trudeau swallowed it whole, basing one of his Doonesbury comics on this Presidential IQ report. But while many in the press were ready to believe anything – no matter how implausible – that said liberals were smarter than conservatives (and smarter even than Einstein) the report was a hoax. The only real info the report provided was the illumination it had given on the press’s hard bias against conservatives. Think I’m been a little hard on the gullible media? Not at all, As Schweizer notes: “Imagine if someone had published a report claiming that conservatives had much higher IQs than liberals. Would newspapers and commentators run such a story uncritically? To the contrary, they would likely first check on the results and subject the findings to serious scrutiny. In short, the bias in favor of ‘smart liberals’ seems widely accepted in our society.” Why did they fall for it? While it might seem odd that liberals are so ready to think themselves much smarter than conservatives, this arrogance is an integral part of the liberal worldview. Or, at least, it is central to liberalism in as far as liberals believe in bigger government, with the government taking an increasingly prominent role in education, healthcare, the arts, childcare, and, of course, all aspects of the economy including the arts, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and sports stadium construction. Government on such a grand scale is going to require some astonishingly brilliant leaders if things are to be run competently. So if one presupposes, as liberals do, that bigger government is the answer to many of our problems, it is necessary for them to also presuppose that the super smart, near-all-knowing administrators that would be necessary to run it, do actually exist. Or to put it more succinctly liberals overestimate their intelligence, because they need to, to maintain their trust in big government. Conservatives, on the other hand, have historically thought that such a huge responsibility is beyond any one person, or any one group’s competence, no matter how smart, or how knowledgeable. This insight was at one time based on – and still today aligns with – what God tells us about ourselves, that He is the infinite all-knowing God, and that we are not. So conservatives, and particularly Christians, want the government to take on only the limited responsibilities, like those of justice and defense, (Romans 13:4) which God has specifically assigned to it. Conclusion While liberals think conservatives to be of limited intelligence, conservatives think this true of both liberals and conservatives – everyone, even the smartest among us, have only limited intelligence and no one has the omniscience that would be needed to competently oversee all that Ottawa and Washington are involved in today. This touch of humility is as central to conservatism as a sense of arrogance is to liberalism. A version of this article first appeared in the June 2011 issue of Reformed Perspective....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections - Feb. 4, 2023

How different athletes act at home (4 min) Some fun goofiness to share with the kids... though only if you don't mind some imitation. Jack Phillips battles on,... and his reward will be great! Jack Phillips is rather ordinary-looking for a hero. He isn't muscle-bound, doesn't have martial art moves, and he isn't braving bullets to save a damsel in distress. What he has been risking is his business, and for more than a decade now. Amazingly, among the people he is risking his business for are the very people trying to shut him down. A decade back this baker was taken to court for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual "marriage." All the world was eager to celebrate this coupling, but Jack was not, because he knew such a marriage was a lie, and harmful to the people involved because they were committing themselves to a lifelong rebellion against their Maker. The good news is he won a Supreme Court decision back in 2021. The bad news is he was targeted again, but this time by a trans activist who wanted a cake to celebrate "transitioning." And once again, Jack wouldn't participate in a harmful lie. Most of us understandably wouldn't want to be in Jack's shoes. But is that because we've gotten things backwards? We were created to glorify God, and just consider the opportunity Jack has been given because of this to glorify God in a louder way than he otherwise ever could. We also shouldn't doubt what Jesus promised in his Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matt. 5:10-12). Start with one We're called to make disciples. Yet so many of us don't. So, the author advises, start with one, just one. 6 ways socialism isn't social If it's voluntary, it isn't socialism. It's that simple: socialism is compulsion. Abortion arguments are failing badly One of my university profs tried to justify abortion through all nine months by arguing that there was no point in the pregnancy where a child was all that different from the moment before. He reasoned that if it was okay at one month after conception to abort (which he thought was a given) then it must be okay at one month plus one day. And if it is okay at one month and a day, how is the child all that different at one month and two days? And so on. But his argument proved too much, as it would also justify "aborting" the already born, even adults, as there is no point in which we are all that different from the moment before. In the article above, Gary DeMar turns that logic on its head: if it is a given the born are valuable, then why not the born, minus a day? And so on. DeMar's flipped argument aligns with Scripture, where we find our value isn't found in how different we are from one stage to the next, nor in what we can do, but in Whose Image we are made (Gen. 1:27, Gen. 9:6). This is not a banana This is not an ad about how boys can never be girls even when some people might say otherwise. This is not about how boys remain boys, even if someone screams "girl, girl, girl" over and over again. And even if you start to believe that boy is a girl, he's not; he's a boy... and this ad is still not about that. This is a CNN ad. From 5 years ago. It was directed against President Donald Trump's accusations that CNN peddled "fake news." It argues that there are no alternative facts. There is only one truth. Bravo. Do you think they'd still make this ad today? ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Population of the world’s largest country begins to decline

For the first time since the early 1960s, deaths have outnumbered births in the world’s largest country – over the course of 2022 China’s population shrunk by 850,000. This development was a long time coming, as the country has seen a steady decrease in births since the 1970’s. That is thanks in part to China’s One-Child Policy, which stayed in force till 2015, and which penalized parents for having more than one child. The Communist government has been trying to reverse the downward trend since then, but with no success. China’s fertility rate is a dismal 1.28 children per woman, and still decreasing each year. To simply stay stable, a country’s fertility rate needs to average out to 2.1 children per woman, the two children to take the place of their two parents in the next generation, and the .1 to account for the fact that not all children reach adulthood. According to the Globe & Mail’s coverage: “no country has successfully reversed birth-rate decline, which tends to track with development, as wealthier, urbanized populations choose to have less children.” “China’s demographic and economic outlook is much bleaker than expected,” demographer Yi Fuxian commented in response to these findings. China is realizing quickly what Psalm 127:3 proclaims: “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from Him.” However, even as China is being confronted by this truth, Canada and much of the Western world continues to discourage children and is relying on immigration to keep the population and economy stable or growing. But where are these immigrants coming from, and what happens when these countries too need people? And if no country has been successful with reversing a decline, what happens when the world’s population begins to decline, as is expected later this century? Through birth, fostering, and adoption, Christian families have an opportunity to show to the world the gift that life is....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - Creation/Evolution

How does the world explain the origin of life?

or, highlighting the problems with a Naturalistic explanation  *****  Naturalism can be defined best by what it doesn’t believe: in the Supernatural; it denies the existence of God. That means that all naturalists are left with to explain all that exists, why we exist, and how we came to be is Nature and natural laws. And that presents them with a problem. Nature cannot provide us with an explanation for abiogenesis – life coming from non-life. You don’t have to take my word for it – this is also acknowledged as a foundational problem by many scientists, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes only by the irrational arguments they’ll offer as an alternative to acknowledging God. In what follows I’m going to share both the publicly acknowledged problems with naturalistic abiogenesis, as well as some of the theories the world has proposed to address those problems. Both are revealing. The RNA problem In paleontologist Peter Ward’s book Life As We Do Not Know It, he addresses how RNA (or ribonucleic acid) – because it is simpler than DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) – is theorized as an evolutionary step in the development of DNA. But, Ward notes: Amazingly, one of the major criticisms of RNA life…the hypothesized last common ancestor of all DNA life, is that it probably did not exist because it would have been impossible to build RNA through natural chemical processes. Paul Davies notes: .… ”without a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic condition.” Or, as organic chemist Clemens Richert wrote in the Dec 12, 2018 edition of Nature Communications: Experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry strive to re-enact what may have happened when life arose from inanimate material. How often human intervention was needed to obtain a specific result in their studies is worth reporting. When Diego Maradona was asked about having used his hand to score a goal in the quarter-finals of the 1986 soccer World Cup, he initially claimed that there had been divine intervention, and the term “Hand of God Goal” was coined. – There had been manual intervention, and there had been an understandable interest of the player not to admit it. – Organic chemists, if not all experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry, are faced with a similar dilemma. We do our best to perform experiments that we believe re-enact possible steps of prebiotic evolution, but we know that we need to intervene manually to obtain meaningful results. Further, the ideal experiment does not involve any human intervention. He also frankly said: Understandably, this has drawn the ire of those who feel that no or only minimal intervention is allowed for a process to be called prebiotically plausible. After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.) Whether divine intervention or human intervention, there’s a conscious entity doing the intervening. So even if our friends were to succeed in creating life in the lab, that would only demonstrate that intelligence and deliberate intent are needed to create a living thing. I'm glad this issue is explicitly acknowledged. Every honest Origin of Life (OOL) researcher will agree fully. It’s one thing for highly trained chemists to create RNA in a lab, but another thing entirely for unaided Nature to accomplish the same. Especially considering that Nature is not trying to make RNA, and has no intention of doing so. The multiverse “solution” But, if the researcher is committed to Naturalism and atheism, then he has no choice but to maintain a strong (and unrealistic) faith that Nature did it anyway, even though he knows it’s not possible. One such researcher, Eugene Koonin, resorted to “an infinite multiverse” as a potential way out of this problem. This is the view that supposedly, anything that can happen will happen in an infinite multiverse, and this would also include the chance origin of life. In a 2011 book, The Logic of Chance: the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, he added this: The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. “Almost like a miracle” is a frank admission of what OOL entails. Nevertheless, in the same book, Koonin continued to cling to the multiverse hypothesis as a guaranteed solution to the problems involved with OOL. Here’s the summary of Koonin’s argument, in his own words: Simply put, the probability of the realization of any scenario permitted by the conservation laws in an infinite universe (and, of course, in the multiverse) is, exactly, one.... Thus, spontaneous emergence of complex systems that would have to be considered virtually impossible in a finite universe becomes not only possible but inevitable under MWO … What he’s saying is that if you have an infinite number of universes then anything, no matter how improbable, not only can happen, but will happen… in some universe somewhere within the multiverse. Including naturalistic abiogenesis. According to Koonin (and some “Many Worlds” physicists who agree with him), in some universe somewhere right now, there’s a guy who’s a practicing neurosurgeon, a janitor, and the lead actor in a recent blockbuster movie – simultaneously. He owns 271 cars, and is married to his high school sweetheart (who happens to be a princess from a tribe of highly-advanced super-beings). Their son adopted a pet chimpanzee named Wilson, while their twin daughters are ballistic missile experts in the local galactic army. No, this isn’t a hypothetical story I just made up. Or, rather it is, but according to Koonin’s logic these things are actually going on right now as we speak, in some universe somewhere. The pet chimp is also very clever, and has learned how to fly a helicopter, among other things. Now think about this trained monkey trying to synthesize life in a chemistry lab. What are the odds of him succeeding?? Exactly. But even the monkey has a better chance than a prebiotic Nature which has no intent or purpose whatsoever. In any case, simply postulating an infinite multiverse in an attempt to overcome the problem does not help – Koonin doesn’t put forth any mechanism whereby life could be naturally synthesized, but just makes the bold assertion that it must certainly happen given a multiverse. Time is no solution Another factor that is usually seen as a possible helper for abiogenesis is Time. If Nature has billions of years to work with, she should be able to eventually get the right combination to the safe, right? No, not at all. That would be akin to claiming a blind engineer could invent a BMW, or a Model-T Ford, given billions of years to live and try. It’s clear why time isn’t the problem. The blind engineer actually has better odds in this analogy than Nature does, since he at least knows what he’s attempting to accomplish. The language/information problem The origin of life gets all the more complicated when we realize it also necessitates the origin of information, and the origin of a language to convey that information. I could employ many quotes here concerning what information is, but I like how physicist and information theorist Hubert Yockey put it in this simple statement: The meaning, if any, of words, that is, a sequence of letters, is arbitrary. It is determined by the natural language and is not a property of the letters or their arrangement ... For example, "O singe fort!" has no meaning as a sentence in English, although each is an English word, yet in German it means, "O sing on!" and in French it means "O strong monkey". Like all messages, the life message is non-material but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes. Or, as chemistry professor Michael Polanyi already noted way back in 1958, in his book Personal Knowledge: Information in the DNA could no more be reduced to the chemicals than could the ideas in a book be reduced to the ink and paper: something beyond physics and chemistry is encoded in DNA. The origin of encoded genetic information is also assumed to have just happened miraculously under the multiverse scenario. Information here isn’t just the physical nucleobases, or even their sophisticated ordering alone, but the ribosomes’ understanding of the language, and their ability to decode and use those instructions to build the specified proteins. And then we have multiple regulatory genes in addition, which are all information networks. There’s actually a $10 million challenge out there still ongoing, for anyone who can demonstrate a set of coded information that didn’t originate from a mind, i.e., that can be spontaneously generated by Nature. The judges include well-respected biologists George Church and Denis Noble, and the Royal Society has also gotten involved recently. No one has claimed the prize (find out more in the 2 minute video below). The complexity problem Most of us don’t actually know, much less appreciate, the number of things that need to be done in order to arrive at the “simplest” cell. Nature has no goal or aim or plan to create a cell. The fact that highly trained, highly intelligent chemists still can’t do it, speaks volumes. So how is it that some lay naturalists and even some with degrees think all that’s needed is lots of time, and then Nature will eventually produce a living cell? The sheer amount of intellectual effort that goes into OOL research is more than impressive, and we still can’t make life ourselves – we can’t pull it off. But a mindless prebiotic Nature with no intention of creating a cell somehow did? Consider the ingredients needed to make a basic candy. Here’s the list for Skittles: Sugar Corn syrup Hydrogenated palm kernel oil Citric acid Tapioca dextrin Modified corn starch Natural and artificial flavors Colors (Red 40 Lake, Titanium Dioxide, Red 40, Yellow 5 Lake, Yellow 5, Yellow 6 Lake, Yellow 6, Blue 2 Lake, Blue 1, Blue 1 Lake) Sodium citrate Carnauba wax Now consider just a miniscule piece of a Skittle. Would Nature alone be able to synthesize and assemble the ingredients needed to make a tiny piece of a Skittle? No. Never. Not in ten billion years! But many adults believe Nature somehow synthesized and assembled everything that’s needed to make a living, metabolizing, self-replicating cell. The extraterrestrials “solution” But what if we were to claim that life on earth resulted from panspermia – that Extraterrestrials (ETs) seeded the first life on Earth? This is indeed what some among our SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) friends propose. Well, then they’d have the problem of explaining how Nature produced those ETs. As Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion: …there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century…In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense…the crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way…They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution. Saying ETs put the first life on Earth still keeps us inside the box of Naturalism. And then Nature still has to create and evolve the ETs, so the abiogenesis problem – how life can ever have come from non-life – remains. Then there’s at least one scientist in peer-reviewed publication who also thinks panspermia by ETs isn’t a good enough proposal. Brig Klyce concedes there’s one of two possibilities: “supernatural intervention or intelligence” (aka God) or that cellular life has existed from eternity This concession appeared in a paper (“Cause of Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?” in the August 2018 edition of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology) that Klyce co-authored with more than a dozen other scientists. He believed “that the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” But if that’s so, then how is life here? Rejecting the possibility that God was involved, Klyce then proposes this: A strictly scientific way around this dilemma would be to amend or tweak the big bang theory to allow for life from the eternal past. After all, the big bang theory is relatively new and still occasionally amended. Therefore, it seems unready to forever overrule the unviolated principle and consistent evidence that life comes from life. Yes, that’s an actual suggestion from a peer-reviewed secular scientific paper – that life started here from a universe before the big bang. So either God did it, or self-replicating microbes have always existed. The difference between the two proposals is that: God is an eternal Supernatural This is logically consistent and plausible, and even a metaphysical necessity to avoid an infinite regress of causes. On the other hand, proposing an eternity of replicating microbes, each of which had a beginning and an end, is trying to say that abiogenesis never happened because there was no “first ever microbe.” But things that have a beginning still need to have an explanation for that beginning. Trying to hide that behind an infinite regression isn’t an answer to this problem. Conclusion For decades, highly trained experts have been striving to create life from scratch, using the raw materials found in nature. They have yet to succeed. Even if they did eventually succeed somehow, that would only demonstrate that a high level of intelligent input is needed to create biological life; which is what we’ve been saying the evidence has always shown. Proposing an infinite multiverse where “anything that can happen will happen” is an unsubstantiated assertion with no empirical evidence whatsoever, and doesn’t offer a mechanism for abiogenesis or even address the issue that Nature has no intent to create life. The suggestion that microbial life has always existed and self-replicated is a logical absurdity, since there can be no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. Thus in the question of God vs Naturalism, there is no question as to which answer is absurd. Kenechi Okoli is a Christian who loves science, and in his free time he enjoys reading, music, and cooking. While he lived for over a decade in the US, he now resides in Nigeria....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Science - Environment

Thinking on the margin, or why some pollution is better than none

Another economic principle Christian teens (& adults) need to know ***** An important aspect of economics is counting the costs of an action or purchase, and, on the flipside, also evaluating the benefit that could result. With these two concepts, cost and benefit, we can understand how people make their decisions. When the benefit of taking an action is greater than the cost, people will take that action. For example, if buying a soda would bring you $3 worth of enjoyment, but it only costs $1, then you’ll choose to buy the soda. And afterwards, if you’ve had your fill of soda, you might hardly enjoy another soda, and perhaps value it at just a quarter. So of course you then won’t buy it for $1. What is “marginal thinking"? This example illustrates the meaning of the concept of marginality. When economists use the term “marginal benefit,” they are referring to the benefit added by the last unit purchased – in this case the last soda. Another example: when you decide whether to work for another hour, you don’t consider the cost and benefit of all the hours you already worked. Instead, you consider the cost and benefit associated with the final (or marginal) hour under consideration. So when you “think marginal," then think about the cost and benefit of “one more unit.” And whether people realize it or not, we all engage in marginal thinking. Imagine you’re deciding to buy an ice cream cone. Let’s say a single scoop cone costs $2, and every additional scoop costs 50 cents. When deciding whether to buy a single scoop you have to compare how much benefit you get from the single cone to the cost of the cone ($2). So long as you value the single scoop cone at more than $2 you buy it. When the marginal benefit of an action is greater than the cost, people will do that action. What about the second scoop? Well, each scoop is 50 cents, so you’ll choose to buy the second scoop if you enjoy it at a value more than 50 cents. You’ll keep purchasing more scoops but at some point, another scoop just won’t be worth another 50 cents to you, so you’ll stop. Why does it matter? So hopefully you understand marginal thinking, because now we have to consider why it matters. Marginal thinking is valuable in all sorts of applications. For students, marginal thinking can help you prioritize your studying. I always tell my students that, if their goal is a good GPA, they shouldn’t spend much time trying to improve their grade from a 96% to a 98%. Why? First, both grades are an “A” so the marginal benefit to your GPA is nothing. Also, once your grade is already high, it’s much more difficult to move it up. Therefore, the cost is high and the marginal benefit is low. Most students would be better off dedicating their time to working on a class where they have a 79% since the cost is lower – just a little more study could boost them up a letter grade – and the marginal benefit is higher. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of a man who manages the money of a rich man. The manager is going to be fired because of his wasteful practices. When he discovers this, he forgives the debtors of his master to make friends before he’s fired. Jesus tells us in Luke 16:8a, “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” In 16:9 He goes on to give the meaning of the parable, “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” The point of the parable is not that we should be dishonest in our dealings. Instead, it’s that we should use our resources shrewdly for the Kingdom. Christians are called to be good stewards of the resources we are given, which includes our time. As the studying example above illustrates, effective use of time requires the ability to consider the relevant costs and benefits of a given decision. There’s a “good” amount of pollution and crime? Marginal thinking is also valuable when it comes to thinking about policy. Economists have a pithy saying: the efficient amount of anything is not zero. It’s tempting to believe bad things should be eliminated completely. For example, many people would likely support the phrase, “politicians should eliminate pollution.” But imagine what it would mean to eliminate the very last “units” of pollution. Almost every vehicle, either personal or those used for transporting goods and services, relies on some form of pollution to operate. If we had zero pollution, our grocery stores would receive zero food deliveries because we wouldn’t have semi-trucks, and they would receive zero visits from us, because we wouldn’t have cars.  Elimination of all pollution, at least at this point, would result in most of humanity returning to subsistence conditions – the cost is too high, and thus that is a “purchase” we shouldn’t make. Of course, some pollution should be eliminated. If a factory is dumping toxic waste into a public river, the cost of allowing the pollution to continue is very high. As strange as it might sound, the efficient amount of crime is also not zero. Imagine how much money and how many resources would need to be spent to ensure zero crime. We’d need a police officer on every street corner 24/7. Think of how high your taxes would need to be to support those pensions! Surely taxpayers have other priorities with higher marginal benefits than preventing some minor traffic violation. No Nirvana naivete This sort of logic can be summarized neatly by saying economics as a field is inherently opposed to the Nirvana fallacy. The Nirvana fallacy is the mistake that is made when people compare the real world to an unrealistically ideal alternative. We would all like to get a grade of 100% in every class and live in a world without crime or pollution. But these are unrealistic desires for this world. A solid understanding of marginal analysis complements the Christian understanding of our fallen world. When politicians offer us a vision of a world where all bad is eliminated, a clear understanding of marginal analysis provides us with an argument for why such a world is out of reach. Economists Armen Alchian and William Allen rightly summarize this in the foreword of their book Universal Economics. They say: “since the discouraging fiasco in the Garden of Eden, all the world has been a place conspicuous in its scarcity of resources, contributing heavily to an abundance of various sorrows and sins. People have had to adjust and adapt to limitations of what is available to satisfy unlimited desires.” In sum, marginal thinking helps us better understand the nature of our own decisions. When applied properly, this way of thinking provides a more sober view of the important decisions we make in our personal lives and in the public square. Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Canada taps the brakes on the runaway euthanasia train

After the Society of Canadian Psychiatry (SCP) sounded the alarm late last year, the government of Canada has now temporarily put the brakes on its expansion of the country’s already liberal euthanasia regime. It had planned to make euthanasia available to the mentally ill as of March 2023, but is giving the system more time to get ready. The SCP’s warning was based on clinicians’ current inability to assess when a mental illness is or is not “irremediable” (i.e., irreversible/incurable). The SCP asserted as a given that euthanasia shouldn’t be given to people who may still recover. So, their argument went, since we can’t yet tell when someone with a mental illness will or won’t recover, it is premature to be offering it to the mentally ill. The organization Dying with Dignity, which has been leading the charge for state-sponsored death in Canada, was upset by this decision. "We must avoid creating barriers that will prolong grievous suffering." Sounding very similar, Justice Minister David Lametti said: “Remember that suicide generally is available to people. This is a group within the population who, for physical reasons and possible mental reasons, can’t make that choice themselves to do it themselves.” Before Canada legalized assisted suicide back in 2016, ARPA Canada urged the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal government to recognize that once the sacred line of the 6th Commandment is crossed, condoning some killing, it will become impossible to draw a new line that will hold. The past six years bears this out. Our society no longer knows which suicides should be prevented and which should be celebrated as an expression of choice. Lobbying government to stop (and reverse!) the train is important and needs to continue. But given that the train keeps roaring down the tracks, the Church needs to do what it can to get people off the tracks. More than ever before, Canada needs to hear the hope of the Gospel, which gives meaning to all lives. Have your neighbors heard it?...

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