Browse By Topic

Amazing stories from times past

Apologetics 101

Assorted

Being the Church

Christian education

Christian education - Sports

Church history

Conferences

Culture Clashes

Dating

Dying Well

Economics

Economics - Home Finances

Education

Entertainment

Evangelism

Gender roles

History

Homosexuality

Human Rights

Humor

In a Nutshell

Indigenous peoples

Internet

Interview with an artist

Letter Writing

Marriage

Media bias

Music

Parenting

People we should know

Politics

Pornography

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life - Adoption

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Pro-life - Fostering

Religion

Religion - Mormons

Religion - Pentecostal

Religion - Roman Catholic

Remembrance Day

RP Speaks

Science - Creation/Evolution

Science - Environment

Science - General

Sexuality

Soup and Buns

Theology

Transgenderism

Most Recent

Theology

The best news ever!

“Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:32-43)

****

Three people were taken that day to a hill outside Jerusalem to be crucified.

One died in sin.

One died to sin.

One died for sin.

Two were guilty. One was innocent.

Two were paying their debt to society. One was paying our debt of sin.

Consider, for a moment, the one who died to sin: the repentant thief. He made some remarkable observations. His was a remarkable conversion. Of all the converts among the rich, the religious and the rejected, his is the most amazing.

Both of these men asked Jesus to save them. One of the men being crucified said, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" (v.39). His words were sarcastic and sneering.

The other man said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (v.42). His words were simple and sincere. Hear the response of Christ: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." The repentant thief rebukes the other criminal. He recognizes his own guilt and admits that he and the other man both fully deserve death, “we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong" (v.41). Pilate and Herod said this but did not respond appropriately to that knowledge.

There was one essential difference between these two convicted criminals. One sought to be saved from his situation. The other sought to be saved from his sin, and he would hear the best news ever, “...today you will be with me in Paradise."

Conviction comes before conversion

Notice how conviction comes before conversion. The repentant thief says, “…we are receiving the due reward of our deeds” (v.41).

What was happening in this man’s life? Was he afraid of falling into the hands of the living God? The Bible says, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). He understood what was happening. He sensed the eternal significance of the occasion.

Scripture also says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight" (Proverbs 9:10). Here in this unfolding drama there are two very different attitudes to Christ. The repentant thief admits his own sinfulness. What led to his conviction and conversion? Was it fear or was it that he heard Jesus say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (v.34). Was it the fact that Jesus forgave His tormentors? Maybe he had heard about Jesus. God was certainly working in his heart. He not only rebuked the other thief, he not only admitted his guilt, but he confessed Jesus as the innocent one.

And then he did one more thing for which he will always be remembered. He said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (v.42). He looked at the battered and bruised body of Jesus and saw a king! And he anticipated Christ's resurrection, and coming of his kingdom. What a remarkable insight!

He didn’t ask for a place of honor. All he dared to ask was to be remembered. But he was speaking to the one who is able to do immeasurably more than we can imagine. In all his agony and anguish Jesus had time to win one more soul. The promise of paradise is great news.

We know so little about this man. What we do know is that at this point in his life he recognized he was a sinner and that Jesus could help him. That is all he needed to know.

Two responses to Christ and the cross

Our personal prejudices will sometimes have us writing off this person or that as "not salvageable." Perhaps we have our petty excuses for not reaching others. But in all the discomfort of the cross Jesus reaches out to this undeserving man. This shows the selfless nature of Christ. This shows that the excuses we offer for not reaching out to others are so petty. We should never give up on sinners.

The paths of three men met in death. Much of humanity is represented in these two responses to Christ and the cross. The cross is not good news for everybody. One of the dying men mocked Christ. The words of the hymn Three Crosses by Helen Franzee Bower, put this idea beautifully:

Three crosses on a lonely hill,
A thief on either side,
And, in between, the Son of God...
How wide the gulf, how wide!

Yet one thief spanned it with the words,
"Oh Lord, remember me";
The other scoffed and turned aside
To lost eternity.

Forsaken is the hilltop now,
And all the crosses gone,
But in believing hearts of men
The center cross lives on.

And still, as when these sentinels
First met earth’s wondering view,
The presence of the Lord divides.
Upon which side are you?

Christ’s Empire

This repentant thief looked at Jesus and saw himself as he really was. When we look to Jesus we too see ourselves as we really are. This thief was deemed unfit to live in the Roman Empire but God gave him a place in his empire.

Remarkably, the man who asked to be remembered expects Jesus to complete his work. All those who trust in the completed work of Christ can have the same assurance, “...today you will be with me in Paradise.” This passage of Scripture shows us that it is possible to have (in this life) the assurance of sins forgiven and that we can be sure of heaven after death. This must be the best news ever!

Full Article

Homosexuality, News

When a gay couple wants you to help them celebrate sin

Evangelism

Help wanted: Prophets

Our leaders, and neighbors, need to hear God’s Word from us **** God’s Word cuts. We acknowledge that is “living and active, sharper than any ...

Evangelism

"And behold, I come quickly" - the dying need to hear the gospel

Transgenderism

The transgender debate isn't about washrooms

Or, how to argue like a Christian Here’s the scenario: there’s a fellow in front of you wearing a little black dress. And he wants to know your t...

Internet

One week in: Facebook isn't for everyone

It's been nearly a full week since I deleted my Facebook account. My thoughts so far? Why didn’t I do this before?!? I made my decision to exit social media circles carefully. I first joined Facebook when I turned 15, and have slowly become more and more dependent on it and other social media outlets since then. Facebook, Instagram, and in a lesser way, Snapchat have caused too much damage in my mind and heart for me to justify continued use. Not for me Let me be clear: I do not believe they are evil creations! It is simply that I am not meant for social arenas. The Apostle Paul tells us that all things may be lawful, but they may not be helpful; he urges us to do all things in moderation, and herein is where I think the evil in social media might be found: the temptation to addiction. I don’t presume to tell you that social media is good or bad for you. But I do want to challenge you to ask that question for yourself. Are you able to use it in moderation? It is certainly lawful, but is it helpful for you? Like many others, I am a person with intense convictions, feelings, hopes, dreams, desires, sorrows, and fears. When I see beauty I experience joy, and when I see ugliness I feel sadness, anger, and if not treated carefully, that sadness and anger can begin to cross into the murky waters of depression and hatred. In the early Facebook days there was much more to enjoy on Facebook, and it was much more personal. These days most of my newsfeed isn’t even posts from my friends. Usually it’s posts from my friends of friends, from ads, and from viral strings (which are usually filled with hateful interactions between people who don’t even know each other!) I have found that being addicted to scrolling social medias is not just a mindless thing. It’s very mindFUL. I see hateful social justice posts regarding racism, sexism, classism, religion, or politics, and my head seethes with frustration at the world I live in. From the ignorance and folly, to the intentional hatred and violence, I find that the personality and heart that God built into me can’t handle such a constant diet of that well. Some people can! And I am grateful for their ability to present goodness in that world. But it’s not me. I’m not called to that. A diet of such negativity has brought more and more worry to my heart, and less and less joy. How did I get here to this choice? I did not want to make a rash decision to leave social media circles, just to re-enter them a week later, so I have spent months in prayer, bringing my symptoms of depression, frustration, and cynicism to Him and asking Him to show me the true source. I felt sure the root was in social media, but I didn’t want to rule out other possibilities, which is why I took my time. I found my answer one morning when I felt the Spirit calling me to come be with Him. I opened my bible unintentionally to Psalm 37; as I read through it I found each next verse convicting me more deeply that I had to give up this addiction of social media completely in order to restore the joy in life and the control over my daily habits. "Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in Yahweh, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness" (vs. 1-2). There are a couple of things in this Psalm that addressed so poignantly the decision I was facing, and the effect that social media was having on my life. First, I find that whether I’m dealing with stupid drivers on the road, or observing hatred via social media viral strings, I get angry. I see ignorance, stupidity, folly, and evil and I feel worried, anxious, joyless, and sometimes even hatred. The very first verse in Psalm 37 says: “Fret not yourself because of evildoers.” And second, I find that the complicated busyness of life, feeling spread thin from being aware of hundreds of people’s lives via social media, and having an appalling amount of useless information running around in my head makes me feel worn out emotionally all the time. The second verse in Psalm 37 spoke to me of the beauty of a simple and quiet life, saying: “Trust in Yahweh, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness.” From negative to positive After reading that Psalm I made the final decision to go cold turkey on the addiction that social media had become, and immediately felt such abounding peace in my heart. Peace and joy like I haven’t felt in a long time. I deleted (not just deactivated) my social media accounts, and discovered more wholesome and thoughtful ways of communicating with friends and family, by way of iCloud Photo Sharing, and Blogging. So why do I ask "Why didn't I do this before?" It's been a week filled with so much beauty, creativity, and positivity. Something I've learned to value highly through the ups and downs of life is to surround yourself with positivity. Or, as my favorite band Switchfoot puts it: "Is this the world you want? Is this the world you want? You're making it, every day you're alive. You start to look like what you believe... What you say is your religion; How you say it's your religion; Who you love is your religion; How you love is your religion; All your science, your religion; All your hatred, your religion; All your wars are your religion; Every breath is your religion, yea! Is this the world you want? Is this the world you want? You're making it, every day you're alive." For years I surrounded myself with the voices of negativity and with the feelings of failure and worthlessness that comes with addiction to screens and social media. It marred how I lived, how I loved, how I spoke, how I thought, even how I felt. When I removed myself from the chronic negativity spawned by so many of the voices on social media, I found that I no longer had a confusing veil of shadow keeping me from appreciating the good things in life. Exiting social media tore down that veil; it was as though I saw real sunshine for the first time in years. Time to spare Without having my time eaten up by the pointless pursuits of the internet, I've found that my days are far longer, with far more potential. Instead of putting off every errand, chore, or project till the last possible moment, it's been myriads of happy busyness. The week began with some thoughts in my mind of a project of redoing our guest room. Up until now it’s been a workout/study/guest room containing a loft bed for the occasional guest; underneath it, a desk and a dresser of drawers for workspace and storage; and a workout tower for my husband. My goal was to transform it into a real guest room, suitable for putting real guests up in, while keeping some room available for my husband's workspace. I did some cleaning, organizing, and preparatory errands during this week, utilizing all my coupons and rewards points to obtain what I needed to put together a good-looking, color coordinated guest room and bathroom. It was a week-long project with hard work, but the final result is just beautiful. My husband saw a new side of me today. I was geeking out over the excitement of being able to decorate beautifully, and take a messy unkempt place where we didn't like to be, and turn it into a soothing, warm, and comfy room. What I love about the day we had today, was that instead of quite literally wasting a day of our lives by instead living the lives of the characters on TV, was that we created. We worked, we sweated, and we created. We lived today to the fullest, by being and doing exactly what God created us to do: to be like Him! Our work today was a story of His work - taking something unlovely and useless, and redeeming it through His own hard work into something beautiful and worthy! Joy comes in many ways, but in my life, joy comes most in the creation of something beautiful. A little excursion to Bibles for China Thrift Store with a ton of loft bed hardware bungee corded down and sticking halfway out of my trunk turned into a fun and sunny adventure with my husband, enjoying the open windows, the fresh cool air, and the blue skies. (And a new all time low, driving down the road to the dumpster holding an old ratty twin mattress to the top of my car with our arms extended up out of the windows... but we don't talk about that.) So a week in and here's what I'm thankful for: I'm thankful for more time to do fulfilling work and errands; I'm thankful for more time to relate to friends on a deeper level than a "like" on a post; I'm thankful for time to read books, and do constructive crafts; I'm thankful for time to THINK: I've had a lot of thoughts and ideas and arguments brewing in my mind, and I've enjoyed the quiet luxury of focused thought. I'm thankful for beauty from ashes. And now I'm excited to go to the house of the Lord in the morning and worship with the beautiful community that Jesus has been so kindly building around us. Grace Pitman blogs at ThePitmanCorner.com where a version of this article first appeared....

People we should know

Jacobus Arminius: professed the confessions even as he opposed them

The baby, baptized Jacob Harmenszoon, lay contentedly in his mother's arms. Warmth, food and love sheltered his small physical being. Even though his father was only a poor man who made knives for a living, the little one snuggled in his sleep. It was 1560 in the Dutch city of Oudewater and there was much trouble in the land – Spanish trouble, church trouble – and before long young Jacob would have and make his share of them. When Jacob was only a little boy his father died. He was taken from his mother's home to live with a former pastor of Oudewater in the city of Utrecht. The small boy mourned his father's death and he missed his mother, (and only brother), very much. But this is what had been deemed best for him. Times were not easy for a widow with two sons to provide for. The old pastor tried to raise the lad as his own. However, when Jacob was fourteen this foster-father also died. Fatherless a second time, he returned to his mother in Oudewater. The reunion was not to be for long. Shortly after arriving home he was taken to Marburg, Germany by a friend. From there he received the news that the Spaniards had attacked and murdered all the inhabitants of Oudewater. Jacob Harmenszoon, whose name had been Latinized to Jacobus Arminius, was an orphan at the tender age of fifteen. It is difficult to imagine exactly how young Jacobus felt. He was not a child anymore, and yet not a man either at this point. It is Biblical to suppose that suffering can produce a steadfastness in the sovereignty of God. For Jacobus this was not the case. He did develop an intense dislike of any fighting or quarreling – and yet, strangely enough, the false doctrines he later came to espouse have brought about fighting and quarreling to this day. Early schooling When the teenager Jacobus Arminius was orphaned, several pastors took pity on the young man and one sent him to the recently established University of Leyden. Jacobus was at an impressionable age – the age that most of today's students leave for college or university. This is why it is so crucial that teachers at this point in life are solid and impart true knowledge. Unfortunately, in Jacobus' case, this was not to be. One of his professors taught, with power and conviction, man's “free will,” as opposed to God's divine election and reprobation. He taught so ably that Jacobus became both convinced and adept at convincing others. He was a good student. His thirst for knowledge plus his excellent study habits earned him a bursary which enabled him to further his studies in Geneva. Here he heard Beza, friend and successor of Calvin, lecture on election and reprobation. But it was too late. His young mind and soul had already totally absorbed “free will” and found it to be an attractive doctrine. Jacobus also traveled to Italy where he met the famous Jesuit priest Bellarmino (1542-1621). Impressed by the man's great knowledge, Jacobus was subconsciously strengthened in his desire to stretch atonement to include more than just the chosen sheep specified by Christ Himself in John 10:25ff. After all, this man Bellarmino was kind, generous, extremely knowledgeable, active in good works, and surely God could not reject him? “Free will” consequently whispered in Jacobus' ear that atonement was not limited but universal. A teacher of men In 1587, at the age of 27, Arminius returned to Holland. One year later he was installed as minister in Amsterdam. In 1590 he married Elizabeth Reael, daughter of one of the rich regents of that city – a regent, one might add, who was quite liberal in thought – and whose daughter was likely of the same frame of mind as her father. This marriage seemed to encourage him in verbalizing the wayward thoughts he had already been harboring. A series of rather unreformed sermons on the book of Romans was begun. Although he was a popular man, soft-spoken, cultured, good-natured and of impeccable character, these sermons stirred up a great deal of unrest in his congregation. He surmised, among other things, that death had not come into the world through sin but through nature. In chapters 8-11 he concluded that the reason God elected some and not others was because God knew beforehand what they would choose. Although Arminius was accused many times of preaching heresy, he continually maintained that he agreed with the Church's forms of unity, (which at that time were the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession). The years passed and the regents, (of which his father-in-law was one), protected Arminius. In 1603 Arminius was appointed as professor of theology in the University of Leyden. It had become the most important university in Holland – the university from which the state church called its ministers. The appointment gave Arminius the opportunity to sow seeds of heresy throughout the entire Reformed community. He won approval of the students easily enough, for he was a congenial fellow and an able teacher. Between classes he gave private lectures at his house and criticized Calvin, convincing a great number that there were errors in the confessions. A sad end Understandably, there was quite a bit of discord within the university halls and in the church pews. There was a civil court in 1608, and again in 1609, at which these problems were discussed. It was obvious from these sessions that Arminius led a minority and would certainly lose out at a proposed synod. This is why the government, which looked on Arminius as a protégé, refused to call one. By the time the Synod of Dordt finally did take place, (1618-19), Arminius had been dead for almost ten years. The final months of Arminius' life were marked with physical distress. Ill with tuberculosis, he also suffered a stroke, paralyzing one side and blinding him. Popularity had waned and was seen in the fact that people applied Zechariah 11:17 to him: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! May his arm be completely withered, his right eye totally blinded!” Jacobus Harmenszoon, alias Jacob Arminius, died in 1609 before the age of fifty. When the Synod of Dordt finally did meet, the Arminian point of view was eloquently defended by Episcopius, student and very able successor of Arminius. For six months issues were debated. The doctrine of sovereign grace was at stake. Representatives from Reformed churches all over Europe were present. In the end, Synod roundly condemned the views of Arminius in five canons, (or statements). These statements can be shortened into the acronym TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. Christine Farenhorst is the author of the just published Katharina, Katharina, about the times of Martin Luther. This article first appeared in the January 2006 issue. ...

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one word: lust. As far as it goes, this is true. But we need to get behind that word, so to speak, to find out what we actually mean by it. A good place to start is by studying the words of James in his Epistle: “From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? You lust and have not. You kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain. You fight and war, yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:1-3). I have bolded out three phrases here, because it seems to me that they are key to understanding lust (and incidentally not just lust, but all sorts of other sins that James alludes to). Now, I don’t always use the King James Version but did here, because it uses the word “lust” where other translations use “passions” or “desires.” “Lust” gives the better flavoring here, because while desires and passions can be both good or bad, lust is what happens when passions and desires go awry, which is what is happening here. Lust, according to James, is at root a desire to have something that we haven’t got and which isn’t rightfully ours, to seek to obtain it but always fall wide of the mark, and consequently to fail to be satisfied. It is a vicious circle in which failure to obtain the satisfaction we desire drives us to seek it again in other places. This, by the way, at least partly explains why pornography, as with drugs, is often a gateway habit, with users going on to seek harder and harder stuff in order to be satisfied. But of course true satisfaction never comes. Sexual desire isn’t bad, until porn twists it Like all other vices, pornography is driven by the twisting of good and noble inclinations in a direction to which they were never meant to go. Pardon the pun, but there are no “original sins.” There is “Original Sin,” but there are no “original sins” in the sense of actions that are entirely thought up by the devil or by man with no reference to God. Rather, all sins are perversions and mockeries of something good that God has given to man. Imagine a father who buys his son a toy drum, only to later find him using the stick to whack his little sister. The stick was meant to be whacked. It was meant to beat something. But it wasn’t meant to beat people. And so, although some of the actions involved are nearly identical to what the stick was meant to be used for, in his mind and in his actions he has twisted it out of all recognition so that it is now actively used for vastly different purposes than the one intended. This is how pornography works. God has given us the good and noble inclination to want to be satisfied. Physiologically, he has given most of us the good and noble need to be sexually satisfied. Why do I call it good and noble? Because it is the consummation of and the most intimate part of the marriage relationship, which the writer to the Hebrews tells us is honorable (Hebrews 13:4). And without it, humanity would die. What pornography does it to take this God-given desire for satisfaction, and the physiological need for fulfillment, and wrench it out of all recognition, fixing the gaze on another object than the one intended. Twisted, it can’t satisfy Yet the irony is that by using the gifts that God has given us for entirely different and incompatible purposes than the ones intended, we find that fulfillment eludes. If the sexual drive was created to lead us towards intimacy, how can pornography, which is entirely non-relational and involves people who have never even met, fulfill? The answer, as hinted at by James, is that it can’t. To the extent that it appears to users to provide some fulfillment, it does so only in the way that scratching an itch does – entirely temporary relief, but with the catch that when the itch returns, it will be even harder to appease than before. Herein lies the pornography trap. We are designed to find fulfillment in a real relationship, but it is partly the fact that pornography is non-relational that makes it so appealing. Relationships are hard. Life is often a monotonous routine. Living with another sinner is often far from easy. But as for the people in the pictures or the video, you don’t need to worry about their sins. You don’t need to live with them and deal with their issues day after day. And so the thrill and excitement of being taken out of normal life into some fantasy world where real satisfaction apparently resides can become intoxicating. No faithfulness is required to obtain satisfaction there. No commitment is required to achieve satisfaction there. No dealing with another person in an ongoing relationship is required to get satisfaction there. And yet the irony is that true, lasting satisfaction is the one thing it can never bring. Lots of reasons to stop, one remedy What then is the remedy? That might seem like an odd question. Surely I’m not about to suggest that there is one remedy for all of this? Actually I am. There are plenty of reasons and inducements for somebody who has a pornography habit to break it, but ultimately there is only one remedy, which I’ll come on to that in a moment. But first here are some reasons and inducements. 1. Come to see how much it dehumanizes, both yourself and others Pornography is by its very nature dehumanizing. Not just for the people who make it, but also for the one viewing it. By its nature it objectifies and commoditizes people, which means that if you are a user of pornography, you are both an objectifier and commoditiser of people. That’s not a good thing to be. 2. Understand that it cannot bring you the satisfaction you desire As mentioned, the use of pornography is rooted in a desire to be satisfied. Yet as any counselor of those with a porn habit will tell you, it has never yet brought anyone true joy or lasting happiness. If you are looking for satisfaction in something which demonstrably cannot bring you what you are looking for, it’s probably a good time to question whether you are seeking satisfaction in the right places. 3. Recognize how ridiculous it looks There’s something to be said for just sometimes stepping out of yourself and your circumstances, so to speak, and looking at what it is you are actually doing. What do you call fantasizing about having some sort of sexual encounter with a person you’ve never met, never will meet, and if you did meet them it would never take place? Isn’t it about as absurd a scenario as it’s possible to conjure up? 4. Stop referring to your habit as an addiction The word addiction has become one of the most abused words of our day, and is often used as an excuse for responsibility avoidance. While I have no doubt that pornography produces certain chemicals in the brain that can take a powerful hold on us, the idea that we become passive victims is not borne out either biblically or practically. Biblically, pornography falls into the category of sexual immorality, and Scripture is plain that this is a sin that we should avoid, can avoid, and must avoid, chemicals notwithstanding. Practically, the fact that many “porn addicts” break their “addiction” shows that, though undoubtedly hard, it can be done. “Porn addiction” is in reality a “porn habit,” and it is there to be broken with willpower and determination. 5. God tells us that those who don’t break with it will be excluded from the Kingdom of God In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul says this: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Despite the wonderfully elaborate attempts of many modern Christians to ignore, twist, deny, camouflage or dispute much of this, there it is. Seems pretty clear to me. Make of it what you will. The solution? No half measures Yet finally, as I mentioned above, whilst these are all good reasons and inducements to break the porn habit, they are not the remedy itself. What is that then? Biblically speaking there is only one, which is this: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). That’s it. All the reasons and inducements in the world will not help the user of porn to break his or her porn habit unless they are prepared to do the one thing necessary. Flee from it. Don’t walk, run. Don’t dabble, don’t skirt along the edges, don’t case furtive looks. Get away from it. Have nothing to do with it. Rob Slane lives with his wife and six children in Salisbury, England, about 90 minutes drive from Wales. He is the author of A Christian and Unbeliever discuss Life, the Universe, and Everything and contributes to the Samaritan Ministries blog where a version of this article first appeared under the title "The pornification of society, part 2."...

Transgenderism

3 problems with transgender surgeries

This summer Pullman Regional Hospital in eastern Washington State announced they might offer transgender surgeries and asked the public for feedback. They got hundreds of responses. On the one side there was the editorial staff of The Daily Evergreen, a student paper at the nearby Washington State University. In a June 14 editorial they argued for the surgeries, but against the public consultation. “The public is not qualified to make decisions on a ‘very complex procedure’….These decisions should be left to trained medical professionals and based on the availability of resources and the needs of the patient.” Among those on the other side was Christ Church pastor Douglas Wilson. In an open letter also posted to his church website he explained the Christian position in a manner so clear it’s of benefit to both Christians and non-Christians alike. Three problems These surgeries, he wrote, would be, “misguided, unethical, and wrong” and involve “complexities that we are manifestly not prepared for.” 1) Objective vs. subjective First, the surgery involves the removal of “a perfectly healthy functional organ, doing so in an irreversible way.” It is “objective damage for the sake of a subjective desire.” What happens if the patient’s feelings change? Such subjective feelings do. But meanwhile the objective damage can’t be undone. 2) Genital mutilation only for some? If parents can request this surgery for a son or daughter, how would the hospital respond, Wilson asks, if a couple from the Middle East brought their daughter in for a clitectomy? This is more commonly called “female circumcision” but it bears no resemblance to male circumcision; it isn’t simply a snip of skin that is cut, but a good portion of a woman’s external genitals that are removed. It is often done for the specific purpose of reducing or eliminating a woman’s pleasure during sex. “If you refuse because it is ‘genital mutilation,’ how would you justify this refusal? ….Why is Pullman Regional endorsing the subjective reasoning of someone who is sexually confused while rejecting the subjective reasoning of a culture that is sexually repressed?” 3) Amputation only for some? And what if someone were to ask for the amputation of an arm or leg? This is already happening – there is a group who called themselves “transabled” and though they are able-bodied, they “identify” as being amputees and want the assistance of doctors to cut off limbs, or perhaps become blind. Wilson asks: “If you are willing to remove healthy organs or limbs for some patients but not others, what standard are you using to discount one subjective preference while endorsing another?” And in a letter full of memorable illustrations there is one that stands out: “Would you be willing to supply the music department with castrati?” Wilson is referring to boys who, in centuries past, were castrated so as to prevent them going through puberty and to preserve their pre-pubescent voices. “It is easy to retort with an indignant ‘of course not!’ But why not? ….It seems bizarre to us that there was a time when choral music had such a high value that they were willing to sacrifice sex organs for the sake of purity of voice….. And in just the same way, subsequent generations will stare at us in disbelief…. We want to cater to a profound emotional, psychological, and spiritual confusion. Conclusion A non-Christian might be able to offer up many of these same arguments, but they couldn’t do so while glorifying God. That’s a final lesson we can learn from Wilson's letter. When God’s truth is denied – when a biblical doctrine the likes of “God made them male and female (Mark 10:6) is attacked – then let us sally forth to defend it as Christians. And Wilson does, making it clear that his insight on this issue comes straight from God’s Word. You can read his letter (and it is well worth a read) here....

Transgenderism

Transgenderism 101: Share the truth with compassion

Culture Clashes

Overpopulation is a myth, and we should have known

Pornography

Is Porn more like heroin, or driving a car?

Explaining why it's evil to our non-Christians friends ***** In recent weeks, I’ve come across what seems like a multitude of articles on the sub...

Science - Creation/Evolution

Not all humility is humble

John Marks Templeton wanted Christians to be “humble” about the Bible and look to Science for direction. And his Foundation is handing out milli...

Humor

Simply and truly

There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of “Amazing” when he was born. They gave him the name hoping that he would aspire to it and achieve great things. But as far as most people were concerned, Amazing never seemed to do anything to live up to his name. He never even got far from where he was born. He worked in the family business, and had some limited – one might even say quite normal or ordinary – success and married his high school sweetheart. While she thought him quite extraordinary, no one else did, and his name left him as the unfortunate butt of countless jokes. These jokes so bothered him that he told his wife that when he died he didn’t even want his name put on his tombstone; maybe then the jokes would stop. Well, when Amazing did finally die, his wife honored his request. But she also wanted to have people finally understand how extraordinary her husband had been. So in place of his name she had this inscription placed on the tombstone: “Here lies a man who was loving and faithful to his wife for 50 years.” And now, whenever people walk by, they point and say, “Well, isn’t that Amazing!" Source: A joke passed along by my father-in-law ...

Assorted

To appear before the Lord

A young lawyer had a dream. He found himself one morning before a judge at court in a T-shirt and crumpled shorts. The judge asked him how he came to be so inappropriately dressed. “But your worship”, the lawyer answered, “I go to church in this manner.” The judge replied, “Young man you might appear before the Judge of judges in this manner, but not in my court.” Does it really matter how we dress for church? After all, isn’t the important thing that we go to church? Well it is indeed true that the important thing is to go to church and that we appear before the Lord in worship. He calls us there. And therefore we ought to be there when He calls. There is no difficulty with that. I also think that most of us would agree that there can be circumstances where, what at other times may be considered inappropriate, can be accepted. I think here of someone who has been hurt and cannot wear "normal" clothes. I also think of people new to the gospel who may well wear clothes which at other times would be considered not right for church. We are not going to write about those things. Those are the exceptions. But what should be the rule? How should brothers and sisters in the faith appear before the Lord? How they used to dress In olden days – say, when your grandparents were young – it was considered normal for the women to wear dark clothes, a hat and, in some instances, gloves to church. Men wore a black suit, a hat or cap, which was removed before they entered the church building. Without a doubt this was a tradition, because nowhere in the Bible will you find exactly how we should dress for church. The question is, does such a tradition have any value? Does it make any difference to how we experience the church service? I could answer these questions with a simple, no. There is indeed little value in tradition for tradition’s sake. And it may well be that those people long ago did not really experience a church service much different to today. But is that really the questions we should ask? I don’t think so. Why did they dress this way? The question that is much more important is, why did our grandparents consider the way they dressed important? The answer to that question lies in how they regarded church and church going. When they went to church they recognized that they were going there to meet with the Lord. They recognized the importance of this event. They wanted to show in their outward appearance that their hearts were reaching out to the God of their salvation. Someone may, at this point, ask me the question, did they really think about these things? Or was this simply the way they dressed for any important occasion? Again I would have to agree. People in those days were much more inclined to dress up. That has indeed changed. During hot summer days there are not many who would go to a meeting wearing a coat and tie. If you need to sit in a stuffy room for some hours you want to be comfortable. We can also note that our grandparents lived – most of them – in a different climate. They lived in Europe, most probably in the Netherlands which has different climatic conditions from those experienced in Canada or Australia. So all these things need to be taken into account when considering how we should dress. I also recognize that many today would say that no one can tell someone else what is appropriate. We live in a time that is sometimes called the ME generation. You know, "if it feels good, do it!!" That is what we are told by the various influences which surround us. Also in the church we are being influenced by this attitude through the media, the press, TV and magazines. Whereas once one would only see Christian magazines in our homes, today that has changed somewhat. The world has come into our homes. We need to be aware of these bad influences. We are in the world but not of this world. All of us need to examine ourselves with regard to these matters. But is there a standard of dress that is acceptable in church? Can we lay down some rules to which everyone should adhere? Yes and no. Let us look at some very general rules. Climate I recently had an e-mail sent to me by someone who was responding to a comment I had made in an online Reformed forum about the weather in Australia. He wrote to tell me that where his brother lives, somewhere in central Canada, it is always 40 degrees, either plus or minus. I have for some time held the view that the way we dress in English-speaking countries has largely been determined by the way the people in the cold and clammy English isles dress. Hence we wear a suit for formal occasions and inevitably a tie around our neck. That may not be the best way to dress when it is extremely hot. I notice that in the state of Israel people attend cabinet meeting without a tie. Just an open necked shirt, either short or long sleeves. It is only sensible to dress for the climate – I do not think it essential to wear a suit with shirt and tie at all times. That does not eliminate my concern with some of the outfits seen at church. There is such a thing as too informal, or too casual. Therefore I do not consider it right to appear in church with t-shirts, or sports attire and similar clothing Another interesting observation. When sports stars receive their annual awards it is inevitably done at a formal occasion where dinner suits and bow ties are the order of the day. Modesty While this is an area which should really be addressed by a lady, I guess even men can be dressed in an immodest way. There is little doubt that our ladies need to consider modesty when dressing, and not only for church. It seems to me that some ladies have little idea how their form of dress affects the opposite sex. It is not for nothing that Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:9 “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” Why did Paul write this? Because he was an old stick in the mud? I don’t think so. Paul wrote this because he recognized the dangers in such immodesty. Let our ladies be aware of it and remember it when they clothe themselves. Conclusion I mentioned at the beginning of my article the dream of a young lawyer. Weekly we appear before the LORD of hosts, before Him who is far greater, and much more important than any judge or ruler on earth. He is obviously much more important than any sports star or star of the stage or the big screen. Each week we may appear before our LORD who owns us, body and soul, but who at the same time is our Father, who has bought us with the blood of His Son, our Lord and Savior. Shall we then, not consider these things when dressing for church on Sundays? Or for that matter, whenever we appear before Him in worship? I realise, of course, that we are never out of His sight. He sees us wherever we are, He sees us at work, at play, at home and away from home. And at all times He wants to be proud of us. After all we are His children. Maybe each of us should ask ourselves this question: will our Lord, our Savior, our Father in heaven be proud of us in the way we dress, in the way we act, in the way we talk? He is, when all is said and done, far more important and should be far more important to each of us, than any person or group of persons on earth! Let that be reflected in all we do and say. Having reached the end of our article let me ask one question again. Is there an appropriate way of dressing for church? Our way of dress should reflect the importance of the occasion. It should reflect that we come into God’s presence. Worship is a joyful, that indeed, but also a very solemn occasion. Joyful because we meet with our Savior, solemn because this Savior is also far greater than any person on earth. He is after all GOD. A version of this article first appeared in the March 2000 issue of Reformed Perspective. Rene Vermeulen was a regular columnist for the magazine from 1984 to 2010....

Media bias

Don’t watch the news, read it!

This first appeared in Reformed Perspective in 2000, and yet the thesis of this article is just as relevant for today's Internet Age, as entertainment is an even bigger part of the news now. ***** Entertainment is the news. When the hit television series Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, all the major networks ran lengthy stories. The Hollywood press conference that announces the nominees for the Academy Awards receives coverage comparable to the president’s “State of the Union” address. And the box office tallies of the sequels to Jurassic Park and Star Wars become major network news stories. In this day and age of giant conglomerates, a number of networks are now owned and operated by film studios, but there is no grand media conspiracy. There are plenty of independent news sources that provide competition. So who is responsible for the triumph of “infotainment” over information? It is us, the consumers of news. We allow television to be our main source of news, and this leads to three critical distortions in our lives. 1. Self-pity Television news encourages self-pity. TV spokesmen talk a lot about the importance of the “news business,” but what they really mean is the “bad news business.” Except in small doses, good news simply doesn’t make for good television. The tube inevitably emphasizes violence, mayhem, death, destruction – it doesn’t matter if we are talking about battles, riots, train wrecks, or hurricanes – as long as it is visual, dramatic, and compelling. That is why news producers love wars and natural disasters. Bad news is not only the lifeblood of the major networks but also the local news stations across the nation. A USA Today survey indicates that 73 per cent of the lead stories they air are devoted to coverage of some kind of natural disaster or violence. Bad news literally drives out good news. To understand why this happens, try putting yourself in the position of a television news director. How do you make your show gripping? Do you show a computerized graph on the declining national crime rate or live footage of an elementary school shooting? Do you interview a small business owner who has created 100 new jobs in the plumbing industry or an environmental activist who claims to have proof of a deadly new toxic threat? Do you run a lead story about a Detroit janitor who moonlights as a cabdriver so he can send his five children to a Christian school? Do you tell your cameramen to zoom in when he arrives home late at night, kisses his sons and daughters as they lie sleeping, and asks God’s blessing on them? It happens every night in Detroit, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, and New York. But is it news? Never! What if the same janitor arrives home and something snaps? He gets a pistol from the closet shoots his children, and then shoots himself. You don’t have to think about whether to run this story. Your decision is automatic: “If it bleeds, it leads.” 2. Shortened attention span Television news encourages a short attention span and a lack of perspective. Forget about nuclear wars and germ warfare. The most destructive invention of the 20th century is the remote control. Channels magazine notes that the average adult male (who wins the gender and age battle over possession of the remote in most American households) changes stations every 19 minutes. If this keeps up, “channel surfing” will soon be an Olympic sport. Imagine once again that you are a news director. You know that most guys are incapable of watching a half-hour program. How do you respond? By changing the entire nature of television in a desperate bid to keep viewers riveted. In the 1950s a typical camera shot lasted 35-50 seconds. In the 1990s it lasts 5 seconds. Commercials are even more frenetic, often switching images after only one second. Television sound bites have also been reduced to the point of absurdity. Forget about the interview subject who tells you what he thinks about the state of the economy of the defense budget in 25 words of less – you have to find someone who can do it in three words – and they better be pretty titillating, or they won’t make it onto the evening news. Titillation is the new and ultimate entitlement of television viewers. We want to be excited by what we watch. It doesn’t matter if topics are presented in a thoughtful and thorough manner, just as long as we aren’t bored. Who among us would tune into a broadcast of the Lincoln-Douglas debates today? We ought to remember what life was like before television. In 1858, 20,000 residents of Freeport, Illinois, heard presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas speak for four hours without microphones, teleprompters or commercial breaks. In city after city, Lincoln and Douglas grappled with consequential issues, and they attracted huge audiences of ordinary citizens – farmers, laborers, shopkeepers, housewives, and even school children. Today, they would be hard-pressed to get an hour of airtime on PBS and even if they did their Nielsen ratings would be abysmal. 3. Superficiality and subjectivity Our love affair with television has led to an obsession with appearance. Look at the current crop of anchormen and anchorwomen. Do you think they were chosen to read the news because they were at the top of their class in journalism school? Everything on television, even the “truth,” is subordinate to appearance. Television is all about surface impressions and this means that intentions, feelings and desires take precedence over logic, substance and reality. Worse yet, television news infects viewers with what I call the “do-something disease.” It presents alarming stories about every imaginable tragedy – famine, cancer, illiteracy, pollution, you name it – and encourages viewers to feel that they should do something right away. It doesn’t matter if they can’t solve these problems. What does matter is they will feel a whole lot better. Stop watching and start reading Self-pity, lack of focus, superficiality, subjectivity – how do we deal with these? Do we try to improve the quality of television news, to make the medium work for us instead of against us? Certainly that is an important and worthwhile effort. It isn’t the ultimate solution, however, because the fundamental problem isn’t a lack of quality programming. We now sit in front of the “boob tube,” 28 hours a week. We spend more time watching television than we do pursuing our careers, since we don’t retire, or take vacations, sick days, or weekends off from our favorite programs. We also spend more time watching television than we do reading to ourselves or to our children. Best-selling novelist Larry Wolwode is right. Television is the “Cyclops who eats books.” When it comes to the news, this one-eyed monster also has an insatiable appetite for newspapers and magazines. But Cyclops in not all-powerful. We can defeat him Unlike the Greeks, we don’t need clever tricks or deception. Armed only with our remote controls, we can turn off this giant glowing eye. Nearly all Americans say they want to cut down on TV viewing. Where is the best place to begin? By eliminating the time you spend on television news. Most material on the tube doesn’t pretend to reflect reality, but news broadcasts do, so they are particularly, potently poisonous. The hour you spend each night watching local and network news could easily be redirected to reviewing not one but two newspapers in their entirety. Sure, print journalism has its own biases, but because of the way we read and comprehend it, we are more capable of compensating. Reinvesting your time in this way may not instantly change the world, but it can change your world and the way you respond to reality. And like and wisely planned reasoned investment it can pay long-term dividends. Reprinted by permission, from IMPRIMIS the monthly journal of Hillsdale College. Be sure to check out the "sequel" to this piece, Don't read the news, read a book....

Media bias

Don’t read the news, read a book!

No, you’re not paranoid, the media really is out to get Christians. In his book How the News Makes Us Dumb, C. John Sommerville argues that news by its very nature is incapable of portraying Christians (or any conservatives) positively. He also insists that reading the daily news is bad for our brains, and that news media is beyond repair. Instead of reading the news, Sommerville wants people to stay informed by reading books. Fluff, fluff and more fluff But how could following the news make us dumb? The news is filled with important events from around the world. Shouldn’t we know stuff like that? There are a few reasons to think, no, it isn't important at all. As Sommerville notes, “Important people don’t like to be in the news.” The people out there actually getting things done don’t have time to deal with the press. Celebrities on the other hand, love to be covered, and so they are. Instead of leaders of industry we hear all about TV and movie stars. We might watch the news to keep abreast of important issues, but all too often we hear celebrity gossip instead. Our brains grow fat and flabby hearing about President Trump's latest tweet or Beyonce's latest publicity stunt. Our daily dose of news is also time consuming. Many of us feel compelled to read or watch the news daily but we don’t feel the same compulsion for daily study in other fields like science, history, or sometimes even the Bible! How many people spend as much time on their Bible study as their news intake? The daily nature of news also undermines its importance. News doesn’t occur regularly; it occurs in erratic spurts. However, reporters have to provide news on a daily or even hourly basis, even if nothing is happening. Busy news day or not, a newspaper will still have to be delivered the next day, and the evening news will still have to last a full hour. So a story that was too insignificant to broadcast one day can suddenly become the lead story on a slow day. It wasn't important 24-hours ago, but now it's trumpeted as something we absolutely need to know. You’ll also never hear life’s big questions, the really important ones, answered on the news. Why are we all here? What does it all mean? The important questions in life are simply beyond 20-second sound bites, and 400-word articles. Novelty-focus is inherently anti-Christian Of course, if the media ever did answer the big questions they would put themselves out of work. Why would anyone tune in the next day? And so instead of focussing on important matters, the media focuses on change. It’s this focus on change that makes the media unavoidably anti-Christian. Churches that have held steadfastly to the word of God, and haven’t changed, don’t appear anywhere in our news. The churches making radical changes – ordaining homosexual priests, or denying the existence of God, or endorsing transsexuality – these churches can even make the headlines. Of course, this bias isn’t aimed specifically at the churches. It is actually a broader anti-conservative bias. Conservatives, by their very nature want to conserve, and preserve things the way they are. Conservatives don’t like change. By focusing on change the media has turned itself into an anti-conservative organization. This is one of the reasons why Sommerville thinks the media is beyond repair. Entertainment, not information Many news broadcasts end with a feel-good story about some lost puppy finding their way home, or maybe a story about a panda birth at the zoo. We all recognize the entertainment nature of this type of new s, but do we recognize that even hard news has the same entertainment focus? Just think about how the media reports scandals. Day after day we hear just a little bit more, but we never hear it all. Sommerville calls it news as a “striptease.” He notes that, “the last thing news people want to do is end a good story….The longer it takes the more news gets sold.” And when there is nothing new to report, the investigation itself often becomes the story. Sommerville blames us for this type of feeding frenzy mentality. He says if we really just wanted the truth we would wait for the investigation to conclude and then read a book about it. Why a book? Because a book has the space to provide the depth that the news media misses. The daily nature of media means they can’t offer real analysis because they don’t have the time. Sommerville offers a number of contrasting headlines throughout his book to make this point (these are old examples, but familiar newspapers): "Prosperity Eludes Grenada 5 Years After Invasion” – Washington Post, Oct. 25, 1988 “5 Years Later, Grenada Is Tranquil and Thriving” – New York Times, same day “In Autos, U.S., Makes Strides” – New York Times, March 24, 1989 “U.S. Vehicle Sales Are Sluggish” – same paper, same day “Scores on College Entrance Tests Fall” – Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 1989 “SAT Scores End ‘80s Up” – USA Today same day “Minority Students Gain on College Entrance Tests” – New York Times, same day “SAT Scores Take Dip for Women, Minorities” – Westchester-Rockland Daily News, same day Which of these media outlets got it right? If you’re relying on them to keep you informed – if you’re relying on their analysis – then you’re obviously in trouble. Instant analysis is going to be hit and miss The emphasis on immediacy and up-to-the-minute reports guarantees that news will be over-hyped. Remember the Ebola outbreak in 2014? It was constant coverage for months as the media explored what might happen if Ebola broke out in North America. In total, two people on this continent died. But the constant and terrifying coverage kept people tuned into their news feeds. The need for speed also leads to the use of shorter words in headlines. Sommerville uses the example of the word “cut” (as in “Budget Cut”) in his book. It’s a short word, and it gets the reader’s attention but it doesn’t always mean what the reader thinks. Some cuts are merely lower than average increases! When we consider how many people now get their news just from reading headlines, the ambiguity these short words add to headlines really “cuts” into the actual information we receive. The harm done All these problems undermine the informative nature of news, but can watching or reading the news actually harm us? Well, we’ve already seen how the media’s focus on change promotes anti-Christian ideals. The same holds true when the media pretends to be unbiased. All these panel discussions with one person "for" and another person there to represent the "against." There can be a benefit to having two people on opposites sides debate an issue (Prov. 18:17). Just imagine what would result if we had a pro-choice and pro-life representative really debate the issue of abortion. Lies could be exposed, the truth could be presented – wouldn't that be wonderful! But the segments we see on the nightly news don't allow the time for any sort of fruitful discussion. What we see is simply quarreling – fighting for fighting's sake (or, rather, for entertainment's sake) – which God warns us against (2 Tim 2:23-24, Prov. 20:3). This is a reason why reading books is a better idea. In a book we have the space to really explore an issue, and have the truth come out. If the media was truly unbiased it would seek the truth; instead it seeks disagreement. And in doing so, in pitting two sides against one, giving them equal time, they leave the impression that the two viewpoints are both valid, and that there is no absolute truth. This again is in direct opposition to our Christian worldview. The news media also hurt our governments. While the media likes to promote itself as a watchdog carefully monitoring the government for us, the truth is quite different. An effective government that goes about its business and doesn’t change too much, and doesn’t hand out much money will never make the news…until they mess up something. Then they’ll make the news but for all the wrong reasons. Voters will hear about the scandal, but they won’t know anything about all the quiet good the government has done in the past. To counter this negative publicity the government will become more inclined to change things and start handing out money. And if they hand out enough money, and pass enough laws, maybe the public will forget about the scandal. And so the media, by their very nature, encourage big interfering governments. Conclusion When I started reading Sommerville’s How the News Makes Us Dumb, I was also reading four newspapers a day. That didn’t leave me with much time to read anything else so it took me almost three weeks to read the first half of the book. At the halfway mark I cut down to only one paper a day and managed to finish the book in another couple of days. I’m still a news addict, so I still check out the news online every day, but by cutting down my news intake I have found more time to read better material. Sommerville also forced me to evaluate the news I do read in a much more critical light. I would recommend his book as a must read for anyone addicted to their daily dose of news. A version of this article was first published in 2000, under the headline, "Don't read a newspaper, read a book." And yes, the author does realize the irony of writing an article that encourages readers to read less articles. This is a follow-up to Michael Medved's article Don't watch the news, read it!...

Transgenderism

You think feelings can redefine reality? What if I told you I feel like they don’t?

Transgenderism

A is A…except when it wants to be S?

The transsexual debate and the death of logic “Hi A. It is A, isn’t it? I hardly recognized you there. It’s B. Remember me? How are you doing?�...

Pornography

FIGHT! A message from the most porn-riddled country in the world

Christian education, Indigenous peoples

No other gods

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action #64 is a challenge to Christian churches and schools… and the First Commandment **** ...

Indigenous peoples, Politics

Looking at two more of the TRC’s Calls to Action

The goal of Canada's Indian Residential Schools – which were run by churches along with the government – was to educate, but also convert and civilize Native children, replacing their culture with a Western one. Starting in 1884, school became compulsory for Native children under 16, and when a local school wasn’t available Native children would often be forcibly taken from their families and sent to these boarding schools. In other instances families were threatened with fines or prison if they didn’t send their children. This practice left the children on their own, away from any family or trusted adults they could turn to for help. That left them especially vulnerable to sexual and physical abuse. For six years, a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" (TRC) traveled across Canada to hear from former students of the schools. More than 6,500 were heard, and their testimony collected. The Commission also issued 94 calls to action, all of which the Liberal government agreed to. But not all of these recommendations were of the same quality. In his article "No other gods," Mark Penninga highlights how #64 would require Christian schools to promote native spirituality. That isn't the only one that's got problems. But lest readers think they are all problematic, I wanted to list one more bad one, but also highlight one that could be great. The bad: #6 Of the Commission’s 94 recommendations some are simply wrong. For example, #6: "We call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada." This is the section that specifically grants parents a defense when they use “reasonable force to discipline a child” – this is a legal recognition of parents’ right to spank their children. The reason the Commission is calling for an end to spanking is likely because of the physical abuse some Native children suffered in the schools. But in making this recommendation they are overlooking the vast gulf that exists between beating up a child and spanking one. The good: #81 One of the best recommendations might be #81, to make a monument to remember the evil done to these children and their families. "We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors and their organizations, and other parties to the Settlement Agreement, to commission and install a publicly accessible, highly visible, Residential Schools National Monument in the city of Ottawa to honour Survivors and all the children who were lost to their families and communities." We want our country and especially our legislators to be continually confronted with the horror that the government committed in stealing children from their parents to teach them values their parents opposed. In Ontario right now the government is pushing forward on their proposed and hotly opposed Sex-Ed curriculum. Those in power are still eager to force their worldview on other people’s children. So let’s build a monument, make it huge, and place it somewhere in Ottawa that legislators will walk past every day. Stealing and indoctrinating children remains a temptation for lawmakers, so they need to be reminded of past wrongs in the hope that this memory will restrain them from committing future evils....

People we should know

A Rare Principled Politician: Ron Paul

The practice of politics notoriously requires compromise. Every politician must bend at some point in order to be electable. Many politicians are very malleable and change their views with the currents of popular opinion. This contributes to their continuing electoral success. Those who won’t go with the flow have a harder time succeeding and will get weeded out over time. Occasionally there are exceptions to this rule. One of the most outstanding examples in recent years has been Congressman Ron Paul who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2008 and 2012. His career and the principles he represented are described in a book by journalist Brian Doherty called Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man And The Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books, 2012). Paul is best known as a “libertarian” but his views also appeal to many conservative Christians. Doctor to politician Ron Paul was originally a medical doctor who became involved in politics. In his medical career he delivered about 4000 babies, and his knowledge of fetal development contributed to his pro-life views. But it wasn’t the abortion issue that ignited his participation in electoral politics. Instead, it was his views about money and government finance. While practicing medicine, Paul had been reading a lot about the importance of free enterprise economics as the basis of prosperity. Then, in the early 1970s, President Nixon implemented wage and price controls to curb inflation. Paul was incensed that an American president would implement such socialistic policies and he decided to do something about it. He ran as a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives in the 1974 midterm election but lost. When the victorious Democratic candidate later resigned the seat, Paul was again the Republican candidate in a special election and this time he won. He served a few months as a Congressman but lost the seat in the 1976 general election. He ran again in 1978 and won. He kept the seat until he decided to run for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in 1984, but lost that contest to Phil Gramm. Libertarian Party Although Paul had been a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan during the 1970s, he became disillusioned with Reagan’s presidency during the 1980s because of the lack of progress in shrinking the size of the federal government. Thus he joined the Libertarian Party and became that party’s presidential candidate in 1988. With the failure of his Libertarian Party presidential campaign, Paul went back to his medical practice and also produced newsletters on financial and political matters. He decided to run for Congress again in 1996. Although he had rejoined the Republican Party, party leaders were no longer supportive of him and tried to derail his candidacy. They convinced the local congressman to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and they supported that guy with money and prominent endorsements. As Doherty puts it, “The Republican Party did not want Ron Paul to be a congressman again.” Dr. No Nevertheless, Paul won and remained in office until 2012. During his time in office Paul became known as “Dr. No” because he voted against so many measures. He believes that the US federal government should be restricted to the powers authorized under the US Constitution. Much of what the federal government currently does is very questionable from a constitutional perspective. It has grown far beyond the bounds of its stated authority. Paul is thus known as a “constitutionalist” for this view. He is more popularly known as a “libertarian” because his views involve a very minimal role for the government. He does not compromise his views on these matters even when standing by principle makes his own constituents angry with him. Doherty quotes one congressman as saying that Paul is very predictable: If proposed legislation expands government or involves activities which he does not consider specifically authorized by the Constitution, then he will vote No. And Paul does not shy away from unpopular stances, even when they involve going against the flow. Doherty quotes Paul as saying, “when I take a vote contrary to a prevailing attitude, instead of hoping no one will notice I send out a press release.” There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and sometimes the vote tally would be 434-1, with Paul being the odd man out. Some people believe Paul’s pro-life position contradicts his libertarian views. But that is not so. As Doherty points out, if an unborn child is a person (and he or she is), then “a libertarian believing in laws against abortion makes exactly as much sense as a libertarian believing in laws against murder.” Paul’s appeal Paul’s constitutionalist and libertarian views have made him very unpopular in many places including large portions of the Republican Party. On the other hand, during his presidential campaigns, his stances have resulted in a great diversity of people supporting his candidacy. Doherty notes that Paul campaign meetings would often bring together the usual Paul fan motley: concerned veterans, pierced anarchists, conservative Christian moms, real estate brokers and homeschoolers and weapons enthusiasts and peace hippies. Although Paul’s core supporters have usually been libertarians, he has also gathered a good number of conservative Christian supporters. Doherty writes, Paul could appeal to the religious right not just on the economic libertarianism and hard-money stuff – which resonated well with them then and now – but on social liberty issues such as free speech and just being left alone by the government to shape your own life in your own way. He could remind these people who valued homeschooling and the health of their own small religious communities that they should fear a government that interferes in their personal cultural choices – even if it means having to let the government respect choices they don’t personally like. Doherty also notes that Paul’s personal life should endear him to conservative Christians. He is a “serious family man, devoted to one woman, successfully raised five children with many happy devoted grandchildren and even great-grandchildren in their wake, a serious Christian.” Wikipedia lists him as being Southern Baptist. Republican presidential candidate Paul created a stir during both of his attempts to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he was never a front-runner. However, his campaigns did create a lot of excitement among libertarians, constitutionalists and some other segments of the conservative movement. He refused to endorse John McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 and was therefore not allowed to speak at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. As a result, his supporters organized another event, the “Rally for the Republic,” that ran concurrently with the Republican convention in Minneapolis. The Rally for the Republic drew over ten thousand people and celebrated the constitutionalist and libertarian ideas promoted by Ron Paul. Doherty writes, “It had Ron Paul singers and Ron Paul intellectuals and Ron Paul economists and Ron Paul celebrities and, most of all, it had Ron Paul.” During his 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination, Paul decided not to run again for Congress, so his career as an elected official was over. However, his son, Rand Paul, was elected as a Senator from Kentucky in 2010 and is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2016. The Revolution: A Manifesto During 2008 Paul wrote a book explaining his principles and policy positions. It is entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto (Grand Central Publishing) and it became a New York Times number-one bestseller. One of the most important matters that Paul addresses in this book is his controversial views on foreign policy. Unlike most conservatives, he believes the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign and military policy. That is, the US should not become involved militarily unless it has been threatened or attacked. “Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue,” he writes. But what is an issue is the use of American military power against other countries that have not harmed the US. The most famous example of interventionist foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush in 2003. But there have been other recent examples such as President Clinton’s attack on Serbia in 1999. And in 2011 President Obama authorized the use of offensive military force against Libya despite the lack of any threat against the US coming from this country. This is what Paul opposes. In fact, Paul points out that the unnecessary use of American military power abroad causes more problems than it solves. He writes that, “when our government meddles around the world, it can stir up hornet’s nests and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people.” Perhaps his most controversial position is his belief that attacks against Americans abroad, and even against the US itself such as 9/11, can result from people who think they must fight back against what they see as American imperialist aggression. Paul cites Michael Scheuer, chief of the CIA’s Obama bin Laden Unit in the late 1990s (and a conservative), in support of this view. Paul writes, His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback – the unintended consequences of military intervention. Small government, at home and abroad Interestingly, Paul’s foreign policy views reflect those of the original conservative movement before the Cold War. As he notes, The so-called old Right, or original Right, opposed Big Government at home and abroad and considered foreign interventionism to be the other side of the same statist coin as interventionism at home. Being in favor of limited government means supporting a small role for the government in domestic policy, but also a small role (or no role) in the affairs of other nations. This is a consistent and principled position. Furthermore, it is useful to note that the aggressive use of military power abroad involves a huge cost in money and lives. As Paul puts it, “we waste a staggering amount of manpower, hardware, and wealth on a bloated overseas presence that would be better devoted to protecting the United States itself.” A considerable amount of money is wasted on foreign aid as well. Over the last few decades there has been tremendous progress in raising the living standards of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. But foreign aid is not the reason for that. Paul notes that, the economic success stories of the past half century have arisen not from foreign aid but out of the extraordinary workings of the free market, the great engine of human well-being that everyone is taught to hate. Conclusion All in all, Ron Paul’s view is that many problems would be solved if the US federal government was restricted to the role authorized for it by the US Constitution. In both domestic and foreign policy the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limitations. The framers of the Constitution did not envision such a large and interventionist federal government. One might think that many American politicians would support following the Constitution. In rhetoric many will speak well of it when doing so is convenient. But in recent years it has primarily been left to Ron Paul to publicly argue for constitutional limitations on government power, especially when doing so is politically unpopular. Receiving harsh criticism for supporting unpopular positions has not caused him to back down. That is because he stands on principle. He will not waver even when the political consequences are harmful to his career. This marks him as a rare bird in contemporary politics....

People we should know

A couple friends you should meet: Jay Adams & D. A. Carson

It’s no secret that I love books. Here in my study I often feel like I’m surrounded by good friends. Some are old friends, centuries old, but the two I’d like to introduce you to in this article are still writing today. The aim of this brief introduction is to help you find good friends for yourself — in other words, to find edifying reading that will give you a better understanding of the Christian faith, a greater grasp of the gospel, and a deeper love for Christ. Jay Adams What does Jay Adams have in common with the Puritans? I mean, besides many theological commonalities? Both are objects of intense prejudice. Everybody knows that Jay Adams and his counseling methodology is bad, but very few people have actually read anything by Jay Adams. In the Canadian Reformed community, the source of this deep antipathy for Adams can be traced back to a 1977 article in Clarion by Dutch theologian C. Trimp. The article (originally a lecture he delivered at our seminary here in Hamilton), while expressing some appreciation, generally took Adams apart. Trimp’s critique would be echoed by CanRC leaders for years to come. However, what Trimp wrote was based on just one early book of Adams (Competent to Counsel) and, in the meantime, Adams had written several more books. In some of those books, he explained himself further and negated many of the criticisms that Trimp offered. I began reading Adams in university and was immediately impressed by his deep commitment to Scripture and the Reformed faith. Jay Adams (born 1929) is the author of more than 100 books and remains an in-demand lecturer. He did his seminary training at Reformed Episcopal Seminary and completed a Ph.D. at the University of Missouri. From 1963-1983, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Prior to that, he pastored a number of Presbyterian churches, including an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church currently holds his ministerial credentials. He was the founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF.org) as well as the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (now called the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors – see BiblicalCounseling.com). He’s currently involved with the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (Nouthetic.org). Why is Jay Adams important? Jay Adams is important for precisely the same reason I first appreciated Adams back in university: he takes the Bible seriously. He writes on a variety of subjects, from Christian living to counseling to preaching, but whatever the topic, sola Scriptura is his touchstone. You may not always agree with his conclusions, but you have to agree that this is the right approach. Basically, Adams takes the presuppositional approach of Cornelius Van Til and applies it to pastoral theology. I’ve read about a dozen of Adams’ books and have learned a lot from them. Where do I start? As mentioned, Competent to Counsel was one of Adam’s earliest books, published in 1970. It’s an important book, but it does leave a lot of questions hanging. If you’re interested in Adam’s counseling methodology, a better place to start would be A Theology of Christian Counseling: More Than Redemption. A good follow-up would be How to Help People Change: The Four-Step Biblical Process. A couple of other books that are more directed to the regular “person in the pew”: What To Do on Thursday: A Layman’s Guide to the Practical Use of the Scriptures and The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image. Preachers and aspiring preachers need to read his Truth Applied: Application in Preaching. What to watch out for? Adams is a controversial figure. On a formal level, some people have a difficult time getting past Adams’ tone and style. For some, he’s too strident, too forceful, too critical, or too this or that. Theologically, questions have sometimes been raised about Adam’s concept of habituation. George M. Schwab wrote an article in the Winter 2003 Journal of Biblical Counseling (published by CCEF) alleging that Adams was more influenced by O. Hobart Mowrer and William Glasser than by Scripture on this point. When someone has written as much as Adams, you can expect that there will be disagreements and critiques. Meanwhile, another generation of counselors has arisen and some of these (esp. at CCEF) have modified Adams’ approach in what may be described as a kinder and gentler direction. And while this is not a serious theological faux pas, if I remember correctly, Adams is also postmillennial in his eschatology. Conclusion Writing about Jay Adams in a positive way is a risky endeavor. For every positive point that one might rise, there will be a host of people who raise the negatives. Adams is not infallible, but he does respect the infallible Bible and he is Reformed in his convictions. I know that my life and ministry have certainly been enriched by his writings. Perhaps he has something to offer you too. By the way Jay Adams blogs at nouthetic.org/blog. D. A. Carson Donald Carson has a Canadian connection, being born in Montreal in 1946. His father was a Baptist pastor and missionary, first among English-speaking Quebeckers, then among the French. For Don Carson, one of the results is bilingual fluency. He did his undergrad studies at McGill University in Montreal, and then obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto. Carson was ordained in 1972 at a Baptist church in Richmond, BC. He then went on to obtain a Ph.D. in New Testament studies at Cambridge. After some years as a professor at a Baptist seminary in Vancouver, he moved to Wheaton, Illinois, to take up a position teaching New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s still there today. He’s written numerous books and articles. He frequently speaks at conferences and is actively involved with The Gospel Coalition. Why is D. A. Carson important? Carson has three endearing qualities. First, he is a New Testament scholar with a high view of the Bible. He believes fervently in biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Unfortunately, there are not many high-level NT scholars with such views of their subject matter. Second, Don Carson loves the gospel. This is reflected in his work with the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. His passion for the good news also surfaces in just about everything he writes. Third, Carson, like Mike Horton, is able to produce both high-quality scholarly writing and popular works that will edify any Christian. Where do I start? If you’re looking for something to whet your appetite, the best place to start is Carson’s biography of his dad, Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor (which can be downloaded for free at The Gospel Coalition). Then ease into Carson’s biblical scholarship with his helpful little volume, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. If it’s devotional reading that you’re looking for, check out his Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. If you’re a seminary student, or if you’re a pastor and haven’t read it yet, Exegetical Fallacies is a must-read. If you have an interest in postmodernism and hermeneutics, The Gagging of God is a thorough treatment. What to watch out for? Well, if you haven’t guessed it already, Carson is a Baptist. I don’t view the denial of infant baptism as a minor, insignificant matter. However, honestly I don’t recall reading anything from Carson that has ever leapt out at me as being distinctly Baptist. It’s not as if he makes a point of arguing for believers’ baptism in each of his books, or even laying the foundation for that position. I think his purposes are higher. Another point worth mentioning is that Carson is not a cessationist — he believes that charismatic gifts did not cease with the time of the apostles. But again, this is not a strong theme tainting his writings. With regards to the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), Carson is Calvinistic. He holds to the doctrines of grace. Moreover, he frequently refers to the importance of confessional Christianity. He doesn’t mean that as a reference necessarily to the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Standards, but to the kind of Christianity that grounds itself in confessions generally oriented to the Protestant Reformation. Though I don’t care for the expression myself, some would call him a “Reformed Baptist.” Conclusion I heard Don Carson speak a few years ago at the Canadian Gospel Coalition Conference just a few streets over from us here in Hamilton. I was impressed. He writes well, but speaks even better. Pretty much anything that Carson writes, I’ll read. If he’s speaking nearby, I’ll be there. I guarantee that this friend will edify you as well. Dr. Bredenhof is the author of many books including God Did Say! which is available at here....

Pro-life - Abortion

An Emergency Room is not the Church

Why “We Need a Law” doesn’t talk about the Gospel but you should ***** One of the questions ARPA Canada has received most often pertains to the promise of the Gospel and how it fits in with the mission of its We Need A Law (WNAL) campaign. The question comes in different variations but usually goes something like this: “Why is there no reference on the WNAL website to God?” or, “If we do manage to get an abortion law but people’s hearts aren’t changed, is it really worth it?” Perhaps you’ve thought about these issues yourself. Not our goal This is a good question. Should we include a Gospel presentation in our communication? The decision not to include references to Christianity and the Bible in the majority of WNAL communications has been intentional. Canada is no longer a Judeo-Christian country. We are a pluralistic nation made up of many different worldviews. While this slide away from Scripture is lamentable, and many (most?) hearts of Canadians are turned away from God, there remain opportunities to save the lives of pre-born children right now. The mission of WNAL is to build a groundswell of support among all Canadians for legislation that protects pre-born children to the greatest extent possible. So the reason we aren’t quoting Scripture is because we may be working with people who hate God, but who are still (strangely perhaps) willing to join with us in supporting laws that save the children of the needy and rescue them from oppression and violence (Ps. 72). Though they hate God, they are willing to help us who are striving to rescue those precious in His sight. Consider a Christian nurse in a hospital emergency room. When a patient arrives in need of immediate medical intervention she carries out the necessary tasks to help the patient. She doesn’t share the Gospel at this point, because there are other tasks to do. If an opportunity arises later whereby she can share the Gospel – it might be with the patient in recovery or the concerned family members after the operation – she should embrace it. Her primary task may be to save lives and not souls but she may not intentionally avoid confessing the name of Christ. You can insert any example you would like – a construction worker, accountant, lawyer, farmer, etc. As followers of Jesus and members of the Church we all have an awesome responsibility to share His truths in everything we do. But while we all have that individual responsibility to evangelize, that is not, and need not, be the goal of every organization we are part of. Spreading the Gospel is an organizational goal of the Church. But making good bread is the goal – or, at least, the main goal – of a Christian-owned bakery. And saving lives is the main goal of a hospital emergency room. Finally, saving unborn babies lives is the primary goal of We Need A Law. All are worthy, God-honouring goals. And all are goals we can work together with non-Christians to accomplish. A natural segue to the Gospel This is not to say that the message of salvation in Jesus cannot be incorporated into the WNAL campaign. As we carry out our mission many opportunities to share the Gospel do arise. I would submit that by virtue of standing up for justice and truth about our pre-born neighbors WNAL is already sharing nuggets of the truth. But there are always opportunities to share more. The reality is that, quite naturally, conversations evolve into discussions about the motivations for our efforts, the intrinsic value of all human beings, the Imago Dei (all humans having been made in the image of God), and other moral truths. However, those opportunities will arise most often at the personal level by the thousands of people tied into our campaign as they interact with others. Allow me a few examples as to how that can be done. The flag displays which started in Ottawa and are now being put up at dozens of locations throughout Canada are a great way to offer hope in Christ, especially when put up on church lawns. What better place to speak of both the truth about abortion and the truth of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation in Jesus! This could be done by way of signs, tracts and most importantly, through personal conversations with those who come out to witness at the display. This year we are going to facilitate a lawn sign campaign. There is a federal election scheduled for the fall and we want the topic of pre-born human rights to become part of the narrative of this election. A sign on your front lawn is sure to get the community talking. When your neighbour asks you what the sign is all about, then you have just received an open invitation to share the Gospel. You could say something like, “Well Bob, as you know I am a Christian and that compels me to stand against injustices in the world. Did you know that abortion is legal throughout an entire pregnancy in Canada?” Another response could be, “Good question Sarah. Because I am a Christian I need to speak up for those who have no voice. Were you aware that only North Korea, China and Canada allow abortion up to the moment of birth?” Consider this a challenge – go get yourself a lawn sign. Here is one more example of how the Gospel can easily be integrated with the campaign message of WNAL. We regularly ask people to send an email to their MP or MLA. We make it really easy through our online SimpleMail technology. Though the letters are prepared for you in advance, these letters can be customized. There is no reason why you can’t edit these letters to beautifully reflect God’s care and providence in creating new life and how he demands we protect it (see Ps. 139 and Ex. 20). Conclusion In summary, it is not the mission of the WNAL campaign to evangelize Canadians. That mission is the responsibility of each of us as individuals and collectively as Church. May God be pleased to use our weak efforts as a part of WNAL to build support for laws that move us closer to ending the horrific barbarism and cruel injustice of abortion. May He also use us as Church members to present the Gospel of forgiveness and hope to those who are damaged and hurting because of this injustice. To find out more, like how you can get your own WNAL lawn sign, visit www.weneedalaw.ca. ...

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

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

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!

Kids

Magazine

Past Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

VOTC

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Search CATEGORY: Recent Articles

Browse By Topic

Amazing stories from times past

Apologetics 101

Assorted

Being the Church

Christian education

Christian education - Sports

Church history

Conferences

Culture Clashes

Dating

Dying Well

Economics

Economics - Home Finances

Education

Entertainment

Evangelism

Gender roles

History

Homosexuality

Human Rights

Humor

In a Nutshell

Indigenous peoples

Internet

Interview with an artist

Letter Writing

Marriage

Media bias

Music

Parenting

People we should know

Politics

Pornography

Pro-life - Abortion

Pro-life - Adoption

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Pro-life - Fostering

Religion

Religion - Mormons

Religion - Pentecostal

Religion - Roman Catholic

Remembrance Day

RP Speaks

Science - Creation/Evolution

Science - Environment

Science - General

Sexuality

Soup and Buns

Theology

Transgenderism

Theology

The best news ever!

Conviction comes before conversion

Two responses to Christ and the cross

Christ’s Empire

Homosexuality, News

When a gay couple wants you to help them celebrate sin