Assorted

7 articles on aging well

Our society is uncomfortable with aging, but as Christians we know every year is a blessing – not just to ourselves, but also to others. Here are some articles on aging well that we’ve shared throughout the years, and they’re all worth sharing again!

To read any of them, just click on the title.

1. Seniors: Florida does not exist

The Christian faith depends on transmission from older to younger, which means “Florida” (ie: a life of leisure without responsibilities) does not exist, even if you happen to live there. Here’s how seniors can pass their wisdom on.

2. How important is “nothing”?

How many of us plan to do “nothing” in retirement, and what other options are there? We're made for more than nothing, and shifting gears is different than stopping.

3. Aging in hope!

When we realize we are aging, we don’t need to deny it or cling to our youth. Here’s where our hope lies.

4. Older women have much to give

What roles can older women specifically take on? There are many, as Titus 2 lays out!

5. Older men still have a job to do

What roles can older men specifically take on? Find out what Titus 2 has for older men to do as well.

6. What my grandma taught me

The impact one grandma had on her grandchildren's lives is incredible, even as her body and mind grew weaker.

7. Getting old(er)

Growing older is often difficult, but here is how God continues to carry His people through the years.

Assorted

The Colson Center: a sibling we look up to

Growing up as the second youngest in a family of ten, I learned a lot about life from my older siblings. Once grown, most of us continue to lean on ou...

Assorted

When “helping” kids hurts them

Why the generation accessing the most mental therapy is the most mentally unhealthy ***** As the old saying goes, “to a hammer, everything lo...

Assorted

What makes a person instantly unattractive?

I asked this question on a Facebook page for secular women over 60 years of age: “What makes a person instantly unattractive?” I was intrigued b...

Assorted

A lament for our nation

Lament is not a common word today. It is rare to hear of lamentation in our secular culture, and even within the Church we don’t often speak of lame...

Assorted

Love is...

Love is a mostly misunderstood word – it’s mistaken for sex, for sentimentality, for some sort of chemical thing that just happens, or doesn’t, and either lasts forever, or doesn’t. Some think it’s effortless. Some even think it can be bought for money. Christians, too, are confused. We know love is more than sex, more than sentimentality, and more than chemistry, but most of us are still trying to figure out whether love is a feeling or an action! So what is love then? God tells us that love is… sacrificial “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Some misunderstand love as a math formula, where things are supposed to work out even on both sides of the equation: if you give a friend a thoughtful present, you should be able to count on getting one in return; if you give your spouse a backrub, they should get up and make you coffee; tit for tat, back and forth, even-steven. But Christ demonstrated the complete inequity of real love – He loved us, so He gave himself up for us, even though, in return, we can offer him nothing. Loving is giving with no thought of getting. something you do “Let us not love in word or in tongue but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Love is more than a feeling, more than an attraction, more than arousal or sentimentality. Love is expressed in what we do for one another. We can say we love our brother, but if we won’t visit him when he’s lonely or help him when he is troubled, there is no love. Love is an action. not a duty to be performed “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3). Doing is not enough – it’s not enough to give to the poor, go to church twice each Sunday and read the Bible regularly if we are not doing this out of our love for God. A daughter can take her aging father to medical appointments, help him with his shopping and pop by regularly for a cup of coffee, but this, by itself, isn’t love – the very same tasks could be done by hired staff. Love is more than just a verb. A husband can play the part of a loving spouse – he can do all the right things, but love is more than just action, more than just duty. It is an attitude... Love is a feeling. not God “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). The Beatles got it backwards when they sang, “All you need is love.” All we need is God, and while God is indeed love, that doesn’t make the reverse true – love isn’t God. The Beatles aren’t the only ones to get it backwards though. Our society is in love with love – they insist it's the only way to bring meaning to our lives so it must be pursued no matter what the cost. Affairs, naturally, have become commonplace; if love is god, nothing should stand in the way of it, not vows, not spouses, not family. Instead of pursuing the God who is love, our society pursues love itself and has made an idol of it. But love is not God. from God “In this is love, not that we loved God, but the He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God commands us to love our neighbor, and it’s a command most of us find easy to do. Or at least easy to do with old Mrs. Todd, our next-door neighbor who bakes cookies for us every Thanksgiving. But this command isn’t as easy to obey with that neighbor two doors down, who always steals our parking spot. Or the guy right next door who leaves beer cans on our lawn. Love these guys? Maybe we would if they were only a bit more lovable. But of course, the love God is commanding here is of a more godly sort – the love that comes from Him. We need to humbly remember that we love, only because God loved us first. He, after all, didn’t love us because we had first in some way earned or prompted His love. No, He loved us first, sending His Son to die for us even while we were His enemies. And it is because He loved us first, that we can now love Him, and our neighbor. Love comes from God....

Assorted

Gambling as the new norm? Christians still need to say no

Estimates had Americans betting a record $23 billion on Super Bowl LVIII, up more than a third from the $16 billion that was wagered in 2023. Among the betters was one Cardinal Pritchard, who shared that he’d made a wager in an article for the news site Not the Bee. Pritchard didn’t specify how much he bet, so it could have been trivial. What is notable is that he publicized it on a specifically Christian website and in making his admission there, he was acting as if it’s no big thing for Christians to gamble. The irony is that he did so in an article on the enormity of America’s gambling problem – Pritchard reported that an estimated 67.8 million Americans placed a bet on the Super Bowl, for an average of well over $300 a bet! Gambling is a bad bet Big, too, is just how common gambling has become – that works out to almost 1 in 5 Americans. Pritchard actually reported it as 1 in 4, but his math was off. Bad math is, of course, an ailment common to gamblers, who make the repeated mistake of thinking that this time they’ll come out ahead. But in a bit of computation that should be a part of every Christian high school math curriculum, if you engage in any sort of regular gambling the odds are going to get you in the end. Why? Because casinos and online sites take their percentage, so what’s paid out will always be less than what was paid in. Thus one of the reasons Christians shouldn’t gamble is because it’s a bad use of the resources God has given us. It’s worse than what the one servant did in the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25: 14-30) who buried the money his master entrusted to him, and didn’t even put it in the bank to earn some interest. How much angrier would his master have been if the servant had come back with half a talent, having frittered the rest away in gambling? Or if he’d come back with a debt of several talents? Even when you win gambling is bad news But what if you are an especially good gambler, defying the odds to actually win more than you lose? Would it be okay for a Christian to gamble if he could turn a profit? No, but for a different reason. When you win at gambling it is only because someone else lost. Whatever your gain, it is someone else’s pain. Sometimes investing is likened to gambling, but a key difference is that if I make money on a business investment, it can be as the result of that business doing something to benefit many others. A company like Costco grows in value because it opens more stores that serve more people some good values. Your gain as a Costco stockholder comes at the general populace’s gain too. But in gambling, you only win because someone else has lost. And that’s not loving your neighbor (Matt. 22:35-40). Add to this the number of people who get addicted to gambling and lose everything. And then consider how, in Canada, provincial governments have a big hand in pushing gambling, and thus a big hand in destroying these lives. While I couldn’t dig up the specifics for the Canadian Super Bowl wager numbers, gambling is big business in Canada too, as evidenced by the sheer volume of sports gambling ads on television. A peek at government coffers shows their own heavy dependence on gambling. Alberta, for example, is expecting to take in $1.5 billion in 2023-2024, or, more than $300 per citizen. God’s people need to understand why gambling is wrong so we can steer clear of this entrapment. And in steering clear we can also be a good neighbor to others by “denormalizing” gambling. Just say no, for everyone’s sake....

Assorted

Sparrow blessing

Mao’s “Four Pest Campaign” shows why a nation’s leaders need to be humble about their expertise, and about what they attempt ***** Most mornings I waken to the sound of sparrows chittering and chattering. Approximately twenty to thirty little house sparrows have a sun-up inclination to alight on one of the cedar bushes right next to my window. These sparrows used to reside in my laundry poles – winter and summer. They had their babies there and they slept there. They also poked out their gray, brown heads and white cheeks to assess me as I walked by on my way to the chicken coop every morning. Perhaps they now resent me as I cut down one of the laundry poles last summer. Feeling guilty about cutting down the laundry pole home, I fill the bird feeder with lots of seed. I have named eight of the songsters – Sam, Pete, Al, Rudy, Rembrandt, Ollie, William and Simon – and their daily, simple notes of joy give me pleasure and comfort. A father who loved sparrows My Dad told me that when he was a little boy, he learned to sing Psalm 84, especially verse 3, with great enthusiasm. He sang the Psalm in Dutch and the translated version of verse 3 reads: Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, at your altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and my God. My Dad, who was a wonderful story teller, went on to relate that he thought the word altars, which in the Dutch language sounds a lot like lanterns, meant that sparrows would eventually make their homes in the lanterns lining his street. Consequently, dressed in short pants and a blue jacket, he would stand for long periods of time underneath the street lanterns. He would crane his neck and gaze up at these lamps, hoping to see sparrows lay their babies in the lights. It never happened, but he was convinced for a long time that it would happen. The Chairman who hated them In 1893, seventeen years before my Dad's birth, Mao Zedong was born. Growing up to become the first chairman of the Communist Party of China (1935-1976), as well as being the founding father of the People's Republic of China, Mao had absolutely no respect for, or understanding of, the Psalms. Neither did he love the sparrow, that fifth-day creature which God had set in the sky to be a blessing to mankind. In 1958, the year my family immigrated from Holland to Canada, Mao Zedong, Marxist dictator of the world's most populous country, decreed that all the sparrows of China were to be killed. Ostensibly to help China leap forward economically and socially, he began a “Four Pests Campaign” (1958-1962) to eradicate, among other animals, the Eurasian tree sparrow. The Chinese Chairman, an unbelieving little man who did not comprehend that the sparse hairs of his head were numbered by God, did not know what he was doing. His proud slogan was: “Man must conquer Nature.” And, because of his campaign, the vast country and grand country of China, instead of leaping forward, began to leap backwards into famine and death. Matthew 10:29-31 tells us: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.” That is to say, God's people are of more value than the sparrows; that is to say, God works all things out for His people's good. He cares for them. Besides the tiny, chestnut-crowned sparrow, three other animals were targeted in an overall elimination crusade. These three animals were the mosquito, the rat and the fly. Mao's reasoning was: mosquitoes cause malaria; rats cause the plague; and flies are a general nuisance. Sparrows were included at the tail end of the elimination list because they ate both grain and fruit. Chinese poster declaring war against the four pests: mosquitos, flies, rats, & sparrows Government didn’t know best Mao enacted a law in 1959 which made it mandatory for Chinese citizens to participate in the offensive against this common little bird, the sparrow. He had no idea that this little song-bird helped plants to grow. When the sparrow ate from plants, it passed on the seeds in its droppings. Mao didn't have a clue that these small twitterers also served as food for other larger birds and mammals, nor that they helped provide necessary fertilizer with their excrement for the plants on which they fed. Neither did the Chairman know that sparrows ate harmful insects. With the enacting of Mao's law to kill the diminutive sparrows with their kidney-shaped, black ear patches, the Chinese ecosystem and environment took a downward turn. The Chinese people took to arms. They were forced to do so. All over the country people banged pots and pans together to prevent the little birds from settling into their nests. The little “pests” were about twelve centimeters in length and weighed less than an ounce. There were numerous posters declaring war on the birds. Young boys and men fired at the midget flyers with guns and slingshots. Yelling and screaming crowds beat trees with long, wooden poles. As soon as any little creature perched anywhere, worn out by the riots below them, they would be harassed to such a point that they would drop dead from exhaustion. Exhilarated by what they thought was a great leap forward and constantly praised by the authorities for their diligence, people collected dead birds and tied their petite brown bodies together, forming feathery ropes of destruction. One small light in this fowl massacre was the Polish Embassy in Beijing. They refused to engage in the killing of the sparrows. A refuge for the remaining sparrows, the embassy was eventually surrounded by zealous Chinese citizens, who shouted and shrieked continuously. In the long run, the sparrows hiding in this small space also died. The Polish personnel cleared their area of dead sparrows with shovels. Instead of sparrows, locusts Psalm 102:7 reads: “I lie awake, I am like a lonely sparrow on the housetop.” There were many lonely birds after Mao's feather massacre. No census of them was taken prior to their demise. But it is estimated that there were perhaps some six hundred million of them. Hundreds of millions were eliminated through Mao's campaign. The year after the murder of these birds began, insect infestation of field crops increased, the locust being the main predator. The locusts multiplied and ate everything in their path. Grain production collapsed and a famine began. All the places in which sparrows no longer chirped and chipped, had no cereal output. The Great Famine which ensued is not allowed to be spoken of in China. Rather, this desolate time is referred to as the “Three Years of Natural Disaster” or the “Three Years of Difficulties.” Yang Jisheng, (1940- ), Chinese journalist and author, wrote a book entitled Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962. First published in Chinese in 2008 (and translated into English in 2008), it chronicles the Great Famine and the Great Leap Forward. Although he was, for a time, a loyal Communist, the Tiananmen Square massacre destroyed Jisheng's faith in the Party. Mao’s arrogance killed tens of millions The horror stories chronicled by Jisheng are brutal and graphic. He records, among many, many incidents: a teenage orphan killing and eating her four-year-old brother the death of 44 of a village's 45 inhabitants and the consequent insanity of the last remaining resident, a woman in her 60s the torture and beatings and live burials of people who declared realistic harvests, who refused to hand over what little food they had, and who stole scraps or simply angered officials Jisheng wrote regarding his research: “I didn't think it would be so serious and so brutal and so bloody. I didn't know that there were thousands of cases of cannibalism. I didn't know about farmers who were beaten to death. People died in the family and they didn't bury the person because they could still collect their food rations; they kept the bodies in bed and covered them up and the corpses were eaten by mice. People ate corpses and fought for the bodies. In Gansu they killed outsiders; people told me strangers passed through and they killed and ate them. And they ate their own children. Terrible! Too terrible!” Devoting fifteen years to documenting this terrible famine, Jisheng catalogued a three-year catastrophe that is estimated to have taken 36 to 55 million lives across China. At the end of his campaign against the four designated pests, Mao Zedong ordered the vendetta against sparrows ended, replacing it with an operation against bed bugs. Eventually, the People's Republic of China had to import 250,000 sparrows from the then Soviet Union to stop the ecological disruption. After the sparrows had settled back into the country, the locust population was brought under control once more. Over a period of three years, it is estimated that one billion sparrows, 1.5 billion rats, 100 million kilograms of flies and 11 million kilograms of mosquitos were annihilated throughout China. Ecological and economic disaster jeopardized the very fabric of the country. Even as Nebuchadnezzar before him, Mao was deluded into thinking that he owned nature. Mao (in)famously quipped: "Make the high mountain bow its head; make the river yield the way." The truth is that Sinai and Jordan laughed at him and God held him in derision. Where is this mass murderer now? Conclusion In this day and age, when so much misery and terrible economic disaster looms and threatens to undo us, we do well to remember the sparrow blessing, the blessing which Jesus gives to all who acknowledge Him: “But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.So everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father Who is in heaven, but whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before My Father Who is in heaven.” – Matthew 10:30-33...

Assorted

Outward appearance over against the heart

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (I Cor. 6:19-20). When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And she painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out of the window (2 Kings 9:30). ***** Over the centuries, there have been people who died selflessly for things they held dear – country, love, honor, faith – just to mention a few. Martyrs such as Polycarp, Latimer, and Stephen died for their faith. The American patriot Nathan Hale, who famously cried out prior to his death: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country," died for his homeland. There is also another category of those who died, but by unintentionally putting their lives at risk for love of self, for vanity, and for pride. Good Queen Bess Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled England from 1558 to 1603, became ill with what was first assumed to be a fever. It was not. It was the dreaded smallpox. At the time of this fever, this young daughter of Henry VIII was twenty-nine years old and she had been queen for only four short years. Adored by the British public, she was known to have a good-natured smile and a trim figure. Seen wearing intricate lace collars beneath a smooth, ivory complexion, the youthful monarch considered her looks somewhat of a status symbol. Her fiery red hair was usually dotted with expensive jewels – the jewels representing her chastity. While in bed with the fever, it was feared in the court and in the country that she would die. At the onset of her illness, Elizabeth refused to believe that she had contracted the dreaded disease. A Dr. Burcott was asked to diagnose and when he came up with the word “smallpox,” the word “fool” escaped Elizabeth's lips. A repeat visit from the man, who was quite courageous in returning to her side a second time, having been called a fool the first time, again identified the illness with these words: “Tis the pox,” whereupon Elizabeth, it is said, moaned: “God's pestilence! Which is better? To have the pox in the hand or in the face or in the heart and kill the whole body?” No such angry words came from the lips of Mary Sidney, Elizabeth's lady-in-waiting and friend, a loyal girl who selflessly nursed her sovereign for hours throughout the illness. Mary had caught the disease from her mistress for whom she was caring and, as a result of her devotion, the girl became very disfigured. Mary Sidney's husband, Sir Henry Sidney, wrote of his wife: "When I went to Newhaven I lefte her a full faire Ladye, in myne eye at least the fayerest, and when I retorned I found her as fowle a ladie as the smale pox could make her..." Mary, though scarred, through her sacrificial devotion, was beautiful in the eyes of God. When Elizabeth gazed into her looking-glass after recovering her health, she was devastated to notice that the pox had left some visible scar tissue on her face. Having been celebrated by the populace for her looks, so she thought – the elaborate gowns, her lace kerchiefs and her white skin – she now felt a certain degree of insecurity. Seeking to regain her physical loveliness in the eyes of the public, she hunted about for an answer. She began using Venetian ceruse. Venetian ceruse was a cosmetic used as a skin whitener and it was a lead-based cosmetic. Sometimes mixed with manure for traction or with vinegar to thin out the consistency, it was popular among the rich. Because its main ingredient was lead, however, it was a potential killer. Because of her vanity and insecurity, Elizabeth began covering her facial pockmarks with this heavy, white makeup. She did not know that symptoms of lead poisoning could include abdominal pain, aggressive behavior, constipation, sleep problems, headaches, irritability, loss of appetite, loss of teeth, fatigue and high blood pressure. Some scholars believe that Elizabeth’s eventual death was due to blood poisoning from lead. Having access to the Bible, and having read it, the young queen should have known that security was to be sought in God, not in cosmetics. Although Elizabeth's sad lack of knowledge about the danger of Venetian ceruse is to be decried, it was a far worse matter that Elizabeth put her trust and confidence in her outward appearance. Rouged and poisoned There is another story. A century and a bit after Elizabeth I's reign of forty-five years, in 1733 to be exact, a young girl was born in Cambridgeshire, East England. The girl's name was Maria Gunning and she was the eldest child of six. Her father was from Castle Coote, County Roscommon in Ireland and her mother, Bridget Bourke, was the daughter of Theobald Bourke, 6th Viscount Mayo. The Gunnings were not wealthy. On the contrary, they lived in relative poverty on father Gunning's home of Castle Coote. Considering the fact that there were six children to support, mother Bridget decided to become enterprising. When her two oldest girls were barely teens, she decreed they should take up acting. Maria and Elizabeth were both extraordinarily pretty and acting, although not a respectable occupation, could open the doors to wealthy patronage. Actually, the word “pretty” for the two daughters was mild. They were very beautiful. So, shuttled off by their mother, they traveled down to Dublin and joined the theater. In Dublin, the sisters soon became well-known – well-known for their handsomeness. When they were but in their early teens, they were both present at a ball in Dublin Castle wearing gowns borrowed from their theater group. At this ball, Maria was introduced to the Earl of Harrington, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The man was so impressed with the shapely girl, that he granted mother Bridget a pension. With ready money in hand, Bridget immediately took her two daughters to England. Attending parties and dances in Maria's birthplace of Cambridgeshire, the sisters soon became acclaimed personages. Invited to attend the court of St. James, the official royal court of the king of England, they charmed him. Followed by celebrity-seeking crowds wherever they went, their popularity rose to the point where Maria was mobbed one night in Hyde Park. King George II, consequently, gave Maria a guard to protect her and, from then on, she walked in the park with two sergeants of the guard before her and twelve soldiers following her. The girls had achieved fame and notoriety. Within the small space of two years both girls were married – Elizabeth to a duke, and Maria to an earl, thus achieving the rank of Countess. Maria's earl, the 6th Earl of Coventry, took his bride to Paris for a honeymoon. Feeling pressured to preserve the beauty which she felt sure had brought her this far up the social ladder, Maria began using rouge. Rouge was the rage at the French court, and Madame Pompadour, mistress to King Louis XV, had set a fashion of pale white skin with red rouged cheeks. The base ingredient of this makeup, as of Venetian ceruse, was lead. Although her husband did not approve of makeup, even wiping it off her face publicly with his handkerchief, Maria continued to apply thick layers onto her skin. But the end of the matter was this – at the tender age of 27, having borne four children, Maria was diagnosed with consumption. It is reported that she retreated to a darkened bedroom in the weeks prior to her death, refusing to receive any visitors. It is also said that her early death was a “death by vanity,” because lead poisoning from her excessive use of makeup probably contributed to her demise. Maria Gunning, or Countess Maria of Coventry, was the owner of a 7-foot mirror and countless jars of rouge. The mirror caused her mental anguish when she gazed into it prior to her death. The rouge caused her physical discomfort and, in the long run, death. Maria had not the spiritual comfort of being beautiful and secure in the eyes of God. She had existed a decade of being feted and admired by the world. But what is that, compared to an eternity?! Not limited to the past We can travel further down in history. In 1867, there was an advertisement placed in a local newspaper in Montreal. The ad praised Dr. Campbell's safe arsenic complexion wafers, as well as acclaiming Dr. Fould's medicated arsenic complexion soap. Both were touted to be wonderful for removing freckles, blackheads, pimples, vulgar redness, rough yellow or muddy skins and all other disfigurements whether on the face, neck, arms or body. The promotion went on to say that if you desired a transparent and clear complexion free from coarseness or blotches, these medications should be tried, by men as well as women, and could be mailed to your address or bought at your local pharmacist. We know, without a doubt, that taking arsenic is bad. Although arsenic destroys red blood cells, which does lead to pale, desired skin, it will eventually kill you. Today as well, harmful ingredients can hide in lipstick, mascara and rouge – ingredients which can wreak havoc with your body. It is a fact that the chemical lead can poison. It hides in many industrial sources, foods, and spices, as well as in everyday cosmetics. Lead, it is said, makes cosmetic colors pop and helps products resist moisture. Many countries have developed strict controls of lead in cosmetics. Sixty-five countries have even banned it outright. But it is still an ingredient among cosmetics in many low- and middle-income countries. There are other health matters which a Christian might keep in mind as he or she considers their appearance. For the woman, there is a shoe choice to be made every day. Granted, we are not all Imelda Marcos material (Imelda was the wife of the former Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and infamously owned 3,000 pairs of shoes), but we do choose our footwear each day. Some women choose very high heels. Wearing stiletto, or any kind of heels, can certainly cause unpleasant side effects – these side effects can include lower back pain, sore calf muscles, protruding veins and constricted blood vessels. All these side effects taken together can sooner or later result in an ugly deformity of the foot called “hammer toe.” Then there is the issue of tight clothing. Wearing close-fitting outfits, often chosen in a desire to be more attractive to the opposite sex, is not only morally unhealthy and not according to Scripture, but also physically unwise. Making a tight garment choice can lead to yeast infections, cause difficulty in breathing and bring on abdominal pain. Tight pants can cause tingling thigh syndrome and “low waist” tight jeans can cause digestive issues and will lead to back pain. It is judicious to wear apparel which keeps circulation flowing. Indeed, it is wise and pleasing in God's eyes to be modest and discreet in dress. Conclusion It is no sin for a woman to want to look pretty. It is no sin to dress attractively and it is no sin to rejoice in the body God has given you. But to depend on physical appearance, to seek security in outward looks, to rely on your exterior for your relationship with others or for your assurance and self-esteem, is not what the Bible teaches. Neither are we to judge others on their outward appearance, but rather we are to evaluate people on their confession of faith and on the fruits of the Spirit they display. We are to be merciful in judgment and we are always to remember that God, and God only, sees the heart. Being beautiful for God can actually cause pain. Living and humbling yourself before others, can cause hurt and hardship. So, indeed, our Lord and Savior found it to be. For it is said of Him in Isaiah 53 that: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him. He was despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.” Jesus did not eschew a marred countenance; He did not try to cover His wounds for the sake of resembling a more pleasing impression in the eyes of those beholding Him. In fact, His wounds are what make Him beautiful. We do well to remember throughout our earthly life that Jesus “was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed” (Is. 53:5). Knowledge of this and faith in this, gives us beauty of countenance; knowledge of this and faith in this, gives us assurance in life; knowledge of this and faith in this, gives us a reason to live. Have a blessed 2024!...

Assorted

Complaining: our national pastime

Long ago, people were taught not to complain. In addition, being selfless, giving, and kind was applauded as the way that a person should live. I�...

Assorted

Behind the scenes: the editorial cast and crew of RP

Assorted

Keeping Christ in Christmas: 12 ideas for honoring God in our Christmas festivities

Assorted

How to live your best life: knowing, and participating in, the greatest (true) story

Assorted

The emotional communism of sensitivity training

or, the difference a Christian worldview brings to the HR world too ***** “Kelsey, have you seen the Slack channel? Someone posted something that was kind of offensive.” “Thanks so much for reaching out. I appreciate your concern – have you addressed this with the person who posted?” “Well I personally wasn’t offended, and I am well able to stand up for myself – I’m a pretty outspoken person – and I don’t think it was intentional, but there might be people who are less outspoken than me who were offended. If the company were to do more sensitivity training to help others be more aware I’d definitely be in favor of that.” ***** During my tenure in Human Resources (HR) I have received a number of messages to this effect. Not as many perhaps as some who work in a more compliance-driven environment (I have been blessed to have generally avoided that world), but enough. It isn’t surprising – after all, sensitivity training is seen by the HR world as the solution to so many problems, and we have trained that into our employees as well. However, there is something deeply misguided with the above interaction. It is the kind of response that, if catered to, is cancer to company culture. So let’s dig in. Isn’t it HR’s job to handle conflict? First of all, I’d like to address the intent behind the employee reaching out. It is a good instinct to want to right a wrong. In every instance where an employee brought up a concern like this I am confident it came out of a desire to protect others and to create a better work environment for their coworkers. But if the goal is a better work environment, we need to ask ourselves does the solution presented actually create a better work environment? You’ll note my response contains the question “have you talked to the person about it?” (Now to be clear – in this article we are talking solely about situations in which we have a reasonable confidence that there is no threat of violence and/or cause for concern in that area.) Why would I ask this? “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.” – Matt. 18:15-16 Let’s first consider this verse from the point of view of the person who is the offender. Imagine you are someone who has unknowingly caused offense. Would you prefer to have this talked about behind your back and analyzed by those who were not part of the situation? Or would you prefer someone come and talk to you about it first? No one likes being discussed behind their back. So don’t do that to other people. (The golden rule still applies at work.) One key assumption I want to point out here, is that in situations like this (where this is a first offense or where the offense has gone unaddressed in particular) you must assume the best of the person. This is a clear theme in Scripture as well. Take Proverbs 18:13, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” If you walk into a confrontation having assumed answers to all the questions you have not asked, you set your neighbor, and yourself, up for failure from the start. Going straight to a person gives you the best chance to hear directly from the source about their motivations, without giving HR or someone else the power to imagine and assign motives different to, or beyond the bounds of, that situation. In short, if Stacy was having a bad day because she was feeling behind on her projects and so she came across as grouchy you don’t need HR to turn that into “Maybe Stacy really doesn’t want other women to succeed and that is why she was grouchy to another employee.” Maybe Stacy really does hate other women, but let’s not start there. This comes down to the fundamental principles of honor and respect – do we want to treat employees as adults? Or do we want to create a world where people are afraid that even innocent mistakes will jeopardize their job? Assuming we all want the former, that means giving people the opportunity to face their accuser. However, even if this approach is better for the offender, couldn’t it be argued that it prioritizes the needs of the accused over the person who was hurt? Absolutely not. As discussed above, bringing disagreements to someone else to handle creates a world in which motives are often incorrectly applied to the person accused. This very same issue also negatively affects the person who brings up the complaint. If you hand off a disagreement to HR you then give them the opportunity to creatively muddy and misrepresent your complaint. HR can now make the issue bigger or smaller than the person initially intended, based on the lens they apply to the situation. Aren’t we all too familiar with that? An issue taking on a life of its own and becoming far bigger than was appropriate, or a big issue being downplayed to nothing? Treating employees with dignity and respect also means empowering employees who have been wronged to be able to express exactly what the issue is, no telephone game required. To answer the question asked in the heading then – no, it is not HR’s job to handle conflict. Happy to provide support to you as you handle it, though. Isn’t it good to be sensitive? So let’s talk about the response to the “have you talked to them about it” question. Each time it has been a “No” with a request for general sensitivity training to help people in the company be more aware about the ways in which they could potentially offend someone. Sounds innocent enough, right? And yet here I am, calling it emotional communism. What is communism? It is the Marxist doctrine that eliminates private property and as stated by Webster’s Dictionary, is a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production. Emotional communism, then, would eliminate private ownership of your need to address an issue, and would put the addressing of that issue in a single authoritarian party’s control. And who runs that single authoritarian party? HR. Enter the world of anonymous hotlines, and confidential HR backchannels. HR, instead of empowering you to directly address the offender, is now the one to address the issue and to roll out sensitivity training to the company as a whole. HR is now the one who determines the weight of your complaint, and the pathway forward. Few of us with experience in the corporate world need to ask the question, “why is that a bad thing?” After all, HR’s bad reputation is no secret. Remember when I said “every instance where an employee brought up a concern like this I am confident it came out of a desire to protect others”? Well, I have also had this concern brought up to me by fellow HR leaders. When I’ve discussed this philosophy with them around conflict management they have asked me “what about the people who do not feel comfortable speaking up?” As much as I wish this were different, every single time someone in HR has raised this question it was not in the context of taking care of the employee, but rather came from a desire (at least in part) to avoid successful lawsuits against the company. I remember once as a freshly minted HR manager I went to an HR conference where a senior vice president, Human Resources, gave a short speech to us all regarding how proud he was of the sexual harassment training he’d just implemented for his company, to applause and congratulations from the HR group. He had been in HR for about as long as I’d been alive. In fact, I was surrounded by tenured HR leaders. I remember raising my hand to ask a question. “How do you know if this program is effective?” After all we all know sexual harassment is wrong. We want it to disappear from the workplace. So programs aimed at sexual harassment training should reduce that behavior, right? I’ll never forget his blank stare. “It is legally required,” he replied. I tried again. “Okay, let’s imagine for a moment a world in which it is not legally required. How would you be able to tell if your program is effective?” Again, a blank stare. “Well, that’s not the case. It is legally required.” That was the moment I realized: A) I never want to work in California, and B) HR’s real job in most organizations is to protect the company from employees, not for employees. And throughout my time in the HR world, that type of conversation became more and more frequent. By relinquishing your right and ability to have difficult conversations with your coworkers to HR, you have given full authority to weigh the severity (or lack thereof) of your complaint to a group of people who are typically hired to protect the company from you. On the whole, sensitivity training seeks to avoid conflict, because conflict can result in lawsuits. It trains people to be afraid of HR and, worse, each other; to walk on eggshells and to hesitate to speak up with an idea or any form of disagreement. “If I tell my manager that I think this project is going downhill, will she see that as sexism or honest feedback?” “If I tell my coworker that I think we should bring Jane onto the project, will he see this as subtle racism?” We all know the answer is usually no – but in a world driven by sensitivity training, we become more afraid it might be yes and that we won’t be given the opportunity to defend ourselves. After all, we have been trained that HR is generally more driven by the appearance of wrong, instead of what is true. What can we do instead? Jordan Peterson said, “It is far better to render beings in your care competent than to protect them.” So how about instead of sensitivity training, we promote strength training – the kind of training that empowers people to have a voice, to be strong even in moments when they are offended or disagreed with, and does not penalize them for it. Let’s train people that you can care about each other even when you disagree with them. That is how we create work environments where we are able to work without fear of being fired for our beliefs, where we don’t need to feel like we have to pretend our religion is anything other than what it is. After all, wars are fought when we‘re no longer able to sit down together to reason with each other. (Of note, this also requires that you hire the right people, people who will respond in love and not anger when confronted with their own wrongdoing. If someone does react poorly to being confronted that does become an issue for the manager or HR. That topic requires an article of its own.) We are so afraid of direct conflict that we go round and round in circles to avoid it, accidentally building the offense into something bigger and bigger until it gets far out of our control and someone has to get fired. And suddenly HR is getting paid a heck of a lot more because, well, employing them is cheaper than a lost lawsuit. At the end of the day, it is imperative that we build a culture of dignity and respect, where we understand that conflict is not in itself evil. As Max Lucado put it, “Conflict is inevitable, combat is optional.” People have different ideas, different opinions, and that is actually a good thing if we are daring enough to be uncomfortable. This brings me to the true role of HR: to help people have a voice to speak up for themselves, not to take away their voice. We worship a God who says “Count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience,” and “Take up your cross and follow me,” not a God who says “Live comfortably, avoid conflict, and don’t do hard things.” So let’s put in the work to help each other take ownership of the challenge of conflict, and be able to stand up for ourselves and for others, without needing to hide like a child behind his mother’s skirt. Is this what your workplace looks like? So ask yourself: are you empowered to stand up for what you actually believe, even if it isn’t the popular mood of the day? Are you and your team encouraged to respect each other even when you disagree? If you work in HR, are your employees able to tackle issues without you? Or are they dependent on you to handle difficult conversations? I promise you, facing that awkward conversation at the start is a lot less daunting than the behemoth it can grow into when introduced to the world of compliance and hurt feelings. Yes, this takes a lot of time and effort, and a willingness to be uncomfortable and to face your own shortcomings. But remember this: whatever product you are working on or service you are selling will be long gone in 100+ years. The people you are working with however? Their souls are eternal. Wherever you work, whatever the policies, you can be a light to those around you, and face conflict head on in gentleness and humility, honoring the people you interact with. We can do better than emotional communism. Let’s give people their agency back....

Assorted

Unless the Lord builds the house

"...but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” – Matt. 19:14 ***** A baby was laid into my arms this last week – a little baby boy. His name was Bo Anthony. Bo means “to live” and Anthony means “precious one” or “priceless one.” The parents, my granddaughter Emma, and her husband Sam, told me they would teach Bo to live for the precious One, that is, for Jesus. They also told me that the name Anthony had been chosen in honor of his great-grandfather, Anco, my precious husband. Anco went to be with the Lord last December 2022. I cherish the name my grandchildren chose for their son. They are letting God build their house. Bo lay in my arms. He was a warm, little bundle of soft, cuddly flesh. Full of his mother's milk, he slept contentedly, totally oblivious to his great-grandmother. Trustingly he fit into the crook of my right arm. Feeding a newborn is a full-time commitment. Breast milk is ideal. Babies don't need cereal, cookies, or steak. They need milk. All infants in Christ need milk, not solid food. Feeding on the basic nutrients of God's Word, covenant children grow into maturity, grow up into salvation (1 Pet. 2:2). This is the way God builds houses. Solomon was very aware of this. He composed and sang Psalm 127. Verses 1 and 2 of this Psalm drip with milk and read: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep. A world in need of milk Bo's birthdate in June of 2023, marks almost one quarter of the way through this twenty-first century. There are many, many people walking about on this century's streets whose houses have not been built by God. They have never swallowed, or have even heard of, God's milk. These folks hide behind cell phone technology, behind laptops and social media. They are, although not usually willing to admit it, unhappy, insecure, unsure, and generally afraid to engage in personal conversation about eternal life and eternal death. The economic outlook today is somber, marriage is on the decline, families are becoming a minority, and most children have no idea that they have been created in the image of Almighty God. Science is touted, Climate Change has morphed into a god, Wokeism is on the rise and politics and the justice system appear to be infiltrated with bribery and power hunger. All of these are served up on the world's platter resulting in a woefully meager diet for the soul. Worshipping self-reliance, the world has turned away from God. Their toil, their anxiety, and their daily striving is all in vain. Touch and being touched Baby Bo grasps my fingers with his tiny hand. His grip is solid and it is amazing to think that such a small hand, barely a week old, can clutch mine so firmly. God has endowed this chubby hand with sensitivity. The threshold of touch, that is to say, the amount of gram weight it takes for a person to sense that an object has come into contact with the skin, has been measured. Although the back of the forearm is triggered by 33 milligrams of pressure, the back of the hand is activated by 12 milligrams. But the fingertips, the fingertips are most sensitive and are stimulated by a mere 3 milligrams. Bo continues to squeeze my fingers. Hebrews 11:6 tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists. J.C. Ryle calls faith the hand by which the soul lays hold on Christ and is united to Him and saved. Will little Bo's hand grow in strength? Will that strength be planted in his heart by the Holy Spirit? And how will those lilliputian fingers react to the daily things with which it will come into contact? There are many things which will touch baby Bo. We can look back over our shoulder at history and note that bygone civilizations have totally disappeared – civilizations such as the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Roman, as well as the empire of Alexander the Great. These powers have long been erased from the map of the world. But others have taken their place. Civilizations always come and go. In Bo's lifetime he will possibly behold the collapse of a number of regimes, as well as the demise of temporal millionaires – men such as Soros, Bezos, Gates and Musk. And he might perceive the dissolution of international godless organizations such as the WEF and the WHO. These regimes, these men and organizations, are all building cities without God. They will all try to touch Bo. They will all try to shape his thoughts. And they will all try to align his values with theirs and position their principles as his. Baby Bo snuggles into my arm. It is obvious that he is comfortable and feels safe with the embrace he experiences. Touch studies have been conducted with monkeys. In one such study eight baby monkeys were put into a large cage containing a terry cloth mother and a mother figure made out of wire mesh. Both surrogate mothers were fitted with milk flow. Four babies were taught to nurse from the terry cloth mother and four from the wire mesh mother. But all eight babies exhibited a strong need for the terry cloth mother. The four who had been taught to drink from the wire mesh mother went to her only for the feeding. They spent the remaining time hugging, grasping and stroking the terry cloth mother. Intimate soft body contact was essential. As a matter of fact, continued studies showed that many baby monkeys, deprived of warm touch, cowered in the corner of their cages and died. Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancy, in their book Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Zondervan, 1980), record a remarkable truth. They chronicle: “As late as 1920, the death rate among infants in some foundling hospitals in America approached 100 percent. Then Dr. Fritz Talbot of Boston brought from Germany an unscientific-sounding concept of 'tender loving care.' While visiting the Children's Clinic in Düsseldorf, he had noticed an old woman wandering through the hospital, always balancing a sickly baby on her hip. 'That,' said his guide, 'is Old Anna. When we have done everything we can medically do for a baby and it still is not doing well, we turn it over to Old Anna, and she cures it.' “When Talbot proposed this quaint idea to American institutions, administrators derided the notion that something as archaic as simple touching could improve their care. Statistics soon convinced them. In Bellevue Hospital in New York, after a rule was established that ill babies must be picked up, carried around, and 'mothered' several times a day, the infant mortality rate dropped from 35 percent to less than 10 percent.” Exercising our muscles The church is the body of Christ. It is a house built by God. It is a house that should be touching and carrying the ill, lonely and feeble in prayer care. It has been constructed by God, and should be a visible manifestation of His commandments. Jesus often touched people when He healed. His touch radiated love, power and hope. The church, the body of Christ, is fearfully and wonderfully made. As I hold baby Bo on my lap he stretches out his tiny arms above his head, giving me an unprompted smile. There are many sorrowful things going on in this world in which he has been placed by God. Jealousy, envy and fear are etched on the faces of countless members of society. Commandments, freely and lovingly given by God, are held up to be inaccurate. Truth is hidden and people are afraid to speak up for truth for fear of being called bigots or racists. The world has become a dark, dark place. It needs light. Seventy separate muscles contribute to hand movements. Little Bo has no inkling as yet that God has endowed him with such a gift as seventy separate muscles in both his right and his left hand. But a muscle must be exercised for it to grow and to work. Will he exercise his hands under the management of his Lord and Savior? Before Bo was born, God planned this little child's life. He has given this baby God-fearing parents and He has placed milk in his crib via his mother's breast and God's Word. In this way He gives His beloved children sleep. Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. So Proverbs 22:6 tells us. It is a sobering responsibility, and a wonderful promise....

Assorted

Getting old(er)

“Getting older is so tough - I get tired after just a small amount of work or fun.” “I lost 4 teeth right after I turned 60.” “I exercised to make my knees feel better and ended up messing up my back.” “My hip goes out more often than I do!” “‘Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.’ Hah!” ***** At my Inter-City Christian High School reunion, we were all wide-eyed with wonder to even try and grasp the fact that it had been 50 years since some of us had seen one another. I was proud of myself for guessing the name of each person accurately, but it did take me a minute. Some of them looked older than I did. Some were in better physical shape. Some had gone through terrible difficulties, diseases, and operations that I wouldn’t even want to imagine. Yet we all talked about how God has blessed us and brought us through trials throughout all five decades, and how our Christian schooling/Bible curriculum laid a foundation that enabled us to face all that we went through. We praised God together! We thought about Psalm 37:25 that says: “I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread.” But not everyone was there. My best friend Robin died at age 43 and three other classmates out of our class of 24 have also passed on. I’ve said it, and so have many of my friends: we don’t like getting older. But someone always counters that sentiment with, “Well, what’s the other option?” We are ready to go to Heaven and live with our Lord. But we also love our spouses, kids, grandkids, and friends. Though we sing about the joy we will know in Heaven, whenever another body part fails us, we head for the doctor and pharmacy for another bottle of “Stay Here.” God continues to care for us as we age People fear death, and aging destroys our independent, strong self-image. Every ad promises that a product or experience will make us “feel and look young again.” We are tempted to feel sorry for ourselves when we lose the abilities that we were previously blessed to have. We might even feel ashamed because we cannot carry the same load. It becomes difficult to drive at night, walk very far, get up the stairs, or move furniture. Our weeks fill with frequent medical appointments. We start to experience pain, and we forget names, items, and events. It hurts our pride, and we think or say, “You should have seen me when I was 25!” There is a tendency to think that the “good old days” were somehow better than now. It seems like our Western world is more sinful – or is it just that the sins are more public now? In Ecclesiastes 7:10 we are reminded: “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.” Those who do not know the Lord Jesus as their Savior must grieve the loss of their youth for they have no God to turn to for comfort, wisdom, or strength. They fear death. But we need not act like them. While it’s not enjoyable to be in pain, hospitalized, or extremely tired all the time, our Lord promises, “I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you” (Is. 46:4) and “He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength” (Is. 40:29). We have a loving Good Shepherd who takes care of His sheep. We are not alone! And if we are reading God’s Word and worshipping at a Biblical church, we will know the truth of 2 Corinthians 4:16 where the Apostle Paul encourages us: “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.” As our bodies become more and more “corrupt,” we are moving towards receiving our “incorruptible” bodies! How does God want us to view the aged? In our Western culture, it isn’t popular to regard the aged with honor and respect. It’s no wonder that the elderly (sometimes even Christians) worry that they will become a burden to their families. God knew the sins that we would be prone to, and so He gives us commands to treat the aged with high regard: “Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days.” – Job 12:12 “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.” – Lev. 19:32 “Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.” – Prov. 23:22 “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” – 1 Tim. 5:1-2 How does God expect the aged to act? If one reads the headlines on the magazines near the grocery store checkout counter, a consistent theme expressed is this: you worked hard raising kids and working at your job and taking care of your family all those years – now it’s your turn. It’s time to sit back and relax, or travel, or do what you want and make yourself happy. The sad news is that too often this call to self-centeredness has been adopted by aging Christian people as well. It’s not wrong to travel or to participate in favorite activities, especially when the daily tasks of parenthood have ended. It’s the attitude that isn’t right. What does God say that the aged (retirees?) should do? “They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green…” – Ps. 92:14 “Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.” – Titus 2:2 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” – Titus 2:3-5 “Even when I am old and gray, do not forsake me, my God, till I declare your power to the next generation, your mighty acts to all who are to come.” – Ps. 71:18 Rather than deciding that we have “done our bit,” we should do all that we are still capable of to glorify God and declare His power to the next generations. Conclusion When we grow older, God is not finished with us, and we are not finished with our work here. As the Westminster Catechism states it, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” If our purpose in life is to glorify God, then there is nothing that can thwart our purpose in life! Even in difficulties and illness, even in progressively physically falling apart, we can and should glorify God. We can still pray, read or listen to God’s Word, encourage others by phone call or letter/email, teach others, sing praise, give money, perhaps make a meal, or write edifying words. As the Apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10: “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.’” We don’t like being weak. But we who know the Lord need not fear! We can take comfort and draw strength from the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 1 which begins by asking, “What is your only comfort in life and death?” The answer is certainly for the aging as well as the youth who memorize these awesome words: “That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation.” Sharon L. Bratcher has collected 45 of her RP articles into a book which is available by contacting her at [email protected]...

Assorted

Learning to be anxious for nothing

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” – Philippians 4:6-7 When does care and concern cross a line and become a problem? I found the answer to this question the hard way: a painful and confusing burnout about six years ago, followed by years of learning, counseling, and slow change. My journey isn’t over yet, but I now see how I could have prevented much pain if I had truly understood, and repented from, my misguided response to worries, fears, and anxieties prior to that burnout. Knowing just how prevalent anxiety has become, also among Christians, I’m sharing my story here with the hope that it will help others in their walk with the LORD. Worry, care, and concern In a two-part podcast on the topic, biblical counselor Dr. Greg Gifford explains that the Bible uses the same Greek word in three different ways to describe anxiety. One sort is warned against, but in the other two instances a form of anxiousness is encouraged. So, first, in Matthew 6, we read Jesus warning us: “…do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will anxious about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” Then in 1 Corinthians 12:25, Paul explains that God composed the body with many different parts so that the members “may have the same care for one another.” The word he uses here for “care” is the same that is translated as “anxious” in Matthew 6 – in other words we are being encouraged to be “anxious for one another.” In Philippians 2:20, Paul uses this word again, but in another context. Writing from prison, Paul shares with the Philippians that he will be sending Timothy to check in on them “for I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare.” It is clear from this passage and more like it, that there can also be a godly form of concern for others. This makes sense to our everyday experience as we walk alongside our loved ones through health concerns and other trials. We see in these two passages that caring is important and concern can be appropriate. So, when does a line get crossed from the caring that is encouraged to the anxiety that should be avoided? Confused and humbled They didn’t teach me this line in school, and I was slow to learn it in the school of life. Shortly after I was married, my responsibilities increased quickly. In a span of ten or twelve years, I went from looking after myself to being responsible for a family of eight. And I went from being a student, to starting and overseeing an organization with about fifteen staff, spread across the country. My interest and care for political developments in Canada turned into a responsibility to provide faithful leadership to the largest Christian political advocacy organization in the country. At the same time, my wife and I took up a host of extra-curricular roles in our church, school, and community, from serving on boards to teaching catechism. And we were also trying to turn a wild piece of land and its dilapidated house into a good family home and investment opportunity. I did these things because I cared, and I had concerns. Each facet on its own was well worth caring for, or being concerned about. We held things together quite well until a family tragedy came unexpectedly. Amidst the grieving, my wife was expecting another child, and I had concerns about the delivery in light of how previous ones went. Through all of this, I felt great pressure to press on as a leader at work, in the home, and on various other files. But as hard as I tried, as the days ticked closer to the delivery day, God humbled me by shutting down my body. My muscles tightened up to the point where I had a hard time walking the 30 steps to my office. I was nauseous every day, my body twitched, my eyes hurt, my vision declined, my face and head became numb, it hurt to stand and it hurt to sit. I got to the point where I couldn’t face another day of work. If you asked me at that time if I felt anxious, I likely would have brushed it off. Anxiety wasn’t really relevant to me, or so I thought. I figured that I had some inconvenient health issues. When my doctor had tests done and told me that I needed to take a break from stress, I was confused. And when I asked for a break from work, my board and colleagues seemed no less confused. It was humbling to go from being the leader, always looking out for others, to not being able to report for duty. And it was also humbling to not really understand what was happening, and what it would take to get back to “normal.” Although I was back at work relatively soon and did my best to carry on with all my regular duties, it took me more than five years, and plenty of stumbles, to begin to understand the problem from a physical, emotional, and spiritual perspective. The change has also been slow and will likely be a life-long journey. I’m very grateful for a loving family who walked this journey with me, giving regular encouragement, and grateful as well for a good Christian counselor. Clearly a line had been crossed from godly caring and concern to something harmful. But I didn’t understand it. Wasn’t I supposed to care and be concerned? The cul-de-sac of ungodly anxiety On his “Transformed” podcast Dr. Gifford explains that Scripture makes it plain that it is possible to care and be concerned in an ungodly way. We do that when we aren’t truly entrusting our cares and concerns to the LORD, the only One who can truly do something about them. He goes further and explains: “this isn't a just a disorder. This isn't a physiological issue of my body. Anxiety is connected to my trust and faith in the Lord. And Jesus clearly identifies anxiety as being wrong and sinful.” Here Dr. Gifford is referencing Matthew 6 where Jesus urges His people “do not worry about your life.” He also references Philippians 4 where we are told to “be anxious for nothing.” I should note here that although Dr. Gifford calls this kind of anxiety sinful, other biblical counselors respectfully disagree. Edward T. Welch devotes an entire article to the topic, entitled, “Fear is not sin,” explaining from Scripture that anxiety, like grief, isn’t itself sinful. Although Jesus uses an imperative form in Matthew 6 – He tells us “do not be anxious” – it isn’t meant to be a command. We do the same thing when we tell a child “don’t be afraid,” which is meant as an encouragement, not an order. Welch believes Jesus is offering comfort, similar to when He says “do not weep.” So the fact that we struggle with anxiety itself isn’t a sin, according to Welch. Rather, what matters is what we do with it. Although Welch makes a valid point, which can be comforting to Christians who struggle with chronic anxiety, the added nuance of definitions doesn’t take away from Dr. Gifford’s important explanation of where I, and many others, go wrong with our anxiety. Gifford contrasts two kinds of roads: a cul-de-sac and a thoroughfare (a main road that passes on through a town or city). An ungodly anxiety is like a cul-de-sac where traffic stops and stays – all my cares and concerns terminate on me. “How am I going to fix this? What am I going to do about it? Okay, I need to save more. I need to work harder. I need to get up earlier. I need to sleep less. I can do this.” Those that struggle with anxiety often also struggle with the desire to be in control. That is true for me too. But how is this a faith issue? In answer, Dr. Gifford explains the difference between a formal confession and a functional confession. “Formally we would say, ‘I know God is in control.’ Formally, I know that prayer is important in Scripture. But functionally, I’m in control. When I'm trying to discern the difference between a concern and anxiety, I have to be able to evaluate are all of these cares and concerns terminating with me, and that's why I'm worried.” Not every type of anxiety is a faith issue or something to be repented of. God created us good, and that includes the functions of our bodies that make us aware of, and respond to, stress. There is a time for adrenaline to rule (like running away from a bear)! There are also physiological disorders that aren’t a result of choices being made. Anxiety can also result from experiencing trauma in the past. And there is a general brokenness in creation as a result of sin which makes it difficult for us humans to respond to challenges the way we want to (as Paul says in Romans 7 “for what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do”). So I’m not suggesting that all those who struggle with anxiety ought to repent and have a change of heart. However, I also believe that there are many more like me, who are guilty of trying to carry cares and concerns that God never intended us to carry. Thoroughfare to God Dr. Gifford contrasts this cul-de-sac of ungodly anxiety with a thoroughfare. Instead of our cares and concerns terminating with us in the cul-de-sac, we take them to the LORD and trust Him with them. This is exemplified in 1 Peter 5:6-7: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” If we compare our concerns and cares to a big stone that we are rolling, this passage calls us to roll that stone over to the LORD, realizing that we aren’t able to carry the weight ourselves. In contrast, He is the good, wise, and all-powerful God who can do this. So the line between care, concern, and ungodly anxiety isn’t actually about caring too much or being concerned too much. Rather it is the difference between trusting ourselves to deal with the weight, or bringing it straight to the LORD, who alone is able to carry it. It isn’t enough to confess this. It has to be done daily. If we aren’t quite convinced yet, take to heart these words from Dr. Gifford: “When you have cares and concerns you bring them to the Lord, ultimately. But when you have anxiety, you are the Lord ultimately. You functionally take his place and become God. You become the Sustainer and you become the one that is providentially working all things according to your end. And it is an overwhelming task. “No wonder why some of us are run through, because we are riddled with anxiety. That's what it's like when we try to do God's job. We try to be God and we can't, and we're overwhelmed. You can actually have panic attacks where it feels like you're suffocating, because of too much anxiety in your life. It feels like you're having a heart attack. What is that saying? It's even your own body saying that you can't be God. And it's not always an exciting way for your body to tell you that. You can't be God. If you've ever experienced severe anxiety, and you started to have chest pains, it's a reminder that you're finite, and God is infinite. You're small, and God is big.” I‘m thankful that God literally stopped me in my tracks, not allowing me to live the way I was any longer. The physical symptoms hurt, and that stage was humbling, but it was what I needed to prompt lasting change. Opposite and equally bad As with many challenges in life, it is easy to swing too far in opposite directions. In response to anxiety, Dr. Gifford identifies two extremes. The first is to legitimize our anxiety, telling ourselves that our worries are valid because we really are the center of the universe, we really are God. “I have to do everything. If I don’t do it, no one else is going to do it for me. I have to grind in this season of life.” In response to this we can take to heart God’s Word in 1 Corinthians 4, where we are reminded that everything we have is a gift from the LORD. There is nothing we have that we didn’t receive. So none of us can say that it is really up to me. God is the one who is in charge, and He is the one who blesses. If we believe this, our actions need to prove that we trust Him to care and provide. The other extreme is to simply not care, or do what we can to numb the pain. When the pressure goes up, it is tempting to hide, escape, or distract ourselves. We do this with vacations, reading, TV, hobbies, shopping, playing video games, or maybe even substance abuse. Yet we know from Scripture that the Christian life isn’t about being care-free and happy. Being a faithful spouse, sibling, parent, colleague, boss, employee, elder, deacon, church member, and citizen will expose us to some troubling situations. We need to be present, to care, and to act. Going back to Dr. Gifford’s analogy of the cul-de-sac and thoroughfare, many of us would prefer to not even be next to a road at all. We would rather be living off-grid, in the peaceful countryside, looking after ourselves and a few others that we are comfortable with. Yet this ignores the great command to love our neighbor as ourself. So how do we care and be concerned without becoming a cul-de-sac? Some remedies for anxiety In the height of my burnout, the first help I received was very practical and simple. My doctor told me to take two Tylenol Arthritis pills every certain number of hours. Tylenol? It wasn’t what I expected. Yet it did wonders for relaxing my muscles. And some progress in the right direction was a huge encouragement. Our bodies are complex, and self-diagnosing through the internet will likely cause more anxiety than help. I recommend starting with a visit to a trustworthy doctor. The second stage of help came from a different kind of prescription – to the AnxietyCentre.com website. The wealth of information behind the paywall was incredibly helpful and also encouraging to me. I learned there that anxiety is something that is fully treatable. I also saw how the symptoms I had were all directly related to anxiety. This gave me hope that change was possible. But learning alone isn’t always enough to bring the change that is necessary. It was quite a long time later, after seeing recurrences of symptoms, that I knew I needed more help and signed up for counseling with a psychotherapist. It is hard to over-state the help that came from talking with someone who both understood anxiety and was willing to journey with me as I tried to overcome it. In the following years, I grew in understanding through more books and resources. But I also slowly started to see the spiritual roots to my struggles with anxiety. As long as I was going to be in this world, it was evident that I would have to deal with stress. Although I went to my LORD through this journey, I wasn’t experiencing the relief that Jesus says is possible when transferring my burdens to Him. Why? With time, I began to see that I was taking myself far too seriously, and not taking God seriously enough. Time and again I was living as a cul-de-sac instead of a thoroughfare. A four-step approach Now, over six years after being humbled by burnout, I can testify to the truth and importance of Dr. Gifford’s four-step remedy for anxiety. As helpful as medication, counseling, books, and breaks may be, I need to start with getting things right with God. 1. Repent The first step, says Dr. Gifford, is to repent. That sounds harsh, but over time I recognized the truth of this in my own situation (though as I mentioned earlier, there are some forms of anxiety that are not sin issues and that need a different response). “This is a sin issue, not an illness, not a disease, not a personal tendency that I have.” How often to do we hear this, even in the church? It wasn’t until quite recently in my journey that someone had the courage to gently rebuke me about how I was dealing with my cares and worries. “I don't repent of an illness. I don't repent of the flu. I repent of sins in my life and so should you” shares Dr. Gifford. Although this may sound harsh, it actually brings great hope and encouragement. There is a remedy to sin – Jesus Christ has made full atonement. “Step one is that I repent of anxiety, I go to the Lord and say something like, Lord, please forgive me for worrying when You are in complete control. Please forgive me for thinking that I can do Your job, and I can't, would You help me to exhibit greater trust in You?” 2. Remember the nature of God The next step, says Dr. Gifford, involves taking to heart the nature of God. In Matthew 6, Jesus doesn’t stop after telling us not to be anxious or worry. He tells us to look at the birds of the air. They don’t sow or reap or gather in barns, yet our heavenly Father feeds them. He also tells us to look at the lilies in the field, and how they grow. “If God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” The point is that when we understand that God is all knowing and all powerful, our anxiety will slowly go away. “There's a sense in which I don't try to take control of something when I know someone more competent than myself is in control. I know that they got it. And I'm actually thankful they got it. I don't have to worry about it.” illustration by Stephanie Vanderpol Dr. Gifford drives the point home: “When you understand the character of God, it crushes your anxiety, it suffocates it in the sense that you say, well, I know God's good. And I know God's in control. And I know God knows. He's omniscient. Well, then why in the world would I ever try to step in and take His place?” 3. Take our cares to God Step three is to take our cares to God so that they don’t become anxieties. In 1 Peter 5, we are told to cast all our anxieties on Him, for He cares for us. The simple truth is that when we have anxiety, it is because we are trying to do the carrying ourselves. It stops with us – like the cul-de-sac. Taking our cares to God involves pinpointing what exactly we are anxious about. What is keeping us up at night? It will be different things for different people. Perhaps a loved one, or a biblical counselor, can help us put a finger on what it is. Then we can ask what it means to entrust this thing to the LORD, and what I need to hear from Him. “Entrust it to the LORD” is something we hear all the time, but what does it look like? I regularly prayed about the things I was anxious about. But simply telling God about it isn’t the same as entrusting our cares to Him. If I hire someone to look after my yard maintenance, I can tell them what I’m hoping they will do. But then I also need to get out of their way and let them do the job. If I fire up my lawn mower as soon as the grass looks like it needs a trim, I’m not entrusting the work to the person I hired. And if I look out the window and inspect the grass every day, I’m not benefiting a whole lot from hiring someone else to do the job. I need to give the care over completely, and stop wasting my time and energy on it. 4. Be faithful to our responsibilities The final step is to be faithful to our responsibilities. This involves articulating what exactly is our responsibility, and what is the LORD’s. For example, it is my responsibility to pay my mortgage payment. That means I should not spend money on a holiday if that results in not being able to make my mortgage payment. The issue for many of us is that we don’t acknowledge that there are many things we can’t control and aren’t responsible for. “I can't control the future of my health. I'm not that powerful. I can't control the spiritual walk of my children. I am not that powerful. I can't control the winds and the finances of my employer, I am not that powerful.” In contrast I can “be a good steward of my body to the best of my ability, I can be a positive spiritual influence in my children's lives. But I have to trust the Lord to be the one to do the work. I can be a hard worker at my job and attempt to be valuable to them, but I can't control if they want to keep me or want to jettison me.” Strength through weakness Taking these four steps to heart and changing our daily walk isn’t easy, but neither is it complicated. For many of us, we have developed bad habits for dealing with our cares and concerns, and this occurred over many years. Changing it won’t happen in an instant. But, unlike many things in life, moving away from anxiety is possible, in God’s strength and by His grace. I’ll take this a step further. Not only is it possible – in God’s strength – to leave the cul-de-sac of ungodly anxiety behind, it is also a responsibility that we can help each other with. And we aren’t going to make it any easier if we make anxiety our identity. Yes, some of us are more predisposed to worry, and yes it can definitely have consequences on our health. But if we take Jesus at His word, we will also acknowledge that there are some forms of anxiety that need to be repented of. This doesn’t mean that we should harshly rebuke someone struggling with ungodly anxiety. On the contrary, this calls for love and care. When God tells us over and over again to not worry, He does so as a loving father to a little child. Jesus knows what it is like to feel the weight of the world on His shoulders. He was in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, awaiting His death. But He also modeled faithfulness – taking his cares to His Father and walking the road that He was called to. My journey isn’t over. Every day I fall short, also when it comes to how I’m managing cares and concerns. From time to time, I still experience the physical symptoms that come from stress and anxiety. But instead of them causing me concern, I take them as a clear signal that I’m not managing things well. I’m straying and need to change course, entrusting things to the LORD and to others. Yes, it is humbling to admit that I’m weak and don’t have what it takes to solve most challenges in life, be it Covid policies, the spiritual walk of loved ones, or conflict. But it is also liberating. We have a Savior who has already made things right between us and God. The price has been paid. Our future is secure in His hands. Dear brother or sister, bring your anxieties to our LORD and experience His peace. Go deeper: Dr. Greg Gifford’s two-part series on anxiety is available at his podcast called “Transformed” but can also be heard on his website here: Transformed.org/podcast/biblical-clarity-on-anxiety-part-one/ Transformed.org/podcast/biblical-clarity-on-anxiety-part-two/ Below, Rich Mullins honestly and provocatively addresses the anxiety of our heart, pointing us to the only One who can truly still our worries. <span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>...

Assorted

A biblical counselor’s advice for church leadership

Assorted

Anxiety and the triumph of hope: 3 biblical counsellors explain anxiety

Assorted

A pastor on anxiety

Rev. Dirk Poppe is serving as the pastor of the Southern River Free Reformed Church, in Western Australia. Prior to this he served as pastor of church...

Assorted

Words and Phrases: a little road trip quiz

When you travel out for your holidays this summer and are stuck in traffic with a carful of fidgety teenagers, or are snugly ensconced in your far-up-...

Assorted

Puppy love: in praise of pets

The inimitable Cody I was lucky enough to share my growing-up years with a big red chow chow. After deferring my request to get a dog for some time, my parents finally gave me the go-ahead when I was twelve; by this time I was old enough to take responsibility for a dog, and my paper-route and babysitting money would be enough to cover dog food and vet check-ups. My dad built a sturdy doghouse, we visited a shelter or two, I scoured the pet section of the classified ads, and eventually Cody joined our family. It had pretty much been love at first sight, and Cody was my faithful companion for the next thirteen years. He knew the sound of the school bus stopping a street away, and was always eagerly waiting for me when I got home. Our nightly walks were a calming and peaceful part of my day. Cody and I even won a pet/owner look-alike contest once (after an unfortunate hair experiment . . . the kit was supposed to turn my hair more blonde . . .) Cody’s been gone for many years now, but I’ve been thinking about him lately, and about the unique place that dogs and other pets can have in our lives. As humans, we’ve been created with a deep need for things like companionship, connection, and physical touch. And although pets can’t (and shouldn’t) replace human relationships, there’s something beautiful and simple about the love they give us: it’s unconditional and uncomplicated by the things that can add stress to human interactions. Dogs don’t judge or hold a grudge or carry anxiety-inducing expectations. I asked a few friends and family members about what their dogs meant to them, and quickly discovered that people love to talk about their furry companions, share photos and stories, and reminisce about past loved pets; “I could talk about our dogs all day!” commented one of my friends. And I loved hearing their stories. Cocoa Cocoa: a beautiful rescue One of my sisters-in-law, for example, told me about an abandoned dog named Cocoa that stole her heart. My sister-in-law spent some time living up north in Fort Smith, NWT; a lifelong dog lover, she regularly volunteered at the local dog shelter there. One evening she noticed a new arrival, a beautiful black mixed breed with brown markings, but was saddened to see the sign outside his pen: “Be careful, aggressive dog; don’t allow out with other dogs.” This angry, wary dog was slated to be euthanized the next time the vet came around, as he was too difficult for the volunteers to handle, and unlikely to find a new home. When she gently approached the dog, she found him scared and timid, but not vicious. Over time they formed a bond. The other volunteers noticed a change in Cocoa, and the plans to euthanize him were put on hold. Unfortunately, my sister-in-law’s rental didn’t allow pets, but she ended up moving just so she could adopt him. “He brought me companionship and friendship while living in such a remote Northern little town,” she remembers. “He brought me joy knowing he was happy and loved and able to live out the rest of his short life . . . knowing what being loved felt like.” It’s that combination of giving and receiving love that seems to be at the heart of the bond we have with our pets; they give us boundless affection, but they need us too. Both aspects are good for us. Luisa Luisa: takes good care of her owners One of my brothers says that having his dog Luisa (a rescue dog that he and his wife adopted a few years ago) is like living with a toddler in many ways: “Her needs come first.” He feels that dog ownership can lead to a certain sense of purpose and a more selfless attitude to life. When I see devoted dog owners trudging through the rain with their dogs, or going through the undignified process of cleaning up after them, I’m inclined to agree. Do our pet interactions cultivate character traits in us that, ultimately, help us in other relationships and areas of life? I would suspect so. Studies on the emotional, psychological, and even physical benefits of owning a dog or other pet have noted decreased stress and depression, and even lower blood pressure and better cardiovascular health. A truly objective study is almost impossible to design – what is cause, and what is simply correlation? – but the immediate benefits of positive pet interactions have been more definitely demonstrated. Simply petting a dog can reduce the stress hormone cortisol, and time spent with a loved pet raises levels of oxytocin, a feel-good hormone associated with bonding. And when stress goes down, other health markers tend to improve – with the reverse also true. Cypress and Winston Cypress: a gentle and calming companion Another sister-in-law initially had mixed feelings about bringing a dog into their home, after several years without one. Her teenage kids are growing up and building lives of their own, and she felt like they were past the little-kids-and-a-puppy-in-the-backyard stage of family life. But Cypress, a gentle “Goldendoodle,” has been a blessing to all of them. When her seventeen-year-old son has something on his mind, he’ll find Cypress for some “dog love,” and my sister-in-law says she can just see her son’s tension drain away. She says when she’s feeling stressed, Cypress will seek her out. Getting outside for regular walks with Cypress has also been beneficial. And coming home to a house that was getting to be a little too empty, but isn’t anymore, lifts her spirits. Others I’ve talked to agree that dogs seem to have a “sixth sense” about their owners’ moods, and are quick to comfort and give affection. My brother says that Luisa can seem to tell when he’s had a more difficult day at work; when he walks in the door, he gets an extra dose of exuberant affection. One of my friends, reflecting on her “Westie,” Winston, puts it this way: “He is completely devoted to me, always attuned to my mood. He celebrates with me when I laugh and comforts me when I’m sad.” Not surprisingly, the benefits of dogs or other pets is most noticeable among those who may be lonelier or struggling in some way. Pets provide companionship and that vital physical touch we all need; pets can also give a sense of purpose and structure, remind us that we’re needed, and take our minds off ourselves. A dog can be the catalyst that prompts a lonely senior to get up, get outside, and engage with life – all of which are good things that often lead to more good things. Pets in their place The affectionate and exuberant Winston Of course, pets replacing human relationships is problematic; the “pets instead of kids” phenomenon is disturbing, as is the astronomical amount of money that North Americans spend on their pets (Americans spend upwards of $100 billion every year). But in their place, pets are a unique blessing. God as our loving Father knows what we need, and delights in giving us the good gifts of His creation. And surely the human-pet bond is one of those gifts. As for me, I haven’t had a dog since Cody died. Family life is already busy and full. Do we really want to take on the time commitment and expense of a dog? Do I really want to vacuum that much? On the other hand, how can we argue with all those endorphins? For now, we’ve gotten some guppies, and our nine-year-old daughter is campaigning for gerbils. A slippery slope? Time will tell whether there will be any four-legged friends in our future . . . but either way, I’ll always be grateful that there was one inimitable chow chow in my past....

Assorted

Too certain by half: standing firm doesn’t mean dismissing all debate

As a young man I spent years trying to decipher the stony response I got when people found out my church denomination. I finally discovered there was an impression circulating that painted us as Christians who are "too certain by half." Others could see shades of gray; we were said to see only in black and white. Some debated and dialogued; we were accused of making only pronouncements. I took some comfort in knowing these same accusations are thrown at other conservative churches too. The world doesn’t like that while they devolve into lawlessness, God's people will firmly oppose abortion, adultery, euthanasia, homosexuality, premarital sex, pornography, and more. So the accusation wasn't entirely fair... but it wasn't baseless either. While Christians should speak out clearly on whatever issues God's Word speaks on clearly, we sometimes express certainty about issues that aren't so certain. When I growing up, biking or playing basketball on Sunday was a definitive no. The Christian schooling vs. homeschooling debate has sometimes been treated as if there was an 11th commandment that settled the matter. More recently, many were sure they knew how our churches should respond to government lockdowns and mandates, even as many other Christians sharply disagreed. The point here is not to dispute that the Bible gives direction on these issues – it does. But when we act as if an issue is clear-cut when the biblical position is only discernible after extended study, then we will be seen as unreasonable and even arrogant. Our attitude will ensure that people who might learn from us, won’t want to talk to us. It’s important, then, to remember that while the Bible addresses many issues, it does not speak directly to all issues. Different degrees of clarity In his book Reformed Journalism, Marvin Olasky provides a helpful analogy, comparing the Bible’s various degrees of direction to the six classes of whitewater rapids. Class One rapids can be navigated by anyone, while Class Six rapids are all but impossible. CLASS ONE: Specific biblical embrace or condemnation Examples of Class One issues are homosexuality and euthanasia. While these are hot topics in today's Church, the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and murder are so clear that they can only be misconstrued by those trying to twist Scripture. To pretend that these issues are anything other than black and white issues is to act as if the Bible as a whole is either obscure or meaningless. CLASS TWO: Clear, though implicit, biblical position As Olasky notes, “even though there is no explicit command to place our children in Christian or home schools, the emphasis on providing a godly education under parental supervision is clear.” So while not explicit, there is a clear implicit biblical directive to follow – parents cannot hand off the responsibility for their children's education. CLASS THREE: Both sides quote Scripture, but careful study does allow biblical conclusions Some Christians, citing examples like the Good Samaritan, and quoting texts like “love your neighbor as yourself,” think that helping the poor means guaranteeing everyone a certain standard of living. But as Olasky notes, if in the Bible, “even widows are not automatically entitled to aid then broad entitlement programs are suspect…the poor should be given the opportunity to glean, but challenged to work.” With issues like these, looking deeper into Scripture allows us to find a more certain direction. CLASS FOUR: Biblical understanding backed by historical experience allow us to draw some conclusions Olasky gives as an example here the many large government initiatives. While a national daycare program, or socialized medicine, or public education may in many ways seem like wonderful ideas, we can look back through history and see what happens when governments exert more and more influence over daily life. There is no clear biblical directive for limited, smaller government, but Samuel’s warning in 1 Sam. 8 and Lord Acton’s historically verified adage, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” show us we should be suspicious of any government that seeks to constantly expand its sphere of influence. CLASS FIVE: A biblical sense of human nature provides minimal, but real direction Class Five issues don't have clear biblical or historical direction, but "a biblical sense of human nature" can help us here. So, for example, many parents are wondering what age their children should be given smartphones. There is no historical precedent and no particular verse we can look to for guidance. But knowing what we do about our sinful nature, we can understand that giving teens – just as they are going through puberty – a portal through which they can access unlimited sexual imagery (whether on purpose or by accident) could be a less than wise decision. But, knowing human nature as we do, we also understand that it would be best if they learned how to properly use this tool while still under our guidance; we shouldn't just ban them from ever having a smartphone for as long as they live under our roof. Even if we don't know exactly what to do, we have at least some guidance. CLASS SIX: These issues are navigable only by experts, who themselves might be overturned Some issues have no clear biblical position. These issues can range from the local (Should we install a stoplight or a traffic circle at this intersection?) to the national (Should we jail people for marijuana possession or fine them?) to the international (How should we deal with a nuclear North Korea?). Conclusion To be a true light to the world Christians must speak out clearly where God’s intent is clear. No matter how intimidating, no matter how unpopular it might be, in these circumstances we need to speak God's Word with power and conviction. Here we need to embrace all that's right and good in that "fundamentalist" caricature – we need to be immovable, be firm, be stubborn even. We must not compromise on God's Truth. However, where God's direction is less clear, or even unclear, we act arrogantly if we present our opinion as unquestionable. When God's direction is less than clear, we need to be ready to listen and to debate with those who think differently – particularly when we are talking with other Christians who are just as eager to think God's thoughts after Him. Only when we own up to the shakiness of our position, do we have the opportunity for "iron to sharpen iron" (Proverbs 27:17); only then can others help test and refine our thinking. Now, few of us enjoy the refining process – it can be uncomfortable to have our ideas tested. But it's for us that God gives this warning: Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid (Prov. 12:1). In other words, if you are beyond correction – if you don't welcome it and don't want it – God says you are stupid. That doesn't make you unusual. But it does mean you need to repent. Is that a sour note to end on? Only if you don't like correction :)...

Assorted, Indigenous peoples

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

The following is based on numerous original letters, reports and other primary source correspondence that is available online. It attempts to provide some insights and context into a 10-year period (1937-1947) in one of the many residential schools set up by the Canadian government to assimilate and educate Indigenous children. Frigid escape to freedom The five boys walked steadily along the tracks, heading east toward freedom. They no longer glanced over their shoulders to see if they had been spotted or were being followed. It was 5:00 PM and darkness had already descended, since it was January 1st and daylight was scarce up in north-central British Columbia. As evening turned into night, the temperature kept dropping from an already cold -20 °C toward -30 °C. The boys had been hoping to leave earlier, but since it was a holiday at their boarding school, lunch had not been served until very late – 4:30 PM – and they had less than two hours before their absence would be noticed at supper. Paul Alex, who was ten and the oldest, was having second thoughts about running away and trying to make it home to their village of Nautley about 12 kilometers distant. It was so cold, but if they turned around now they could still make it back to the school in time for supper and escape detection. Besides, although quite a few of his classmates had run away over the years, they were usually caught and brought back by school officials or the BC provincial police, and the punishment was very harsh, maybe even a beating in front of all their classmates. The railway tracks were easy to walk on since there was little snow, and trains rarely came through. They followed the south edge of the large lake, and very soon the boys came to a spot where they were right near the shore of the frozen expanse. Here they stopped, and far off in the distance, diagonally across the lake, they thought they could make out the electric lights of their village about ten kilometers away. Allen, age 9, John, age 7, and Justa and Andrew, both 8, wanted to head out onto the ice and travel home in a straight line, while Alex preferred to stay on the tracks – a longer route, but more sheltered, and one that other escapees had used successfully in the past. He knew the ice was thick, but it had about 15 centimeters of snow on it, and no protection from the wind. The other four insisted on crossing the ice. Oh, why hadn’t Bishop Coudert let them go home when they asked him earlier this morning? It was so unfair! Some of his classmates’ families had visited the school to see their children earlier in the day, since it was a New Year’s Day holiday, and it hurt so much when they drove off in their Model T’s and wagons. The boys’ hearts ached for their families and homes, especially during the Christmas week, and they would do anything to get back there, even though it was against the rules. The Indian Act, since 1920, said that it was mandatory for all Indigenous children aged seven or older to attend residential schools where there were no day schools. Since there were almost no day schools on the remote BC reserves, this meant that the children had to go to residential schools far away from home.1 Parents who did not send their children to the boarding schools could be arrested, and several from these villages who tried to defy this law were sent to prison.2 Alex knew how frustrated the parents were, too, and how almost all of them did not want their kids to go to the school. The younger four made up their minds and headed onto the ice. Alex couldn’t stop them, and dared not follow… and he didn’t have the courage to go on alone down the tracks. It was just too dangerous and too cold, so he turned around and headed miserably back to the school. If he hurried, he could make it back before dinner and wouldn’t get caught or punished. Discovery and a blundered response Alex darted back into the school undetected, thankful for the warmth and the food but worried about his friends. Sister Noella, in charge of the dining room, noticed the boys were missing and immediately reported it to the Sister Superior, who in turn informed one of the priests. He told someone else in charge, but this man thought that the bishop had given the missing students permission when they asked to be allowed to go home earlier in the day. The principal, Father McGrath, had been gone for most of the day, and there were tensions and poor communication issues among some of the school leaders. As a result, McGrath wasn’t told until later that night, around nine o’clock, and by then he thought the boys were already safely in Nautley… likely even gone home with relatives in the late afternoon. The postmaster of the school settlement had a motorcar and it was decided to have him drive to the village in the morning to bring the boys back. The next morning it was still very cold and the train with the mail came late, so the driver didn’t make it to Nautley until just past noon. The chief and some of the parents said that the boys hadn’t arrived, and suggested that maybe they had gone to Stellaquo, a village on the other end of the lake around 30 kilometers away. Some of the boys had relatives and friends there. The chauffeur drove back to the school and reported to Principal McGrath, who jumped in the car with him and drove to Stellaquo to look. Nothing. The men became very worried and drove back to Nautley. Could the villagers be hiding the boys? But it quickly became obvious that they weren’t. And while there was still a bit of light late that afternoon, search parties were sent out to find them. Stumbling homeward in the cold The previous evening, Allen, Andrew, Justa, and John were shuffling steadily across the large lake, angling toward their village near the mouth of the outflowing Nautley River. The cold was biting, and although they wore wool socks, their short rubber boots did little to protect their feet, and the cold seeped through their jeans. Their hands were getting numb and they couldn’t stop shivering, but they pressed resolutely on, keeping their faces pointed toward the slowly-brightening lights and home. As the kilometers slipped by, and as they got closer, they knew they didn’t have much strength or time left. Only a kilometer to go! But their hearts fell, for as they got closer a large black patch appeared ahead of them, blocking their way. It was open water, freezing cold but ice-free because of the current of the nearby Nautley River. The lake ice was thin and treacherous along the edges, and the water was too deep to walk through. They stood in shock, shivering uncontrollably and utterly exhausted. They knew that going around to the left and further on to the lake would mean a long detour, while going to the right would mean moving to the nearby shore but away from the village. They’d have to push through the brush to the road then follow it north over the bridge to get home. But they had no energy for this anymore, hardly any strength to call out, and even if they could the villagers were all sleeping and the river was too loud. Around midnight, they slowly turned right and staggered towards the nearby shore. The boys are found The next afternoon, after it was clear that the boys were not at either village, search parties were sent out. The boys’ tracks in the snow were discovered and followed by three men from Nautley. Around 5:00 PM, at dusk, they found the four small bodies frozen on the ice. Two were huddled together, one was lying face down beside them, and the fourth was about 25 meters away. The searchers quickly returned to the village, only a kilometer distant, and the coroner and local police officer were called from nearby Fraser Lake and Vanderhoof. They arrived quickly, were led to the bodies, and carefully examined them. After verifying that the boys had died of exhaustion and freezing, they allowed them to be taken to the village. One can only imagine the shock and grief, as well as the anger and frustration, that must have been felt in the villages, as well as in the school. Far-reaching effects Two days later, on Monday, January 4, 1937, a jury was called together and an inquest held in the nearby village of Fraser Lake, to look into the circumstances surrounding the deaths. It lasted from 10 AM to 5 PM and heard from the key witnesses and people involved. The verdict concluded that Allen, Johnny, Justa, and Andrew died on the night of January first from exhaustion and consequent freezing. They also added the following: that more definite action by the school authorities should have taken place more cooperation and better communication between the parents and school administrators needed to occur corporal punishment, if practiced, should be limited the two disciplinarians hired by the school should be able to speak and understand English (they were French priests).3 Careful investigations and recommendations By the next day the story appeared in many major Canadian newspapers, and some implied or stated that there were underlying circumstances that led to this tragedy: inadequate clothing, harsh discipline, and poor communication among school staff. The local Indian agent, R.H. Moore, sent off a detailed letter on January 6 to his superiors at the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa, explaining what had happened.4 About a month later, Harold W. McGill of the Department asked Major D.M. MacKay, the Indian Commissioner for BC, to investigate more fully. MacKay immediately traveled up to the school at Lejac (a challenging journey by rail and car along wintry gravel roads) and spent several days interviewing school staff, students, Indigenous families, and others who could shed light on this tragedy. His eight-page report provided a thorough account of what happened. “I am of the opinion, from the evidence and information before me, had energetic action been taken to organize a search party when the absence of the children was first noted, the children would not have perished.” The poor communication and confusion over authority amongst the leaders of the school was a major cause for this, and it led him “…to the conclusion that the Department should take steps to strengthen its administrative control of our Indian residential schools…” After many interviews, the BC Commissioner also wrote: “Father McGrath was well-liked by the school children and highly regarded by their parents. There was no evidence to show that punishment of any kind had anything whatever to do with the boys leaving the school without permission. It was simply a natural desire for freedom and to be with their parents during the holidays.” He stated that he: “visited a number of Indian homes and discussed the tragedy with nearly all the adult Indians I met, and although I found indications of unrest and resentment, this was mostly confined to the relatives and friends of the dead children. There was no demand among the Indians or the residents of the white communities visited for a judicial inquiry, nor do I think such an inquiry at this time would be in the best interests of the Indians.” Indigenous resistance leads to positive changes The Lejac Indian Residential School (picture credit: Library and Archives Canada, used under a CC BY 2.0 license). However, dissatisfaction with the residential school at Lejac continued and escalated in the next several years. The principal told the inquest on January 4, 1937 that 90 percent of the parents did not want their children to attend. It’s also clear from the 1944 principal’s report, seven years later, that many local Indigenous people were strongly opposed to sending their kids to Lejac – he estimated that two-thirds were not coming to school, and that many didn’t start until age ten and only stayed for two or three years. He recommended that the law requiring all native children to attend should be enforced more rigorously. No doubt the loss of the four boys, and the fact that so many kids ran away from the school encouraged the parents to resist even more, despite the threat of arrest. They were not opposed to education, but rather to having their children required to attend and live in an institution that was attempting to erase their culture and assimilate them into mainstream Canada. Parents lobbied instead for regular day schools to be built in their own villages, where the children could live at home and experience their own culture, similar to how most students were educated in Canada at the time.5 In September, 1945, the Member of Parliament for the region, William Irvine, met with a delegation of chiefs from the area to listen to their concerns about the Lejac residential school, and he in turn wrote to the Indian Affairs Branch in Ottawa summarizing their arguments and interceding on their behalf. The letter pointed out their issues with Lejac, namely, diseases like tuberculosis spreading easily in the crowded dorms so that healthy children would catch it, and the students spending too much time tending the fields and animals of the school to help cover the costs, which came at the expense of their education.6 In another letter, written in 1946 by the local Indian agent, the following additional reasons are provided for why 100 students did not show up when school opened (and of these, only 30 appeared when the truancy section of the Indian Act was enforced with the help of the RCMP). “The Indians list a number of grievances, such as the time spent by students in manual labour, and religious instruction, and also, their desire for Day Schools, as reasons for keeping their children at home. The antagonism and opposition displayed by the Indians toward the Lejac residential school is more marked in recent months than at any time since I took over the agency 8 years ago.”7 The parents even hired a lawyer in Prince George to help them. In January of 1947, the parents’ efforts began to pay off. Robert Howe, the Indian agent, wrote to the Indian Commissioner for BC, outlining the cost to upgrade a recreation hall in the village of Stoney Creek to enable it to become a school for the 66 pupils there (Andrew Paul, one of the children who’d died, was from Stoney Creek about 50 km east of the Lejac school). Howe noted in his letter that when the school opened: “…it would be very difficult to enforce attendance at Lejac school for those who are now enrolled at Lejac. With the exception of a few orphans and underprivileged children, the parents would emphatically insist on the children attending the day school.” He concluded his letter by stating: “In view of the opposition and antagonism displayed by the Stoney Creek Band toward the Lejac Indian Residential School in recent years, and the extreme difficulty experienced in enforcing attendance at Lejac, I would strongly urge that authority be granted to proceed with the necessary improvements to the Recreation Hall, and that a teacher be engaged to open the Day School September 1st next.”8 The closing and legacy of the Lejac Residential School Lejac remained open until 1976, and over its 54 years of operation, thousands of Indigenous children were forced to attend from all over northern and central BC. Things did change as time went on: more day schools were built, and by the 1960’s students from nearby reserves were bussed in to Lejac each day and no longer had to live there. Reading excerpts from the Lejac.blogspot.com blog, and looking at the many submitted pictures suggests that there were also many happy memories from Lejac and many staff members who respected and loved the students.9 The memories and photos, though, are mostly from the last two decades of the school’s existence, when many of the earlier issues and problems had been addressed to various degrees. However, there was still a lot of misery and trauma, especially relating to being separated from the families and other community members back home. Besides the four boys who died in 1937, 36 other students died there, almost entirely from diseases like TB, influenza, and measles – an average of about one per year despite fairly good medical care.10 One wonders how this would compare to a non-native boarding or residential school from the same era. As well, there were allegations of sexual abuse, and in 2003 a former dormitory supervisor, Edward Gerald Fitzgerald, who worked at Lejac in the 1960s and 70s, was questioned regarding numerous sexual crimes he is alleged to have committed at Lejac (and one other BC residential school); but he then moved to Ireland so he was never prosecuted (it appears that he has since died in his 90s).11 Stories of trauma came out in the recent Truth and Reconciliation hearings from former students who attended over the years, and the legacy of harm extends until today.12 In 1976 the school and most of the buildings were demolished and the land was turned over to the Nadleh (Nautley) band. The fenced cemetery is about all that remains, and some Roman Catholics still make an annual pilgrimage there to visit the grave of Rose Prince, a former student and helper at Lejac in the 1940’s and 1950’s, whom many now regard as a saint.13 This cemetery, though, is currently situated behind a huge 700-person Coastal Gaslink pipeline camp that has been set up on the property just north of Highway 16 in partnership with the Nadleh band.14 The location where the boys perished is just off the beach from Beaumont Provincial Park, located just south of the Nautley River and the village. Today, anyone who drives along Highway 16 between Fraser Lake and Fort Fraser can see the stretch of railway track and the section of Fraser Lake where the four children walked and died 86 years ago… a sad chapter of BC’s and Canada’s history. This is one of several articles we’ve published about Canada’s history with its Indigenous peoples, with the sum of the whole being even greater than the parts. That's why we'd encourage you to read the rest, available together in the March/April 2003 issue. End Notes 1 George V Sessional Paper No. 27 A. 1921 Dominion of Canada Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended March 31, 1920. Ottawa Thomas Mulvey Printer. See especially page 14. https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?id=1920-IAAR-RAAI&op=pdf&app=indianaffairs “The recent amendments give the department control and remove from the Indian parent the responsibility for the care and education of his child, and the best interests of the Indians are promoted and fully protected. The clauses apply to every Indian child over the age of seven and under the age of fifteen. If a day school is in effective operation, as is the case on many of the reserves in the eastern provinces, there will be no interruption of such parental sway as exists. Where a day school cannot be properly operated, the child may be assigned to the nearest available industrial or boarding school.” 2 Varcoe, Colleen and Annette Browne. Equip Healthcare. Central Interior Native Health Society. Prince George, BC: Socio-historical, geographical, political, and economic context profile. P.13. https://equiphealthcare.ca/files/2019/12/EQUIP-Report-Prince-George-Sociohistorical-Context-September-18-2014.pdf 3 Multiple original source documents can be found here: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Stuart Lake Agency – Lejac Residential School Death of Pupils 1934-1950. Pages 28-62. https://indiandayschools.org/files/RG10_881-23_PART_1.pdf Inquisition is on pp. 36-37. 4 Ibid. Jan 6, 1937 letter 5 First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) - 1944 Principal’s report. P.90. http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRSR10-CaseStudy3.pdf 6 FNESC – Sept. 1945 Irvine letter. pp. 91-92. http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRSR10-CaseStudy3.pdf 7 FNESC – Sept. 1946 letter from Indian Agent R. Howe. P.94. http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRSR10-CaseStudy3.pdf 8 FNESC – Jan. 24, 1947 letter from Indian Agent R. Howe. Pp. 95-96. http://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IRSR10-CaseStudy3.pdf 9 Lejac blog (many stories and pictures from former students). http://lejac.blogspot.com/search/label/Lejac 10 National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation – Lejac (Stuart Lake) https://nctr.ca/residential-schools/british-columbia/lejac-stuart-lake/ ). 11 Fitzgerald articles: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/police-lay-more-charges-in-b-c-residential-abuse-investigation/ 12 See TRC website esp. videos of former students: Indian Residential School History & Dialogue Centre Collection – Lejac (lots here, including testimonies of past students): https://collections.irshdc.ubc.ca/index.php/Detail/entities/49 13 The Roman Catholic Diocese of Prince George. Rose Prince – Reflecting on an Extraordinary Life. https://www.pgdiocese.bc.ca/lejac/ 14 Coastal Gas Link. A New Chapter for the Nadleh Whut’en and Carrier People. https://www.coastalgaslink.com/whats-new/news-stories/2020/a-new-chapter-for-the-nadleh-whuten-and-carrier-people/...

Assorted

Tolerance

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

Assorted

7 articles on aging well

1. Seniors: Florida does not exist

2. How important is “nothing”?

3. Aging in hope!

4. Older women have much to give

5. Older men still have a job to do

6. What my grandma taught me

7. Getting old(er)

Assorted

The Colson Center: a sibling we look up to

Assorted

When “helping” kids hurts them

Assorted

What makes a person instantly unattractive?

Assorted

A lament for our nation

Assorted

Love is...

Assorted

Gambling as the new norm? Christians still need to say no

Assorted

Sparrow blessing

Assorted

Outward appearance over against the heart

Assorted

Complaining: our national pastime

Assorted

Behind the scenes: the editorial cast and crew of RP

Assorted

Keeping Christ in Christmas: 12 ideas for honoring God in our Christmas festivities

Assorted

How to live your best life: knowing, and participating in, the greatest (true) story

Assorted

The emotional communism of sensitivity training

Assorted

Unless the Lord builds the house

Assorted

Getting old(er)

Assorted

Learning to be anxious for nothing

Assorted

A biblical counselor’s advice for church leadership

Assorted

Anxiety and the triumph of hope: 3 biblical counsellors explain anxiety

Assorted

A pastor on anxiety

Assorted

Words and Phrases: a little road trip quiz

Assorted

Puppy love: in praise of pets

Assorted

Too certain by half: standing firm doesn’t mean dismissing all debate