RP App | Reformed Perspective

Assorted

Alice in Blunderland

"I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Based on "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll (to whom I apologize for what follows ...)

*****

As Alice rode in the carriage with the Queen through the streets of Blunderland, she couldn't help but remark upon the carefree attitude of the people.

"Of course they're optimistic and lighthearted," sniffed the Queen, rather condescendingly, "And with good reason. Many of them have completely shelved the silly notion that there is a real God. Others who used to hold high positions in churches - when churches were still fashionable - managed, through various clever devices, to reduce their congregations to the point where Church doors had to be closed and property sold to other interests.

"But by far the greater part constitute those who have finally accepted the sublime principle of compromise - you know, those who found out how to mix what remained of their faith with secular ideologies so as to hammer out a lifestyle they could be comfortable with. Thanks to them we still have a church of sorts but one which can easily be controlled by an astute administrator such as myself!"

"But how on earth did all this happen?" cried Alice, aghast, "Isn't this a Christian country?"

"It was," remarked the Queen, "until enlightened theologians managed to take control of church courts and other key offices and substitute the gospel of Man for the Gospel of Christ. Then the people themselves, spoiled by an impossibly high standard of living which gave them everything and demanded nothing, were easily diverted down the broad road of liberalism. Final victory was assured, of course, when their morals degenerated past the point of no return.

"Still, I'm rather uneasy about a handful of diehards who, rumor has it, dare to insist that the Bible is of prime importance in the scheme of things - more important even than being politically correct! That is absurd, of course! As I understand it, they actually believe it to be God's own Word. Anyway, they're impeding real progress and need to be taught a sharp lesson. It may come sooner than they think!"

"That seems to be a rather harsh attitude," said Alice in dismay. "Well, the best medicine isn't always the tastiest," snapped the Queen.

"Still, it does seem rather unfair," murmured Alice. "Not at all," said the Queen self righteously, "Look at the bulk of the people. You were the one who remarked on how carefree and contented they seem to be." "That's true," admitted Alice. "But I don't understand. Under the circumstances, I would have expected them to be just the opposite."

"That's because you know nothing about blunderthink," announced the Queen imperiously. "In this land, the people don't believe in pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by; they believe in social-evolution-in-the-here-and-now. They're happy because they know that the more they perceive themselves as self-realizing people, the better off the world will be somewhere down the road." "I see," said Alice, but she didn't really.

"I daresay they look at things differently in your country," said the Queen disdainfully. "Quite," said Alice humbly. "Well," said the Queen, displaying more than her usual degree of tolerance, "what is the term you would use to describe the erosion of old-fashioned faith?"

"I don't know very much about theology," said Alice uncertainly, "but I believe it would be called apostasy." "Exactly," said the Queen triumphantly, "that's just the kind of primitive reasoning one has come to expect from a foreigner these days! In Blunderland we are more intellectually astute. For example, when we were faced with what you call 'apostasy', we simply redefined its apparent heresies as a victory over narrow sectarianism."

"But how can that be?" asked Alice, now thoroughly confused. "By applying the basic principles of blunderthink," explained the Queen, barely disguising her contempt. "In essence, blunderthink is a form of mental discipline by which we are enabled to rise above mere facts, through the application of selective moral reasoning. If, for instance, we choose to consider sin as a triumph over excessive religiosity rather than rebellion against God, and convey this idea to the people through every means at our disposal; and if we consistently scoff at the 'traditional' Biblical definition and those who take it, the people will soon begin to come around to our viewpoint. Now, if the majority accepts something we tell them, why then it's true, isn't it?" "In politics it seems to be true," said Alice carefully, "but I'm not as sure about religion."

"Very well then, let me give you another example," said the Queen doggedly. "No doubt in your country when Christians are inclined to follow current, popular trends rather than the teachings of the Bible, you assume they're compromising the faith."

"Of course," said Alice. "Nonsense!" said the Queen testily. "Here in Blunderland we would simply construe the acceptance of current trends as part and parcel of getting on with the Christian mandate." "And the people would believe it?" blurted Alice, astonished.

"Certainly they would believe it!" snorted the Queen, "if we told it to them often enough and their scholars and theologians were more terrified of being out of step with the times than with God. The fact is, they unhesitatingly champion every popular viewpoint these days, particularly if it contradicts what used to be held as plain Biblical teaching! Why? Because they yearn to be recognized as intellectuals rather than 'primitives' - it's the nametag that scares them!"

"I think I'm beginning to understand," said Alice, "blunderthink is what is called brain-washing in my country." "How dare you?" shrieked the Queen, "Off with her head!!" But the guards were used to the Queen's tantrums and wearily reminded her that capital punishment in Blunderland, even for the most monstrous crimes, was a thing of the past. "I'm sorry," said the Queen, when she had regained her composure, "I can't bear to be contradicted."

"Well then," said Alice, trying to remember what the Queen had told her, "let me see if I understand it correctly. Apostasy is simply a victory over narrow sectarianism. Sin is triumph over excessive religiosity. Current social mores are simply a new way of expressing the Christian mandate. Is that it?"

"Dear girl," said the Queen, "that's just the beginning of blunderthink - it's such an adaptable concept. Let me run a few more ideas past you. For instance, when Christians embrace other religions as equal inheritors with Christianity, this broader-based faith will have much more political whack than any single religious organization ever had before. And when all belief systems are joined into one ecumenical World-Church, religion will indeed be a formidable force to reckon with. More importantly, when the brotherhood-of-all-men concept finally gains universal acceptance, wars will cease and we will finally have succeeded in the ambition of the ages - bringing the Kingdom of God into being through our own efforts!"

"Bringing the Kingdom of God into being through our own efforts," echoed Alice. "That's wonderful! Why, all of society's problems could be solved this way, not just religious ones. Think of the time and effort that could be saved by looking at everything the blunderthink way ... Immorality is moral. Poverty is wealth. Sickness is health. Hell is heaven. Death is life and ... socialism is the Kingdom of God. Why, there's a positive side to everything!"

"You're on to something big, young lady," smiled the Queen fondly. And giving Alice a conspiratorial pat on the knee, she confided, "I'll convene Cabinet right away and get the show on the road!"

..BUT the Lord said, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ... Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isa 5:20,23,24

Folks, the 'show' isn't destined to make it very far down the road...

Bruce Pringle is a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Smith Falls, Ontario.
This was published in the July/August 1999 issue

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Welcome to the Information Age. With apps like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, we now have a window into the lives of our friends, family, acquainta...

Economics

Why family businesses still matter (and why the Church should care)

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

Was there death before the fall into sin? It all depends on what you mean by "death" ***** Fall in America and throughout much of the Northern Hemi...

News

Saturday Selections – April 25, 2026

Why Johnny can't read: not enough phonics Phonics is a part of the solution, but two other key ingredients are, first of all, more parental involveme...

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Step 1. Figure out what you’re really trying to say Step 2. Don’t let anyone or anything distract you from saying it ***** Scott Klusendorf is a full-time pro-life apologist, which means he gets screamed at a lot. One of the more common squawks goes something like this: “You aren’t pro-life; you’re just pro-birth! You want to tell women what they can do with their bodies, and don’t give a rip what happens to the kid after it’s born!” How would you respond? God tells us that sometimes silence is the best response. He warns us that trying to be heard over a red-faced, spittle-spewing, murder-marketer’s screams will only make us look just as foolish (Prov. 26:4). But what about when the accuser really wants a response? What about when there is a listening audience gathered round? How should we answer then? We could point to the pro-lifers we know who donate to, or volunteer at, pregnancy centers. We could list everyone we know who’ve adopted or fostered children. And for good measure we might mention the way our churches care for the elderly and the sick, and the unemployed, and just generally show love for our born neighbors too. If we’re feeling feisty, we might even go on the offensive and ask, “How much time and money do you donate to care for others?” knowing that the typical critic is doing nothing or next to it. That’s an answer that might shut them up. But it’s not the answer Scott Klusendorf gives. He goes a different direction because he understands the abortion debate is largely one of truth versus, not simply lies, but evasion. The other side doesn’t want to debate whether the unborn are precious human beings like you and I; instead they sidetrack the discussion to any other topic. They’ll talk about how poor some mothers are, and how unwanted some babies are. They’ll attack men for daring to speak on the issue. In the latest pro-abortion stunt, groups of women will parade around in red dresses patterned after victims’ attire in a dystopian novel about political leaders who get away with ritual rape. The accusation that loving unborn babies is akin to rape is as bizarre as it is repugnant. But as much as insults hurt, they don’t do the same damage as suction machines. That’s why our focus has to be on the unborn, and sharing where their worth comes from. As much as abortion advocates want to sidetrack the issue, we can’t let them divert us from highlighting how our country’s smallest citizens are being murdered. How do we stay on message? By absorbing the insult. If they want to argue that pro-lifers don’t give a rip about children once they are born, we can grant their point and play a game of “what if…” Klusendorf’s response to attacks goes something like this: “What if I was the cold-hearted jerk you’re making me out to be? What if I was the worst human being in the world? How does me being a jerk have any impact on the humanity of the unborn?” When Kristan Hawkins, president of the Students for Life of America, was asked why pro-lifers weren’t offering solutions for the foster-care crisis she played the “what if” game too. What if the accusation was true? What if pro-lifers were only concerned with the unborn? She asked her accuser: “Are you upset that the American Diabetes Association doesn’t fight cancer?” She continued: “There is no other act of violence that kills more people every single day in America and across the world, than abortion. There’s nothing wrong with me fighting, and spending 100% of my time doing it. Just like there’s nothing wrong with the American Diabetes Association putting 100% of their money, their research and time behind curing Juvenile Diabetes…. The reality is, you don’t really care what I do. That I support children in third world countries. Or that I might be volunteering in a soup kitchen.... It’s just an argument to stop the actual discussion from happening, which is that abortion is a moral wrong and it should be stopped.” There’s an old joke about a pastor who, in his sermon’s margins, wrote: ”Point weak here; thump pulpit harder.” The world has no strong points, so they have to pound the podium till they bleed, shrieking their insults to try to drown out the Truth. They don’t want to have the debate. We can’t let them distract us from it. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism explains, we’re on Earth to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. When we make His glory our first concern, we won’t sweat it when someone attacks our name – that won’t stop us from talking about God’s Truth. When we’re enjoying His love we won’t worry about having the world’s approval – that can’t stop us from defending unborn children made in His image. And when we recognize the world only hates us because they hated Him first (John 15:18) we will rejoice in the good company we are keeping. This article was first published in the May/June 2019 issue of the magazine....

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be sober-minded." – Titus 2:6 ***** In Titus 2 Paul gives instructions to older women, younger women, older men and younger men, and gives instruction concerning the care of children. Every age group is covered... except for one. Why doesn't Paul say anything about adolescents? Adolescent males typically have the strength of adult men, and in many ways the freedoms and opportunities of adults too. And at the same time these adolescents have nowhere near the responsibilities of an adult; we say of them, they're "boys who shave." We’ve accepted that the teenage years are when boys do dumb things, and we're quick to forgive them because, well, they’re just kids so what can we really expect? However Scripture speaks of just two main age brackets: children and adults. This third grouping, adolescents, is simply not Scriptural. And that, of course, is why Paul makes no mention of them in Titus 2. In God’s eyes teenagers are responsible for their conduct (as is a tween!), and needs to repent of sin as much as any 50-year-old. The Bible simply does not know of a "boy who shaves." In the Bible, if you are no longer a child you are a man, albeit a "young man." So when, in Titus 2:6, Paul talks of the need for younger men to be self-controlled, he has in mind any male who is not a child and not yet an “older man.” So let's take a closer look at what Paul has to say in Titus 2 to the younger men of the church in Crete, and take from it what we can for the instruction of our own younger men. While our focus is on the younger men, we should note that the Lord has preserved this passage of Scripture for the benefit of more than just the “younger men.” In this same chapter older men (Titus 2:2) are to give leadership, and part of the leadership they provide is surely that they ensure that younger men are what God wants them to be. Older women (Titus 2:3) are to teach the younger women to love their husbands (Titus 2:4,5) – and those husbands are invariably included in the group described as “younger men.” Both the older women and the younger women, then, have a vested interest in what the Lord expects of the younger men. The whole congregation, then, can and must learn from God’s instruction to the younger men. Source It is important to remember that Paul’s instruction to Titus in this chapter, in relation to what Titus must teach the “younger men,” did not come out of the blue. As in all his teaching, Paul is building on God’s earlier revelation – what he says here must be understood in the context of the Old Testament, and of the example of the perfect young man Jesus Christ. So let's consider first the instruction from Genesis, then the instruction from Jesus Christ. Paradise Adam was surely no child when God created him, and surely no old man either. In the eye of our minds we see Adam in Paradise as a “younger man” of some 20 to 30 years old, in the prime of strength and ability. Notice what responsibilities God expected him to satisfy. In Genesis 1:26-2:18 we learn he was to: Image God – Just as the almighty Creator was loving and just and holy and kind and generous, so Adam was to be loving and just and holy and kind and generous. Creatures, angels, even God Himself should be able to see in the young man Adam something of what God was like. Rule over all creation – This young man received a kingly function, with all creatures under his dominion. Please note that God did not let Adam hang around for many years until he was older and/or wizened through a lifetime of experience before all creation was placed under his feet. Right away God put him in the Garden with the mandate to “work” it and “keep” it (Genesis 2:15). The term “keep” describes the function of protecting the Garden from enemies – and God knew full well that Satan would attack the Garden through his insidious temptation. Yet God entrusted the Garden to the care of this young man! Be fruitful – The command to be fruitful does not refer simply to making babies, but includes the responsibility of raising the children so that the next generation has learned how to image God and be effective rulers of God’s world too. Be a leader – God said too that it was not good for the man to be alone, and so God created a woman to be “helper” to the man (Genesis 2:18). The man in turn was to accept the helper God gave him, and give her leadership and protection. God’s instructions to Adam in Genesis 1, then, point up that Adam was expected to embrace responsibility. Young men of subsequent generations were, obviously, to do the same. The Biblical picture of manhood is not characterized by loafing or playing games, let alone letting things happen. Rather, a Biblically faithful man welcomes responsibility and takes initiative. This is what older men are to impress on the younger, and what older women are to teach younger women to encourage in their husbands. Fall The fall into sin made carrying out this glorious responsibility immeasurably difficult. Work became a slog and a burden and weeds appeared not only in gardens and fields (Genesis 3:18-19), but also in one’s character and in inter-personal relations. Tensions characterized marriage (Genesis 3:16b), and children would reduce a man to tears (Genesis 4). We can understand why the Preacher describes all as vanity, a burden, a groan (Ecclesiastes 1:2). “What has a man from all his toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 2:22). After the fall the creature that had been fashioned to image God, rule over God’s world, and raise more image-bearers, now bumps into so much frustration. How humbling for a creature endowed with such glorious responsibility! Understood Despite the destructive effects of the fall into sin, several figures of the Old Testament demonstrate that they fully understood God’s intent for young men. Consider the examples of Joseph, David and Daniel: Joseph – He was 17 years old when his father sent him to check up on how his brothers were faring as they tended the family flocks (Genesis 37:2). He was also, then, 17 years old when he was sold as a slave to Egypt. As a young man he ended up in Potiphar’s house and readily embraced the responsibility his master entrusted to him when he “put him in charge of all that he had” (Genesis 39:4). Not too many years later, perhaps in his early 20s, Joseph was imprisoned “where the king’s prisoners were confined" (39:20), yet even there he took the initiative to embrace whatever responsibility rolled his way. So “the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners” (39:22). He took control of his feelings so that he did not waste his energy with feelings of anger at his brothers or pity for himself. When his family came to Egypt 20 years after he was sold, he was still a relatively “young man” – but now ruler over the entire country. David – Already as a teenager he was entrusted with his father’s sheep. As a teenager he fought off a lion and a bear, and was called to play the lyre to King Saul. As a youth he volunteered to fight Goliath (1 Samuel 17:42). In his 20s he led Israel out to battle as Saul’s commander, then fled from Saul and, though persecuted, refused to kill him. Young though he was, he understood what manhood was about; he embraced responsibility and so made hard decisions. By the time he was 30, he was king over God’s people Israel. Daniel – He was a young man, likely yet a teenager, when he was taken as prisoner to Babylon. Young though he was, he refused to eat the food the palace prescribed (Daniel 1:8ff). Again, though young he made use of the opportunities he received to learn what he could learn. So, when God elevated him as a very man to a position of power and leadership in a foreign land, he was ready for the challenge. These three young men acted in line with God’s expectation as revealed in Paradise. They understood that youth was not a time for loafing, nor a time to live off others; being young men meant that they were to embrace responsibility to image God and rule over what was entrusted to them – especially themselves. Jesus The Biblical example of what a “young man” is to look like is none other than Jesus of Nazareth. He was “like his brothers in every respect,” and that includes the reluctance some have to embrace responsibility. But the Scripture says of this young man that though he was tempted in every respect as we are, He never gave Himself to sin (Hebrews 4:15). That’s to say that in his teenage years, and in his 20s too, He made it His business to image God in all He did, and made it His business too to rule over whatever God entrusted to His care – including first of all Himself, be that in guarding His mouth or restraining his sexual urges. At 30 years of age – truly a young man still! – He took up His public ministry in Israel, preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, healing the sick and raising the dead. In the process He denied Himself for the benefit of those the Father entrusted to Him, even embracing the cursed cross and the heavy judgment of God for the benefit of the undeserving. Herein He demonstrated precisely what God intended for all men back in Paradise already; they are to embrace responsibility, and so take initiative to further the Lord’s kingdom. Paul drew out for the Ephesians what this means for men. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies… (5:25ff). Jesus’ embrace of the responsibility that belongs to being a man means that, “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (Titus 2:11). Jesus is the (young) man, whose example all men are to follow. Titus 2:6 - "sober-minded" Let's return now, to Paul's instructions for young men in Titus 2. Paul's objective is to build up church life in Crete. He turns to God’s Old Testament instruction and to Jesus’ example to consider what gifts the Lord has given to His church and what this example needs to look like in practice. It is this material he unpacks as he tells Titus to “urge the younger men to be sober-minded.” The term Paul uses to describe what young men are to be is difficult to translate. The NIV and the ESV render it with the term "self-controlled," the NKJV has "sober-minded," the NASB has "sensible." The same term appears in Mark 5:15 in relation to the demoniac man – after the pigs, driven by the demons that used to possess the man, were drowned in the sea, the locals found the man “in his right mind.” In Romans 12:3 Paul instructs his readers “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment.” The point is this. God created us to “rule over” all creatures, including ourselves. With the fall into sin we became slaves to sin so that Satan ruled over us. However, Christ – perfect man that He was – conquered sin and Satan and so brought salvation for all people (Titus 2:11). Sin, then, is no longer our master, no more than the exorcised demons were now master of the demoniac of Mark 5. Instead, Christ has poured out His Spirit so that we can again be the men God wants us to be. Men are meant to embrace responsibility. The victory of Christ has given renewed opportunity to embrace responsibility. Paul would have Titus urge younger men to take seriously the victory of Jesus Christ as they make decisions day by day about what to do. They are, in other words, to think of themselves with the "sober judgment" that comes with believing the gospel of Calvary: since you are no longer slaves to sin – that’s real! – but once again God’s possession through Jesus Christ – that’s reality, too! – you don’t have to give in to sin and temptation; you can resist the evil one. Factoring that victory into one’s decision-making process is being sober-minded, and yes, it leads to a life of self-control. Titus 2:12 Titus 2:12, logically follows what we read in verse 6, and works out what this level-headedness looks like in the midst of life’s temptations. We read there than Christ’s victory, train us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age. And yes, the word translated as "self-controlled" in verse 12 is the same critical word as the apostle used in verse 6 about the younger men needing to be “self-controlled,” “sober-minded,” level-headed, realistic. Christ has broken Satan’s back; let younger men factor that reality into their decisions. That’s taking responsibility properly. I need to add: “the present age” is not a reference to the younger years but is instead referring to the time before Christ’s return in glory (see vs. 13). His victory on the cross guarantees the final great act of history, the day when He comes to judge the living and the dead. That reality again prompts the “young man” to a particular level-headedness as he factors this return into the decisions he makes – whether driving his car, spending his money, raising his family, deciding on his recreation, etc., etc. Crete This sort of lifestyle represented a huge challenge for the younger men Paul was writing to on the island of Crete. The culture of the island is caught in that proverb Paul earlier quoted: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). It’s a mindset that encourages the more energetic to do whatever they feel like doing. With the Christian faith new to the island, the “younger men” had very few role models to look up to. That’s why Paul told Titus that he needed to be a good example for these young men. We read in verse 7: “show yourself in all respects to be a model of good work, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned.” Titus was the apostle’s “true child in a common faith” (Titus 1:4), which is to say that Titus learned how to do the Christian life, and teach it too, from the apostle himself. As preacher on the island, and a young man at that, Titus needed to be aware that other young Christian men on Crete would be watching how Titus himself lived out the gospel of Christ’s victory in his daily responsibilities. His own way of factoring in Christ’s triumph in his daily decisions needed to demonstrate that he said "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and instead gave himself to good works. Moreover, his teaching couldn’t have the empty ring of liars’ big talk (1:10ff), but needed to exude integrity, dignity and soundness. Here is a reality true for every preacher/teacher of all times, indeed true of all office bearers and leaders. Anyone entrusted with the task of preaching and teaching the gospel of Christ’s victory needs be aware of his role as a model of Christian living. Brothers, we are created and recreated to image God, and so to rule over whatever God has entrusted to our care in the same way as the Lord does it. Christ Jesus emptied Himself for the sake of His bride, the church. As teachers and preachers of this good news, we must – if we wish the gospel to be credible – obviously factor in the reality of Christ’s victory into all our conduct and our words. Vital role Paul, then, sees a vital role for younger men in building up church life, be it on Crete or be it in Canada. Younger men are to take seriously whatever responsibility God gives them (be it for a vehicle, a house, a wife, children, themselves, work, etc) and consistently factor in the victory of Jesus Christ on the cross as they make decisions pertaining to the responsibilities God has given. Then there’s no place for ungodliness, and plenty of place for godly lives. Such a lifestyle advertises the church wonderfully. Conclusion What do we see of today’s younger men in the churches? From teens to 50s, are these men making responsible decisions, and so contributing positively to church life? There is, I’m convinced, so very much for which to be thankful on this point. We see young men making profession of faith and presenting their children for baptism. We see younger men devoted to their wives and families, and stretching themselves for service in God’s kingdom. It’s reason for gratitude. We also see younger men who do not stretch themselves all that far at all. We see some younger brothers content with a basic job, content to come home from work and chill in front of TV or on the Internet, and we see some, too, who pour themselves into sport. There is nothing wrong with sport, nor with relaxing in front of the TV, or even doing simply a "hands on" job. But there is a problem if one spends no time or energy to prepare one's self for increased responsibility tomorrow. It’s for responsibility that God created men, so men must read, study, and prepare for leadership roles tomorrow. Manhood is not to be measured by how much hair you can grow, or how big a truck you can drive, or how much beer you can drink, or how good you are on your skates, or how big a fish you can catch. Without knocking any of these things, none of them catch what God created men to do. What God wants of men is that we embrace responsibility, to the point that we work with Christ’s victory in every decision we make, 24/7. What does that look like? It follows the example of Jesus Christ in His self-emptying for His bride. He is the younger man who took responsibility for those God entrusted to His care, and so he laid down His life for His own. That’s the sensible, sober-minded, levelheaded example the Lord gives us. This article first appeared in the March 2013 issue....

News

Saturday Selections – April 18, 2026

The universe is God's canvas Art is hard to define, but an artwork can tell us a lot about the artist... or the Artist. Survivor - they had to live without phones! Even if you've never watched Survivor, you probably have an inkling about what this TV game show is about – it pits a group of castaways against each other to see who can outlast the rest. But there is a difference from when it started – one of the biggest shocks for contestants today might be living without their smartphones for a month. In this article, one of the contestants highlights how she was happy without it, and yet felt pulled back into that screen world when she returned. But, As Trevin Wax highlights, some in the next generation are taking leadership to free themselves and others from this ball and chain. How Mark Carney could help Canadian NHL teams compete "...league commissioner Gary Bettman... likes to pretend taxes aren’t part of the reason that eight of the 12 teams competing for the past six Stanley Cups hail from states with 0 percent income taxes..." This article is just about hockey, but the point made is true for every business competing with companies in other, lower-tax, jurisdictions – government taxes hurt our competitiveness, which hurts what we can produce, which hurts our businesses and everyone employed by them. So, let's lower taxes for hockey players... and everyone else too. How to love your wife through the rough patches Good advice... The legacy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth 20 years later His documentary was presented in university classes with religious fervor, not just in science, but even in the arts and humanities – kids got hit with it in English class. And, 20 years later, the catastrophic worldview it pitched is still a matter of fervor, not fact. I can only imagine A great song from a pretty good movie. ...

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

A quick survey of X or the top YouTube-influencer-content on the Right reveals that conspiracy theories have never been so widely spread or fervently believed. You can hear Tucker Carlson claiming that the atomic bomb was literally (not figuratively) created by demons; Candace Owens attempting to claim that Erika Kirk is tied to the assassination of her husband, and that Owens herself was the subject of an apparently shockingly inept assassination attempt commissioned personally by the Macrons (Israel was involved somehow, of course); and plenty more. The phrase “conspiracy theory” itself is, naturally, controversial. Originating in the 1860s and popularized in political theory circles by Karl Popper in 1945, it has been (wrongly) attributed to the CIA as an attempt to deflect questions surrounding the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK after the already-common term was used in a 1967 memo discussing theories about the president’s murder. Nonetheless, the phrase has been used to dismiss anyone asking serious questions about powerful movements, ideologies, and politicians. Provable vs. theory There is, of course, such a thing as a conspiracy – legally speaking, “a secret agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.” A conspiracy theory is the suspicion or belief that multiple parties have conspired to some nefarious end. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true as we acquire evidence. Some remain merely theories, which is to say, the evidence is weak, circumstantial, or non-existent. Distinguishing between provable conspiracies and conspiracy theories is, in our chaotic, addictive digital age, essential. Many find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the two; others, because of the loyalty they have for certain influencers, are merely unwilling. Lack of trust is warranted It must be noted that the rise of conspiracy theories was made inevitable by the collapse of trust in institutions. There were the widespread deceits from governments and medical institutions during Covid. As I wrote for The European Conservative a couple of years ago, the collusion of the press, medical institutions, and governments to push transgender ideology has been another major catalyst for the collapse of trust in institutions. When law enforcement puts out a mugshot of a bearded rapist and tells the public they are hunting for a woman, the effect on public trust is predictably devastating. In short, many conspiracies do turn out to be true. The need to discern, not rebound And how do we know? Because we acquire actual evidence. Our institutions and mainstream press have an evidentiary standard that has been corrupted by pernicious, wicked ideologies that they have adopted, and when we acquire information from those sources, we must factor in that bias and re-interpret (most notably, but not exclusively, with Orwellian reporting on abortion and transgender issues) through that lens. But our solution to this information landscape is not to abandon any evidentiary standard altogether, but to rigorously apply the evidentiary standard abandoned by the institutions and the press. Indeed, the phrase “trust the experts” has become something of a sick joke, after all the provable lies and ideologically motivated mistakes perpetrated by said experts. But many on the Right have not actually abandoned a “trust the experts” approach; they have merely replaced them with new experts, without wondering whether these replacements actually have any expertise at all or whether their own credibility is rooted in a fidelity to truth and an evidentiary standard. Influencers such as Owens and Carlson deliberately play into this, constantly dismissing their critics not by addressing their arguments but by implying that they are members of the discredited expert class. But what is their evidentiary standard? Candace Owens, of course, has quite famously claimed that she has received investigative tips in dreams; that she can just “feel” when things are “off”; that she “doesn’t know, but she know knows.” Anyone genuinely seeking truth should take a moment to actually review her record of blatant historical error and deliberate deceit; if that record does not bother you, then you should recognize that it is not truth or a genuine evidentiary standard that matters to you. If someone can be proven so consistently wrong and maintain your loyalty, you are doing precisely what the Left does with their own idealogues: Choosing to believe someone for reasons other than their actual track record. Many conservative influencers have proven just as hackish and agenda-driven as their progressive opponents. That should matter to those who care about the truth. Otherwise, we do not have principles—we have preferences. What does it look like when a conservative influencer applies the evidentiary standard to a conspiracy theory? Consider some of Matt Walsh’s recent episodes. As he has pointed out, those seeking the “truth” about Charlie Kirk’s assassination have spent almost no time looking into the LGBT activist actually arrested and charged with his murder – and he laid out precisely why he believes Owens, who is his friend, is dead wrong: Compare Walsh’s method of investigation to what Owens is doing on her show. One has an evidentiary standard; the other does not. (Dreams, feelings, and angry, compelling language do not count and certainly do not add up to truth.) Even more devastating was Walsh’s rebuttal of Owens’ ongoing character assassination of Erika Kirk, which he ended with a powerful and moving plea for moral decency, publicly begging Owens – who, again, is his friend – to stop what she is doing: Unanswered questions doesn’t mean any answer will do Let’s take another major story – the Jeffrey Epstein files. The mysterious sexual predator, connected to countless elite figures, has become a lightning rod for conspiracy theories because there are so many obviously unanswered and open questions. Did he really conveniently die of suicide? Who did he work for, if anyone? How did he get his money? How did he get away with his crimes for so long? Was he running a sexual blackmail operation on behalf of an intelligence service? These are genuine questions. They deserve real answers. But many major influencers are not looking to actually find answers – they are insisting that the files released thus far prove whatever they were saying before the files were released. Where the files do not prove their claims, they move the evidentiary bar, claiming that the most incriminating material has clearly been destroyed, or has yet to be released, or will never be released. In short, the actual evidence is only incidental to the claims they are making. If it appears to support their theories, they wave it about as evidence; if it does not, that, too, is somehow also evidence. In short: Evidence is evidence, but no evidence is also evidence. In a massive analysis published in February, for example, conservative journalists Alex Gutentag and Michael Shellenberger noted that although they had first believed that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to intelligence services (“particularly Mossad and the CIA”), their review led them to a different conclusion. After summarizing the case for intelligence connections and citing the most compelling evidence in favor of that conclusion, they write: But after having spent several weeks reading through the files and related investigations, it’s clear to us that the totality of available evidence does not support the picture of a government-backed sex blackmail operation. Rather, it suggests that Epstein primarily served his own interests. If Epstein was a slave to anything, it was to his passions and perversions. Ward’s claim that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” is not reliable. She said she heard it third-hand from an anonymous source. Her former Vanity Fair editor and colleagues told the New Yorker that her reporting was not trusted, and said that she had provided inaccurate quotations in the past. Long-held feelings shouldn’t be misunderstood as facts If that conclusion makes you instinctively irritated or defensive before you even read their analysis, ask yourself if you have become ideologically invested in a specific conclusion. If the connection or lack thereof of a dead sexual predator to an intelligence agency is something you deeply care about to the point that you will not consider any evidence to the contrary, your view is not based on “truth-seeking,” but something else – loyalty to a podcaster who has captured your attention, loathing for the countries you have been led to believe were involved, belief that no evidence can ever be trusted. The nature of many conspiracy theories also means that the very theory itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example: Of course Epstein was an Israeli asset – that is precisely the sort of thing Israel does. And why do you feel that way? Well, in part because you have been told, for several years, by several prominent podcasters, that Epstein was an Israeli asset. A feeling that has become entrenched based on the theory now becomes a plausibility structure for the theory itself. Those consuming news and content in our chaotic information age must ask themselves a question: Why do I believe what I believe? Rebounding off a liar isn’t a way to the truth Every influencer these days – especially those on the Right – claim to be “truth-seekers,” while insisting that everyone who disagrees with them is lying or “one of them.” We know that progressives have biases, and we know that they lie: About gender ideology, about abortion, about the birth control pill, and countless other issues. But the solution to a corrupted evidentiary standard is not to replace it with a network of podcasters who abandon any evidentiary standard at all and merely replace progressive biases that are impervious to evidence with new biases that are equally impervious to evidence. If truth matters, we should pursue it. If evidence matters, then we should consider it – and the lack of it. If we are being led to conclusions through skillful narrative creation rather than proof, we should stop and consider where we are being led and why – because many influencers who identify as Christian have done more to confuse and corrupt their audiences than progressives ever could....

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

“Oh, a coffee maker! Just what Peter and I need – thank you so much!” Bridal showers are a fun, valuable tradition. The bride-to-be’s famil...

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Legislatures make laws, the executive enforces them, judges interpret and apply them in specific cases. Three branches, checks and balances – that�...

Book Reviews, Children’s fiction, Children’s picture books

The barber who wanted to pray

by R.C. Sproul 2012 / 33 pages Rating: GREAT R.C. Sproul has written a half dozen picture books to date, all of them great instructional tools, a...

News

Saturday Selections – April 11, 2026

Climate Doom Archive: the polar bear The polar bear has long been a symbol of the global warming catastrophists, but as the folks at the Climate Discussion Nexus detail below polar bears are doing just fine. Australians aren't having kids Since it takes two to tango that means it takes an average of two children per woman to keep a population stable (and just slightly more than that – around 2.1 – to account for children who don't make it to adulthood). But Australia has averaged less than two children per woman since about 1975... and it's now near 1.4. Canada is worse at about 1.25 and China leads the depopulation dive at just about 1.0. God's cultural mandate, given before the Fall (Gen. 1:28) but repeated to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1) applies to more than just child-bearing but certainly includes it. "Be fruitful and multiply" gives Christians good reason to counter this demographic downward trend by, in obedience, trying for 3 or more. The silent killer: comfort "The danger lies in making comfort a priority – living an easy, carefree life that avoids stress, grief, or restriction... When comfort becomes our aim, we lose sight of the fact that the Christian life is often marked by disciplined effort, not stress-free living." New free creationist journal New Creation Studies is a new publication brought to you by some of the same people behind the great (and free) documentary Is Genesis History? Get married young (10 minute read) Marriage can get crowded out as an ambition because of career, income, education, or even travel goals. But what if we made the big things in life our big priority? 1,000 IVF frozen babies vs. 2 newborns: who would you save? It's a dilemma that's been pitched many times: if a hospital was on fire and you could only save a newborn baby, or let's say two – one tucked under each arm – or a nitrogen canister that contained one thousand frozen IVF babies, which would you save? The presumption underlying the question is that how most would act – saving the two crying, squirming, already-born babies – proves that embryonic babies aren't valuable. But, as Ben Shapiro shows below, that's not so. What he doesn't do, is show where human value does comes from. The world has no basis for it. If we are merely star dust, or just another animal, or just chemicals in motion, then why would any of us be any more valuable than that rock over there, also star dust, or another animal like, say, a chicken? Or why would we say our human-type walking bags of chemicals are all equal, but that equality doesn't extend to the chemical reactions going on in that fizzy can of Coke? The only basis for human worth, and for human equality, comes from being made in the very Image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). That is the only thing we all share equally and it is what gives us our worth (Gen. 9:6). ...

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

or why we gave two years to bringing the Heidelberg Catechism to video… and more ***** There is something disarming about the Heidelberg Catechism. It doesn’t begin with abstract definitions, but with comfort. Our only comfort. Many of us have encountered, or experienced ourselves, a quiet guilt about “not knowing enough theology,” as if faithfulness were measured primarily by intellectual mastery. The Heidelberg resists that posture. Designed to be digested slowly over the course of a year, it teaches with patience. It repeats itself intentionally. It understands that formation takes time. And it certainly took time to capture that on film. Today, we find ourselves standing at a moment we honestly didn’t know how to imagine back on July 13th, 2023 when our organization, Faith to Film (FaithToFilm.ca) first took on this project. Every Lord’s Day of the Heidelberg Catechism now has a completed video. Fifty-two videos. Twenty-six pastors. Multiple denominations. One catechism. A full, freely available teaching resource on ReformedConfessions.org that did not exist before, but now it does. Why we started Pastor Hans Overduin took on Lord’s Days 15 and 23. Too often, Christian content is forced to choose between depth and visual excellence. We didn’t think that tradeoff was necessary. The Reformed confessions, in particular, seemed like an area crying out for this kind of care. Written centuries ago, they articulate truths that remain deeply relevant today. Truths with direct application for people wrestling with today’s fears, today’s doubts, and today’s hope. The church has never failed to recognize their value. They remain central to catechesis, preaching, and discipleship. And yet, the digital representation of them has not sufficiently reflected the clarity, weight, and beauty of the truth they contain. We wanted to do something about that. Our broader vision continues to be a single digital home for the Reformed Confessions where learning is layered. A video for introduction. A quiz for reinforcement. Extended material for deeper study. Illustrations that help concepts land. A place where churches can confidently send their people, knowing they will be met with clarity, pastoral care, and theological integrity. Not to replace traditional catechesis, but to supplement it and to provide access for those who may not have the same proximity to teachers or resources, whether new converts, families, or believers in other parts of the world. The Heidelberg Catechism felt like the natural place to begin. We are deeply grateful to the twenty-six pastors who lent their voices to this work. Though they serve in a range of congregational settings, they spoke here in one voice, bearing witness to the unity the Heidelberg Catechism has long provided to the Reformed church. Their participation reflects a shared commitment to teaching what has been confessed, received, and faithfully passed down through generations. The long middle Rev. John van Eyk addressed Lord’s Days 11 and 13. What we didn’t fully anticipate was just how long this patient approach would take. Don’t be mistaken, we understood the importance of moving slowly. We simply wanted the fruit of patience immediately. After all, two and a half years is long enough for enthusiasm to fade. Long enough for schedules to clash, funding to stretch thin, and momentum to feel fragile. This is why we are so grateful for everyone who supported this work. There is also a unique weight to the nature of this work. We regularly found ourselves asking difficult questions: Are we honoring the gravity of these truths? Are we preserving the warmth that Ursinus and Olevianus intended? Are we being careful, not only with words, but with images? There is a real challenge in visually representing biblical and theological concepts while maintaining a healthy reverence for God’s name and character. Navigating that tension was no small task. So yes, it is true that this has been a challenge, but it’s hard to stay stressed when the very content you are producing is a balm for your own soul. Sitting there, mouse in hand, editing a video on Lord’s Day 1, and being reminded that you are "not your own, but belong body and soul, to your faithful Savior, Jesus Christ." Time after time the words of the pastor on screen would cut straight through the producer mindset and hit the believer's heart. It really is a profound thing to experience. To realize that the very truths you are trying to broadcast are the same truths holding you together while you do it. Ready for you to use Pastor Mark Wagenaar tackled Lord’s Days 52 and 22. At this point, the Heidelberg Catechism series is no longer a project we are working on, but a free resource the church can now rely on. Go to ReformedConfessions.org, watch the videos, sit with the illustrations, and work through the questions. It is our prayer that it finds its way into your homes, classrooms, membership instruction, or quiet personal study. We pray that, in the steady rhythms of teaching and repetition, God would use this work as He has so often used catechesis: to form believers who know what they believe, why they believe it, and how that belief shapes their lives before Him and before one another. Above all, this moment draws our attention away from ourselves and back to the God who preserves His truth across centuries, cultures, and mediums. As we look forward to the development of the remaining Three Forms of Unity, we rest in the knowledge that the weight of this work does not fall on us. We are not the reason these words endure. We are witnesses to the fact that they do. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Kyle Vasas and David Visser are a part of the team at Faith to Film which, in addition to ReformedConfessions.org, has done video series on Calvinism and Essential Truths, and is in the planning stage for one on office bearer training. Check out all their work, and how you can support it, at FaithtoFilm.ca....

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

I recently set about the task of making an enclosure to keep animals, and I want to tell you how I did it. This may seem to be a strange topic for Reformed Perspective readers but please bear with me and I trust that all will become clear. Quite the creation My aim was to create a large, secure enclosure and so I began by marking out an area within my back yard. You may think it somewhat eccentric, but for some very good reasons (which I won’t trouble you with) I had to begin the construction at night. So right after I had marked out the area and unraveled some fencing, I erected an enormous halogen lamp over the whole site, which, when turned on, flooded the area with light, which was good. The following day I began to clear the enclosure, which was somewhat waterlogged. I bailed out most of the water, but took care to leave some behind, as I needed a little in order to provide ponds for the aquatic animals. By the end of the day, I have to say I was well pleased with the result. When I came back to the site the next day, I began to shift some of the water I had left in the enclosure into ponds by digging holes in some places, and then piling the dirt up into mounds elsewhere to create dry patches. Once this was done, I spent the remainder of the day putting in some plants and food for the animals to eat. By this time, the whole thing was starting to take shape really nicely. My main task on the following day was to take down the halogen lamp, which I had only intended as a temporary measure, and to put some smaller, permanent lights around the outside of the enclosure, which when fixed up, looked really quite wonderful. The next two days things began to get really exciting. First I put some fish and other aquatic creatures into the ponds and I also brought some birds into the enclosure. Then on the following day I introduced some land animals into the enclosure. At this point, the whole thing was almost finished, except for one thing. It had always been my intention to get my son to look after the enclosure, and so the last thing I did was to show him what I had made, telling him that it was a gift to him and giving him some quite specific instructions as to how I wanted him to perform the task of looking after it. You perhaps won’t be surprised to hear that at the end of all that I took the next day off and had a well-earned rest. Surveying all that I had done, I can honestly say that I was extremely pleased with the way things had turned out. The whole thing had taken me a total of 24 years from start to finish, but it was well worth it. ***** “Now hang on a second. Did you just say 24 years?” “Yes, that’s right, 24 years.” “But from what you said above, it sounded like the whole thing took you six days with one day of rest at the end.” “Yes, it did sound like that, didn’t it? But if I told you that one day is as four years to me, would that begin to make a little more sense?” ***** Well no it wouldn’t, but hopefully you’ve got the point by now. The time frame above clearly cannot be stretched out from six days of work into 24 years, yet this is essentially the position taken by those who advocate theistic evolution when they attempt to stretch the creation account in Genesis into billions of years. What I want to do in the remainder of this article is to ask whether there are any compelling reasons why we might want to engage in this particular “stretching exercise.” Why would it take so long? Sticking with the above introductory analogy, let me pose the following question: why might such a project end up taking 24 years, rather than six days? There are five possible reasons: I might actually need 24 years to complete a project because of the sheer amount of work involved (although anyone who has seen the plethora of unfinished projects in my shed might wonder whether even 24 years would be enough time). I might be impeded by one thing or another – resources, health or weather, for example. I might just be plain lazy and so somehow manage to turn a six day job into a 24 year job. I might need to take a long time in order to make sure the work is of sufficient quality. I might have some other purpose for having taken 24 years, when I could easily have done it much quicker. Now of all these possibilities apply to men, but only the last one might apply to God. Though the volume of work, unforeseen impediments, laziness and the issue of quality might be factors in the length of time it would take me to build my enclosure, all Christians would agree that none of these things would be factors for God in the creation of the Heavens and the Earth. The amount of work involved was no obstacle to God, nor could anything have impeded Him in the process. It goes without saying that laziness, whilst applying to men, does not and could not apply to God, and it also goes without saying that the quality issue is not a factor with God, and He could have produced a Universe of the same perfect quality no matter what time period He took to complete it. In other words, there was nothing whatsoever that could have prevented Him from finishing His creation in a nanosecond, six days or 13 billion years – whatever He willed to do. A reason for six days Which leaves us with only the final possibility – that of having some other purpose for taking time to finish a job. With men, it is difficult to think of a single reason why anyone, given the option of building an enclosure such as the one described above in 6 days or 24 years, would deliberately choose to do it in 24 years. That would make little sense. If a man were just as able to produce work of excellent quality, whether it took him 6 days or 24 years, why would he choose the 24-year option? Furthermore, if his purpose in creating the enclosure was because he wanted to give it to his son as a gift, wouldn’t it be odd if he deliberately chose to take 24 years to complete it rather than six days? Now someone might conceivably use this very point to question why God would have created in six days, rather than a nanosecond. After all, He could have finished it all in a nanosecond if He had wanted to. There is, however, a very good reason why this was so, since His purpose was to give the world as a gift to man to tend and keep. The six days of work and one day of rest sets a pattern for how men are to live, worship and take dominion over that gift. This is clearly seen in the reason given for keeping the 4th commandment: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” But what good reasons exist why God might have chosen to create in 13 billion years rather than six days? If I am to take the claims of theistic evolution seriously, what I want to know is why He would have done it this way and not done it that way. Arguments for or against theistic evolution are usually discussions of whether the word "day" (Yom) must be taken literally, or what “the rocks” say, or whether evolution undermines the foundation of the gospel itself. These arguments have been covered very ably by others, but what I want to do is to come at the issue from a different angle. My question is simply this: If God could have made the Heavens and the Earth and all that in them is in six days, what arguments from Scripture and from the purposes of God are there to support the idea that He actually decided to take billions of years and evolutionary processes to do so? In other words, why would He do it like that? Bring glory to God In order to test the claims of those who affirm theistic evolution, we must begin by asking the following question: what is God’s overarching creational purpose? Revelation 4:11 supplies us with the answer to this: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created.” In other words, God’s purpose in creating all things was to bring glory and honor to himself. There are essentially two ways that God gets glory from his creation. One is from the very fact of his creation itself being wonderful and reflecting his glory. There is a sense in which even if there were not one single believer on planet Earth, the creation would still praise Him and He would still be glorified. The Psalms are particularly rich in descriptions of God’s natural order praising Him, for instance verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 148: “Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” But although the creation can and does praise Him, by virtue of their being glorious and reflecting His glory, is this the praise that God ultimately seeks? Imagine that Beethoven had premiered his 5th Symphony to an empty concert hall and so at the end there was complete silence. Would the lack of people to applaud the piece diminish it at all or call into question the genius of its composer? Of course not! The music is glorious regardless of whether anyone actually listens to it or applauds. In much the same way, God’s creation exalts Him and brings Him glory irrespective of whether there exists another being to acknowledge it. Days 1 to 5 of Genesis – prior to the creation of man – are all described as good. But just as Beethoven’s intention was never just to create a symphony and have it played to an empty concert hall, God’s intention was never to create the world and leave it without a creature to praise and thank Him for it. Beethoven’s 5th is great, regardless of who listens to it, but how much more glorious does the piece become when an audience is there to hear and gives a standing ovation at the end? By the same token, God’s creation is glorious, regardless of who is there to appreciate it, yet how much more is God glorified when He receives the praise of angels and men? His overarching purpose was therefore to create a being that was not only made in His own image, but also capable of and willing to give Him glory. The Westminster Shorter Catechism famously begins with the question “What is the chief end of man” and gives the answer, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This can be flipped on its head to become “What was God’s purpose in creating man? That He might be glorified and that man might share in His happiness.” That, in a nutshell, is why God made us and therefore why we are here. We are to reflect his glory in everything we do, we are to enjoy Him and the gifts He gives us, and we are to return praise and thanksgiving to Him in our worship. This fits perfectly into the six days of work and one day of rest worship paradigm, where the pattern for our lives is established and ordered. But how does this fit in with the paradigm given by theistic evolution? Earth made for us Theistic evolution assumes that it took billions of years for the earth to even exist, yet alone become inhabited. Yet this is at variance with Isaiah, who says that “the Lord did not create the Earth in vain,” but rather “formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). If God’s purpose for the Earth was for it to be inhabited by men, and that it would be vain not to be inhabited by them, what possible reason would He have had to leave it uninhabited for so long? Genesis 1:26-28 is clear that the whole purpose of the created order was that it was a gift for His image bearer who was to be given charge over it. If this was the purpose of God’s creation, what possible reasons would He have had to put this off for something like 13 billion years? The Scriptures plainly teach that God’s purpose for man was not only to bear and reflect his image, but also to praise him in his worship: “I will praise You, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will tell of all your marvelous works” (Psalm 9:1). If this is God’s purpose for man, what possible reasons would he have had to defer receiving praise for billions of years? Deferred glory, dominion God’s purposes and His glory simply cannot be reconciled with the theistic evolution paradigm. To come back to the original analogy I used earlier, if my purpose was to create an enclosure and to give it to my son, so that he might tend it and return to give me thankfulness, in what way would I be achieving my purpose if I deliberately took 24 years to complete it when I could have finished it in six days? How then was God’s creational purpose and His glory fulfilled if he took 13 billion years and a multitude of dead animals along the way, when he could have done it all in six days and minus the carnage? Furthermore, where is man’s dignity in all of this? Psalm 8 states that man is crowned with glory and honor (Psalm 8:5). In the six day creational paradigm, it is easy to see why this is so. The Earth was made for man and given to him as a gift. He was then given responsibility for it and God “made him to have dominion over the works of his hands” (Psalm 8:6). The theistic evolution paradigm robs man of this highly exalted position for over 99% of the history of the creation, and for billions of years the Earth was apparently left to its own devices, without a dominion taker and without one bearing the Imago Dei. In conclusion, a straightforward reading of the Genesis account clearly suggests that God finished the Heavens and the Earth, including His image bearer, in a period of six days. This entirely accords with God’s purpose in creating all things – that He might receive glory and honor. The onus is therefore on those who advocate theistic evolution to show from the Scriptures and from the purposes of God why and how He would have used billions of years of slow graduated changes, without mankind to glorify Him, in order to bring this about. My contention is that theistic evolution is not only incompatible with the straightforward Genesis narrative, it also misses the entire purpose God had for His creation. As far as theories go, it falls well short of His glory. This was originally published in the July/August 2013 issue under the title “Why would He do it like that?”...

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

Some might assume that, as they grow older, they will grow in wisdom. But the Bible tells us that’s hardly a given. One of the themes of the book of Proverbs is that wisdom is something that has to be pursued. We can see this in three of the characters we are introduced to in Proverbs. One of these characters is “the righteous” – humble and actively seeking out God’s wisdom. The wicked, on the other hand, are proud, and in their selfish ambition they are active too, but actively seeking out folly. They get into trouble because they are looking for it. But perhaps it is the third character who should most interest us. This third sort is also seeking folly…but not actively. In a sense he finds folly only because he isn’t seeking wisdom. He is the sluggard. So both the wicked and the righteous go out and make choices – they choose between wisdom and folly. The sluggard? He just stays home. And folly finds him. Between wicked and wise That’s why the sluggard is encouraged to stir. We find him in Proverbs 6 being told: “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Observe her ways and become wise.” The ant doesn’t have somebody telling her what to do. She acts on her own initiative. She goes out and finds a job, so that she may learn her trade. The sluggard needs to get up out of his bed and learn from the ant. The author of this proverb wants to encourage his readers in godly ambition. Then again, in Proverbs 26:13 and onward, we see a warning against sloth. Here the sluggard cries out, “There is a lion in the streets.” The sluggard makes excuses for himself, for why he just wants to stay home. He won’t risk any effort. Again, we see the need for godly ambition. We can’t be afraid of risks when we go out into the world. We have to be wise and prudent in our actions, but if we live in fear of what might happen, we will never find the prize. The reward will be gone. Christians have no excuse for sitting around and waiting; we have no excuse for endless leisure time. We either have to go out and seek wisdom, or we will lose it. Then we’ll become the fool, fearing even imaginary lions. And ultimately, we will lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so. Wisdom put to use Wisdom, in our passages, is the ability to discern between to choices. Practically speaking, wisdom is the means by which we make business decisions, choose a marriage partner, or make any number of other choices that come to us each day. But within Proverbs all wisdom ultimately points to the Wisdom of God, the Wisdom that God reveals in Jesus Christ and the Wisdom by which God made the world. He is the one who holds the universe together. We can distinguish between practical wisdom and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs, but they cannot truly be separated. If we do not seek wisdom, we ultimately lose the Wisdom of God; Jesus Christ. We are all called to that search for wisdom in so far as God has given us the ability to do so. So one of the messages of proverbs is, “get up, get out and find wisdom.” Search then. Seek out the wisdom of the universe. We need to have the attitude of the man Jesus speaks of in the parable of the pearl of great price. This man sells everything in order to find what is most precious; the kingdom of God. Search for the Wisdom; Christ. That is a life-long search, a life-long desire, for those who have found him. Do not cease from scouring the Scriptures. Do not cease from praying for understanding. Search until God gives you the fullness of eternal life and rest with Him. This article was originally published in the Sept/Oct 2017 issue of the magazine. ...

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

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

News

Aussie senator shows us how to do it... and how not to do it

News

Saturday Selections – April 4, 2026

Woody takes on screens? I wasn't expecting much from Toy Story #5, but with Woody and the crew taking on tech, I'm looking forward to this... 3 ...

Assorted

When there is smoke…

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

Science - General

Wild about beetles

From a young age some people are fascinated by beetles. For example, English author A. A. Milne wrote a delightful poem concerning a boy and his pet. The poem, in Now We are Six (1927), recounts the experiences of a boy who put a beetle in a matchbox for safekeeping. However disaster struck when his nanny, apparently looking for a match, inadvertently let the beetle out of the box. And Nanny let my beetle out - Yes Nanny let my beetle out - She went and let my beetle out - And beetle ran away. A search is set up and, happily, a beetle is discovered. It was Alexander Beetle I'm as certain as can be And he had a sort of look as if he thought it must be ME." So Nanny and the boy quickly shovel their find into the matchbox. This lady is determined not to make the same mistake again. And Nanny's very sorry too for you-know-what-she-did, And she's writing ALEXANDER very blackly on the lid." This delightful scenario has no doubt occurred through many generations in many countries. Even today, some children enjoy beetle pets. And all of us can appreciate beetles for what they tell us about their Designer, even if we are not in the market for a pet. Rhinos The scary looking rhinoceros beetles are among the largest beetles. Although they may grow to more than 150 millimeters, or 6 inches long, they are completely harmless to humans since they do not bite or sting. The claim to fame of these beetles is the horns, one projecting from each side of the thorax (section behind the head), and another one pointing forward from the centre of the thorax. These insects are sort of the Triceratops (horned dinosaur) of the insect world! They are a subgroup of the scarab beetles and, like most scarabs, they have strong legs – some species can lift up to 850 times their own weight! Our interest in this group of insects comes from the fact that children in Japan like to buy or catch these insects for pets. Apparently it is particularly fun to breed these pets. While most scarab beetles are not as showy as the rhinoceros beetles, they nevertheless are a most interesting group of insects. Beetles are a group of insects that exhibit sheathed wings. The front pair of wings (projecting from the back of the middle section or thorax) is hardened for protection. Underneath we find a second pair of wings which look more typical of insect wings. In order to fly, the beetle raises the hardened pair to expose the other pair which do the actual work of flying. In that beetles all exhibit a head, thorax (with three pairs of legs, besides the 2 pairs of wings), and an abdomen (covered by the hardened sheathed wings), they all are basically similar in design. It is in the design of the antennae, mouth parts, leg structure and ornamentation (color, patterns and projections) that we see variety between beetle groups. And variety there is indeed! In total, worldwide, there are about 165 families of beetle. We find most species collected in six extremely diverse families, each with about 20,000 or more described species. The scarabs or Scarabaeidae, are stout-bodied beetles measuring between 2mm long to 17 cm (almost 7 inches). Many scarab beetles exhibit bright metallic colors, especially on the hardened exterior wings (called the elytra). These insects have distinctive club shaped antennae, the component parts of which can fan out like leaves, in order to sense odous. The front legs often are broad and powerful for digging and the hind legs more so. Some of the most famous scarabs include dung beetles, June beetles, rhinoceros beetles, Hercules beetles and Goliath beetles, as well as those ever unpopular rose chafers. The Hercules beetle is the most famous of the rhinoceros beetles. Native to the rainforest of the Americas, this creature's central horn is extremely large and intimidating. Goliath beetles on the other hand, are among the largest insects in terms of body size and weight. Native to Africa, they measure 60-110 mm (2.5 - 4.5 inches) for males. The diets of scarab beetles range from fruit, to fungi, to dead animals and even the slime trails of snails. Dung beetles It is however the dung beetles, which are particularly remarkable. These species feed partly, or exclusively, on animal droppings. Dung, however, can be resource in short supply. The dung beetles have a wonderful sense of smell, based in their antennae, for locating this resource when it is fresh. Cows in a pasture apparently produce about 12 pats per day, per individual animal, but the location of these droppings is hard to predict. Once the odor reaches one beetle, it probably has also attracted many competitors, so speed is essential. One elephant dropping in east Africa was monitored in the 1980s. Four thousand insects arrived within a half hour. It took 16,000 dung beetles only two hours to entirely clear away 1.5 kg (3 lbs) of manure. Some dung beetles roll the dung into round balls which they immediately remove from the scene. They then bury it in a suitable spot in order to use it as food, or as a chamber to shelter and feed their young. Others merely bury dung where they find it. Still other species simply live in the manure where it has been deposited. The true dung beetles roll freshly deposited dung into round balls which may be very heavy compared to the insect. In one study, beetles averaging 2-5 grams in weight, moved dung balls which averaged 6-240 grams and they did this at speeds of up to 20 cm per second. That is fast going! Speed is essential because other dung beetles will steal the ball if they can. The male then pushes the ball in a straight line, despite all obstacles. One can move the farthest and fastest away from point A, when one travels in a straight line. If eggs are to be laid in the resource, the female follows behind, rides along, or helps push the ball. The dung beetles prefer the droppings of grazer animals (herbivores). These droppings are notoriously rich in undigested nutrients and in moisture. The beetles don't need anything else to munch or drink. Mostly the males push the ball backwards, rolling it with their hind legs. An item in the May 2012 National Geographic described how dung beetles may find themselves navigating across sand as hot as 150 degrees F (66 degrees C) during the day in South Africa. To cool their parched feet the beetles frequently climb up on top of the dung which may be only 73 degrees F, or 26 degrees C, compared to the hot sand. When scientists outfitted the beetles with heat resistant silicon booties the beetles did not need to climb up on the dung as frequently. It is evident that dung beetles, while proceeding backward in a straight line, need to orient themselves to prevent their moving in a circle. Features in the landscape will not work as points of reference because the insects are too close to the ground. Obviously the key is to look up to the sky. Previous studies have shown that beetles can navigate using the sun or the moon, or patterns of polarized sunlight or moonlight. Star bugs! Now a study, published in the Feb 18, 2013 issue of Current Biology, documents that dung beetles can also orient themselves by the stars, specifically the Milky Way. Marie Dacke of Lund University declares that her study with dung beetles is the very first demonstration that any creature, other than humans, can orient themselves by the Milky Way. In order to prove her point, she needed to be able to turn the stars on and off. Thus she obtained permission to deploy her beetles in the Johannesburg planetarium. With the "sky" darkened, the beetles went round in circles, but with the sky illuminated by stars, the beetles proceed nicely outward. One commentator remarked that dung beetles achieve a lot with minimal computing power in the brain. It is certainly interesting that this navigational skill is uniquely conferred upon a beetle. Scarab beetles are not exactly obscure insects. There are apparently about 30,000 species in the family, comprising about 10 per cent of all known beetles. The dung rollers were in former times venerated by the ancient Egyptians who compared the emergence of the young beetles from underground to the daily rising of the sun in the east. It is obvious, moreover, that these beetles are important contributors to a clean environment. By removing and burying dung they prevent disease-ridden insects from multiplying, and they also contribute to soil fertility. A project in Australia (1965-1985) involved the introduction of 23 species of dung beetles. There were native species already present, but they were unable to deal with the droppings of cattle, which have a different chemical consistency then the droppings of the native marsupials. This agricultural initiative resulted in improved fertility in pastures, and vastly reduced numbers of insect pests. But the scarab beetles are only one beetle family out of about 165 families. No doubt, the diversity of beetles and their interesting stories could fill many books. Other beetles The weevils (Curculionidae) are a very large family of usually small beetles (less than 6 mm or 1/4 inch long). Their distinctive feature is their long downward curving snout. The mouth parts at the tip are less elaborate than in many other groups. This does not prevent these beetles from damaging many crops. One of their infamous members is the cotton boll weevil. Others of the 60,000 species include those munching on nuts, fruits, stems and roots. The ground beetles (Carabidae) are another large and interesting group. Their claim to fame, besides their beautiful shiny black or metallic ridged hardened wings (elytra), is the pair of glands in the lower back of the abdomen. These glands produce nasty or even burning secretions guaranteed to make any creature threatening the beetle, extremely unhappy. Among the noxious products released by such insects are hydrocarbons, aldehydes, phenols, quinones, esters and acids. Among this infamous group we find the bombardier beetles which combine chemicals in a mixing chamber just prior to explosively releasing quinones at 100 degrees C along with a gas mixture. Most of these ground beetles live under bark of trees or under logs or rocks. Most are carnivores, eating any kind of invertebrate they can overpower. Because they eat many caterpillars which are plant pests, most ground beetles are fairly popular. Many of these beetles too, in former years, were prized by collectors because of their large size and showy color patterns. Many beetle families have unpopular representatives. The small darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) with about 20,000 species, are named for their plain dull bluish black or brown color. Their preferred diet is fresh and decaying vegetation. However some of them make a habit of exploiting processed grain products. This group includes the confused flour beetle, the red flour beetle and mealworms. Such spoilage of food has apparently long been a problem for human societies. May Berenbaum mentions (p. 144) that alabaster vases from Tutankhamen's tomb (dating from about 1350 B.C.) were found to contain Tribolium castaneum, the red flour beetle. Many people feed Tenebrio (mealworms) to various pets, but the mealworms living on their own, are bad news for stored grain products. The leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) include the Colorado potato beetle which has no trouble, once present in any numbers, in eating a potato plant completely to the ground. Another infamous member of this family is the flea beetle. These small dark beetles have very strong hind legs for jumping. Flea beetles are particularly enthusiastic about plants in the mustard of crucifer family. Cabbages, broccoli, cauliflower, radishes and the like are all fair game. And these beetles are a major economic concern on canola crops, also in the same plant family. Ladybugs One of the most delightful beetles however is the Coccinellidae family which includes ladybugs. These are predators of aphids and scale (bad plant pests) among other victims. We have only to consider the ladybugs to derive some appreciation of the diversity among beetles. Ladybugs are small, up to 10 mm long (0.4 inch). They are round, broadly oval or narrowly oval. They can be orange, red, yellow or black. The elytra is decorated with black spots, red spots, white spots or spots stretched into bars. The number of spots varies from 0, 2, 3, 7, 11, 13 or more. Over 5000 species are found worldwide and of these, there are about 450 species native to North America. Ladybugs and indeed all beetles, are wonderful examples of the richness and variety we see in nature. Beetles are quite plain in their basic organization. The amazing diversity in appearance as well as in lifestyle, tells us something about the Creator. God loves variety and He loves beauty! The fancy elaborations on the beetle theme in terms of talents and appearance, can only serve to increase our interest in the creation. Could the various ecosystems survive with plainer looking beetles? No doubt. But isn't it fun to be able to observe and enjoy beetles in all their vast variety? This first appeared in the June 2013 issue. ...

Economics, People we should know

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

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

Politics

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

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

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 28, 2026

Some good news about euthanasia Scotland has voted against euthanasia after looking at the horror happening in Canada. 1 in 5 Canadian employees works for the government and it's rising And that doesn't include all the time that private sector employees have to spend. Meanwhile the self-employed are dropping. Correlation doesn't prove causation but... Finnish parliamentarian convicted of hate speech for opposing homosexuality ...and the court ordered her book to be banned too. The astonishing "engineering" involved in childbirth (10-minute read) When a baby is born we think it is fearfully and wonderfully made, and that is certainly so. But we're just starting to learn about all that's going on in mom's body during childbirth... and it's amazing. Some of this was a bit above me, but I enjoyed reading it even just getting the gist. What a gist! What a Creator! Man most responsible for global population collapse has died Paul Ehrlich passed away this week at the age of 93. He spent his life scaring people into thinking our planet was going to be overpopulated, and millions and billions would consequently starve. He did such an effective job that our world is now in great danger of a demographic collapse, with countries globally no longer having enough babies born to replace the adults who are dying. Ehrlich is another example of how "Science" can be biased, and based on ideology, not reason or facts. Ehrlich was always wrong, but only people grounded in God's Word – where we learn that children are a blessing, not our doom – could have stood up against his hype and hysteria. Oh sure, eventually the research proved him wrong, but that took decades. Decades and decades of abortions, with millions dead. Only Christians, gifted with God's clear Word, could have known better. "Science" belittles the Bible, but the Bible was right and the world was wrong. And now Canada's birthrate is so low we would be shrinking, if not for immigration. This is the legacy of a man who was arrogant enough to go right up against God, took the world with him, and was disastrously wrong. Marx vs. Mises - the epic economic rap battle This is the most informative 8-minute overview of economics you'll ever see. And the most entertaining. There might be some terms and concepts that blow past you, but if so, rewind, and then do some digging. This isn't a Christian presentation, though it lines up well with God's Word... or at least far better than socialism. Marx pitches socialism as all about equality, but it is about class warfare (against the 5th commandment), about fostering envy (10th commandment), about the use of force to take what God has entrusted to others (8th), and ultimately about the arrogance to think central planners can be omniscient (1st commandment), knowing what everyone should be doing. Mises pitches individualism, which is often worshipped as a god too, but it doesn't have to be. We are part of groups – our country, the covenant Church, and our family, to name three, but we are individuals, too, and God has entrusted us individually with our own skills and resources, and tasked us, as individuals, to make the most of them (Matthew 25:14–30). And if we do not steal what others have, or covet it, then what results? The free market with its free exchanges. Adam Smith spoke of an "invisible hand" making things work as if by magic, getting fruits and milk and medicine to market without a central planner. As Christians we can recognize Whose hand that is – when we do economics the way God prescribes, the reason it works so well is just evidence of His love for us. ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

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

Contests

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

Past Contests

Assorted

Alice in Blunderland

Internet

Do we "like" sin?

Economics

Why family businesses still matter (and why the Church should care)

Science - Creation/Evolution

Do leaves die?

News

Saturday Selections – April 25, 2026

Apologetics 101, Pro-life - Abortion

Apologetics 101: Stay on message

Being the Church

Titus 2 young men are not boys

News

Saturday Selections – April 18, 2026

Culture Clashes

Which conspiracies are true?

Economics

The Parable of the Talents: the Bible and entrepreneurs

Marriage, Soup and Buns

Advice to new brides

Politics

Why I’m grateful for the notwithstanding clause

Book Reviews, Children’s fiction, Children’s picture books

The barber who wanted to pray

News

Saturday Selections – April 11, 2026

Theology

The beauty of 52 Sundays

Science - Creation/Evolution

6 days or 24 years: why does the difference even matter?

Theology

The pursuit of wisdom: do it ‘til you die

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – April 2026

News

Aussie senator shows us how to do it... and how not to do it

News

Saturday Selections – April 4, 2026

Assorted

When there is smoke…

Science - General

Wild about beetles

Economics, People we should know

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

Politics

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

News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 28, 2026