Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

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

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

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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

News

Saturday Selections – June 20, 2026

Calvin vs Arminius: the predestination rock battle

Though they never met in real life, what if John Calvin and Jacob Arminius would have gone head to head.... with a driving rock rhythm backing them? Thanks to AI, now we can know!

What Christians need to know about Islam and the Quran (10 minute read)

Muslims' sacred text has mistakes: "the Quran includes Mary in the Trinity (5:72–75; 116) and also confuses her with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (19:27–28)."

Inside the climate cult: former climate activist Lucy Biggers

Lucy Biggers helped get plastic straws banned, she interviewed Greta Thunberg, she pushed the Green New Deal, and she got 100 million views. I don't know if the former climate activist is now Christian but this interview highlights how secular ideology can blind people to reality – it can stop them from asking obvious questions.

A time to dance?

There's an old revealing joke about why Dutch Reformed folk are against premarital sex: "Because it might lead to dancing." Such was the opposition to dancing, more so in decades past, and still to a degree today.

And not without reason. What reason? Well, a lot of the dancing done then and now is, in a word, sleazy. Dance programs on TV feature men and women in revealing outfits, and trying out moves that are sexually charged – bedroom material put out for public consumption. So no wonder that some good godly Reformed parents and grandparents didn't want the next generation engaged in these kinds of contortions.

But is that what dancing has to be? No, it really doesn't. The Bible speaks specifically of how dancing can be done in God-honoring ways (2 Sam. 6:14, Ps. 149:3, Ps. 150:4, Eccl. 3:4). So there are both dances to avoid, and dances to embrace. And one good reason to dance is to teach young people rules of etiquette, like how a gentleman would approach the opposite sex and ask for a dance, and how a young lady might say yes to most such initial requests, but also feel very welcome to say no to a second. This would require some education and coaching – every kid is born knowing how to wag their booty – so if we're going to do this right and refined, they'll need to be taught.

5 myths about C.S. Lewis

Even when these myths get it wrong about Lewis, they are still interesting, like that he never read a newspaper because if anything important happened someone was bound to tell him. Turns out not to be true, but it did still highlight how Lewis wasn't a reactionary – very unlike today's hot take culture, he responded to trends that went back centuries, not seconds.

Something changed in 2010, and don't we all know it?

There might be some hype to this – this is one man's testimony and should be taken as that – but doesn't it match with your own experience? Don't you, as an adult, feel stupider than you used to, more distractible than you used to, less able to concentrate on the sermon than you used to be? It's worth noting too, that he attributes to evolution what we can attribute to God's intent – that we learn relationally.

I didn't post this to promote RP's July 13-22 screen-fast, but I can't help but mention it now. It's an opportunity to put away the tech for 10 days, if only to be able to assess its impact on you and your family.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – June 6, 2026

When a famous apologist dismisses the Bible... William Lane Craig is such an acclaimed apologist that many a conservative Christian has heard him praised. But when it comes to Craig's thoughts on the opening chapters of Genesis, Donall and Conall have some problems with him. Why wokeness is a Christian heresy "First... critical theory misunderstands who we are by assuming that the only relevant fact about us is where we fit within the various categories of oppression. We are the group we belong to, which serves a social role as either oppressor or oppressed. As such, this theory rejects any universals that unite humanity, including the image of God. "Second, the understanding of sin, or what’s wrong with the human condition, is limited to oppression. In this view, oppressors are guilty and the oppressed are innocent." Push for mandatory abortion for pregnant minors highlights what's going on behind the scenes One mistake frequently made in the abortion battle is that we forget what the other side wants. If we were debating Nazis, we wouldn't forget that they want to gas Jews. But when we discuss abortion, we regularly forget that the people we are talking to want babies murdered. We forget that the other side isn't just wrong, but is evil. I don't say that to foster hatred, or anger, but rather to highlight that this isn't some polite debate between two parties looking to each score their points. This is a spiritual battle that needs a spiritual response. We need to speak not just logic, but preach the gospel. When a monstrous wrong is called a right, people shouldn't get told to reconsider, but need to be called to repent. And if you have any doubts about the spiritual aspect of this battle, then read this article, where the evil is even more unvarnished, with a British Columbia (what is it about BC?) philosophy professor pushing for mandatory abortion for pregnant minors. Tim Challies: Go ahead, bring a knife to a gunfight "You may wish you had the sword of compelling argument, the rapier of sharp and thrusting wit, or the spear of the perfect put-down. However, God may not have gifted you in any of these ways. Yet there is always something you can do, and there is always some weapon you can wield. Don’t sit around pining for what you don’t have, but resolve to use what you do have...." End supply management – for the sake of Canadian consumers Why do Christians want a free market rather than socialism? Well, one good reason is, we know only God is omniscient, so the government simply doesn't have the capacity to know how much of everything should be produced, and who should get how much, and for what price. Meanwhile, Canada's supply management operates under just those presumptions. In the name of helping farmers, it limits what farmers can produce to deliberately drive up the price of their goods. And who pays that price? "According to a Fraser Institute estimate, supply management adds roughly $375 a year to the average Canadian household’s grocery bill. Because lower-income families spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, the burden falls most heavily on them." Another solid biblical reason to oppose socialism? We are called to "Do unto others as you would want done to you" (Luke 6:31). If it doesn't strike you as wrong that poor families are being forced to support farmers by being required to pay artificially higher prices, imagine if the same was happening to your own favorite goods: your car, your house, or your jeans. Have you thought about how helpful it would be for those goods' producers if they were making more money off of your purchases? So why not get the government to restrict production there too, so that prices will rise? Wouldn't such government intervention be good for every producer? So why not make it universal? Because it would hurt consumers enormously. And it would hurt producers too – anyone who had any inputs in their production process would be paying higher costs for everything, making their own goods less competitive on any international markets. It would hurt consumers and it would hurt productivity. So why would do we think it a good idea for eggs and dairy? A presuppositional rock song This could make a good final exam for our Christian schools – to graduate you must be able to understand and apply what this rock song is talking about. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – May 30, 2026

When John MacArthur visited a philosophy class In this clip John MacArthur starts off sounding quite arrogant – he says he sees everything clearly. but he isn't boasting about himself and his intellect. He's boasting about what he – and what we – have been given. And Christians should not be humble about the greatness of our God! "As a Christian, you and I share this in common: I see things clearly. I see the world clearly. In fact, I often wonder why I'm not on more programs giving the right answer to everything. It's all very clear to me. Everything is clear to me. I understand where the world came from, where it's going. I understand all of that. I understand why things happen the way they happen. I understand life and death and life after death and heaven and hell and morality and immorality. I understand it all. I understand why the world is the way it is. Why people act the way they act. Am I particularly intelligent? No. Am I particularly wise? No. I just have the mind of Christ here in this book." 4  reasons Christians should study evolution (10 minute read) "As a science teacher in Christian schools, I’ve noticed a predictable progression when students begin studying evolution. They start with a mocking attitude that 'evolution is stupid.' But when I present the details accurately, a bewildered hush falls over the class. Quizzical looks are followed by raised hands and vociferous objections. They sound betrayed. "Finally, as they discover biblical answers from the creation perspective, light bulbs turn on, and their perplexity is replaced with relief. They then are able to communicate their thoughts about origins more coherently and confidently. "We fall short if we tell Christian youth that the study of origins doesn’t matter or that it’s a side issue. We underestimate evolution’s threat to their faith..." What gives something value? As Christians we generally have a negative view of subjectivity – morality certainly isn't subjective. But whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is best certainly is. Marx thought that a product's value came from the workers and how much effort was putting into building something. That makes some intuitive sense, because things that take a lot of man-hours to build – like a house – are more expensive than things that take very little human labor, like, say, a candy bar. But products can take a lot of man-hours to produce and still have no value at all – think Google Glass, or that phone Amazon tried to market years back. These are products that had hundreds and maybe thousands of people involved in making them, but no one wanted them. Despite the many man-hours, they weren't worth a dime. So what makes something valuable is dependent on what people think about it. Bitcoin is an example, valuable because people say it is. And diamonds too. This is important because it highlights how markets – the free exchange of goods – help us figure out what people will value. And government interference with markets makes it much harder to know what people value. By way of example, a story is told of how the Soviet Union, for efficiency's sake produced right boots in one factory and left boots in another. But then, one day the right boot factory burnt down, forcing the left boot factory to offer pairs of two left boots. And you know what? Demand didn't drop. Because if your choice in a wintery climate is no boots at all, or two left boots, you'll go with two left boots. So, from the Soviet government's perspective, they'd have no feedback telling them that people actually hate their product. "Sales" would seem to show that it is still popular indeed. The documentary hypothesis – an attack on the books of Moses dismantled A friend who went to Calvin Seminary was taught there that the books of Moses might not be by Moses, and were instead by 4 others – this was known as the documentary hypothesis or the JEDP theory (each initial standing for one of those four "editors"). I don't know that this registered with him as an attack on the Bible – it might have seemed just trivia at the time. But those behind the theory didn't see the Bible as God's Word. They saw it as a work of men, revised, edited, corrected and reworked. Some years later that friend now doubts what the Bible says about homosexuality and I wonder if his slip into liberalism is connected with what he swallowed about Moses so many years ago – after all, if he believed the Bible was edited then, why couldn't he edit out the parts he doesn't like now? But the JEDP theory was always wrong, and has become all the more clearly so now. This isn't an article for everyone, but it caught my eye because of my friend, and because this is from the folks behind "The Patterns of Evidence" film series, and relates specifically to their documentary The Moses Controversy.  Math from a Christian worldview? "Math can be a challenging subject to teach from the Christian worldview. But consider looking at it through the framework of Truth, Hope, Identity and Calling." This three-page resource could be a help to any Christian math teacher you know... and intriguing to anyone who might be math-minded. What if the Bible was right about sex? Christians, we need to be bold about the truth God has entrusted to us in His Word. When it comes to sex, as this video shows, it can be as simple as pitching the fruit of the Bible's sexual ethic vs. the fruit of the sexual revolution.  ...

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

The day is not an age

Billions of years don’t fit with the Bible ***** When my daughter was young, I introduced her to sketching and how to use colored pencils to enhance her drawings. She continued to practice and develop her technique until now, as a young woman, her skill has far exceeded my ability to draw. After examining one of her drawings of a horse – so real that its muzzle looks soft to the touch – one would never believe that she just randomly chose a few colored pencils, blindly allowing them to contact the paper in random strokes. Yet, this is how some Christians attempt to reconcile the historical account of Creation, the world of order and beauty recorded in Genesis 1-2, and the “fact” claimed by secular scientists that everything in the world around us is the product of random processes, occurring without a plan, over a very long period of time. What if we stretch the days? There are good reasons to believe that God did create everything in six, literal 24-hour days (Gen. 1:1–31). However, some people feel the need to interpret each “day” in Genesis 1 as symbolic of millions or even billions of years, because Science tells us that the universe was created by the Big Bang, that the Solar System and our Earth formed out of the chaos of this unique explosion, and that all life came about through the random processes of Evolution. This attempt to reconcile the Bible with science is called the Day Age Theory because it posits that each “day” in Genesis 1 represents an ‘age’ that is millions or billions of years long. The problem with the Day Age Theory is that it contradicts the Biblical narrative. This theory assumes that the reigning cosmological theory for the origin and history of the universe – from the Big Bang to the evolution of all life on Earth – must be correct because it is proven by Science. However, the Day Age Theory does not reconcile scientific belief with the events described in Genesis 1 because the order of events in Big Bang cosmology are completely different from those given in the Bible. The Sun or Earth: which came first? Secular science says that the Sun came before the Earth, and the Bible says the opposite. So who are you going to believe? For example, Genesis asserts that: the Earth was formed (on Day 1) before the Sun and stars (Day 4), plants were formed (on Day 3) before the Sun (Day 4), and that birds were formed (on Day 5) before the land animals (Day 6). Secular scientists, on the other hand, claim that: over 4 billion years ago the Sun formed first from a collapsing solar nebula, followed by the planets, including Earth, plant life only began to colonize the land around 450 million years ago, and some land animals (i.e., dinosaurs) evolved from birds. The Day Age Theory is, therefore, entirely at odds with the Biblical account and so it does nothing to reconcile the historical account in Genesis with scientific opinion. History can be symbolic too because God writes it The Literary Framework Hypothesis dispenses with the need to harmonize the “facts” of scientific cosmology with the Biblical narrative by teaching that the Biblical account is not intended to be taken as a chronological history but as a figurative, poetic narrative that teaches that God is the creator of all things. This notion that the Biblical narrative is allegory or poetry stems from a perceived parallel structure between Days 1-3 and Days 4-6. Beginning with Genesis 1:2, which describes the cosmos as “formless and void,” this argument contends that Days 1-3 create the “form” and Days 4-6 fill the “void.” However, as Dr. Noel Weeks has pointed out, “even though there is no logical reason why the presence of a structure should prove that a passage is not to be taken literally, this idea seems to have great emotive appeal.” Just as the process of constructing a building follows an ordered process – site preparation, laying the foundation, erecting the framework, etc. – the process of creating the universe will also be structured and not chaotic. Therefore, the presence of a structure in the creation narrative actually supports the fact that this is a record of a real historical and creative event that occurred over six literal days. In addition, parallel literary structures are also found elsewhere in the Bible, such as in the historical narratives contained in Exodus and the gospel of Matthew. For example, in Matthew 2, Jesus took a journey into Egypt and was led back into Israel, fulfilling the prophesy that “out of Egypt I called my son,” which parallels the nation of Israel being led out of Egypt by the Spirit of God, with pillars of fire and smoke going before them (Ex. 13:17–22). Also, the people who came out of Egypt passed through the waters of the Red Sea (Ex. 14), which Paul describes as passing through the waters of baptism into Moses to be identified as God’s people (1 Cor. 10:1–4), parallels Jesus passing through the baptismal waters and being identified as God’s Son (Matt. 3:13–17). Many other parallels could be listed, making it evident that parallel structure in a narrative does not indicate that the text is allegorical. Rather, it demonstrates God’s involvement in history. As with the examples of historical parallels described above, historical events and objects may also have spiritual significance. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, points out the error of assuming that because something described in Scripture has spiritually symbolic significance it could not exist as a “visible and material object.” He writes: It is arbitrary to suppose that there could not have been a material paradise, just because it can be understood also in a spiritual significance… there was no rock from which water flowed when Moses struck it, just because it can be interpreted in a symbolic sense, as prefiguring Christ; which is how the same Apostle takes it when he says, ‘Now the rock was Christ’ .” In the same way, states Augustine, one may attribute symbolic significance to the Tree of Life (cf. Gen. 2:9, 3:33; Prov. 3:18; Rev. 2:7, 22:2) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil – even the entire garden paradise of Eden: “There is no prohibition against such exegesis,” says Augustine, “provided that we also believe in the truth of the story as a faithful record of historical fact.” Jesus taught that Genesis was literal The Bible clearly teaches that humans did not evolve but were created, first man and then woman. Dr. Weeks asserted that Genesis 1 is to be understood literally stating that “a number of passages which refer to the original creation of man and woman and their relationship may be considered together (Matt.19:4; 1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13–14). Note that the account is taken literally and made the basis of teaching on the relation of man and woman. Even if in only this point we take issue with evolutionary theory we find ourselves in complete antithesis to naturalistic evolution.” The gospels contain several examples of Jesus referring to the events recorded in Genesis as real history. When speaking of the prophets who had been martyred by the Jews, Jesus refers to Abel as the first martyr and Zechariah as the last (Luke 11:48–51, Matt. 23:49–51). In Matthew 19:5–6 (and Mark 10:7), Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 to clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman: “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Jesus uses the real history of Genesis to explain the basis of the marriage covenant. Finally, Jesus tells us that His return will bring judgement on everyone in the world in the same way God judged all people in Noah’s day. In Luke 17:26–27, Jesus says that “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all” (also Matt. 24:36–44). The world-wide flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 was a real event, and so Jesus expects his listeners to believe that the final judgement will be just as real. Still, some people are tempted to believe that God used millions of years to create because the Bible says that, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Pet. 3:8). However, we need to look at the context of this statement. The whole passage says, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Peter is not writing about long ages of creation but about the Lord’s willingness to wait patiently so that every person has an opportunity to repent and restore their relationship with God. Peter is repeating the same illustration that he used in his first letter where God waited patiently so that people would have every opportunity to repent and be saved “when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared” (1 Pet. 3:20). Even with the help of his sons and hired men, it would have taken Noah many years to build and provision a ship as large as the ark and so those aware of Noah’s project would have had a long time to come to repentance. In other words, God is more than willing to wait a long time so as not to lose anyone (Eze. 18:23). Gradualistic assumptions took hold While there were exceptions, in the late-seventeenth to mid-eighteenth centuries, scientists seemed to readily accept the Genesis account of a global flood, concluding that it was responsible for the Earth’s geology, including the creation of fossils. Grand Canyon formed gradually? If you assume that “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” then the Grand Canyon’s depth and size, and the small river running through it would all be evidence of it being formed over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But the Bible speaks of things being different in the past than they are today, with a worldwide Flood and its enormous volume of water able to carve out much more quickly what would take a small river eons to do. But by the end of the eighteenth century the majority of scientists began to favor a more “naturalistic” view of geology, no longer seeing a need for their ideas to fit with the Biblical account of Creation nor its account of watery catastrophe on a global scale. This naturalistic geology relied on slow and gradual processes, such as the laying down of layers of sediment to form layers of rock. Physician James Hutton, considered the father of contemporary geology, stated that the natural forces we observe shaping the Earth in the present also operated in the past, slowly and gradually over long periods of time. In his treatise on the subject, Theory of the Earth, Hutton says that “in examining things present, we have data from which to reason with regard to what has been..., therefore, we are to examine the construction of the present earth, in order to understand the natural operations of time past.” Hutton writes that such slow and gradual processes occurred on Earth “for millions of ages.” Hutton’s gradualist, or uniformitarian, views were later popularized by Charles Lyell in his three-volume work titled Principles of Geology. And it was the acceptance of slow and gradual geological processes that provided Charles Darwin with the long-ages required for his theory of biological Evolution, Origin of Species, published in 1859. This dramatic shift in scientific thought, currently held by many scientists today, was the antithesis of the Biblical account of Creation contained in Genesis 1. Thus, The Day Age Theory was invented in an attempt to reinterpret the days of Creation as symbolic of the “deep-time” required for the Big Bang and biological Evolution required by scientific thinking. God foreknew that people would invoke ideas like uniformitarianism to deny the historicity of the global Flood and bring doubt concerning the final judgement of the world: “Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (emphasis added; 2 Pet. 3:3–6). Thus, it should come as no surprise that, rejecting the Creation account in Genesis 1, scientists claim that the Universe formed 15 billion years ago after the Big Bang, and the geology of the Earth was formed by slow, gradual processes over millions of years, and that life evolved over millions of years. When we are encouraged by scientists to believe that the universe was created over billions of years, and that life evolved over millions of years, we are being asked to doubt God’s Word. Logically, once the beginning of the Bible is called into question, we will also begin to doubt everything else written in the Bible as well. Did God really say? Hearing ideas that may cause us to doubt God’s Word is not a new phenomenon; in fact, sowing seeds of doubt was the first ploy used by Satan to deceive humanity. It was not long after God created a world that was “very good” and placed the first couple in the Garden that Satan came along and tempted them to doubt God’s word. We read in Genesis 3:1 that “ said to the woman, ‘Did God really say....’” In this way Satan caused the woman to doubt God’s goodness, convincing her that God does not really mean what He says. Some people do not want to believe in a God Who will hold them to account for their thoughts and actions. They do not want to acknowledge that they are sinful – that they disobey God – and that the only way to restore a right relationship with God is through repentance and belief in Jesus, God’s Son, Who died to redeem them and was raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Nor do they want to believe that Jesus will come again to judge each one of us. As a result, they make up their own stories about how the world began so that they can write God out of history, pretending He does not exist. The apostle Paul wrote that some people would deny God and create their own stories: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). We are living in such a time and Big Bang cosmology and Evolution are those myths. When Satan uses the authority of science to cast doubt on God’s Word – “Did God really say...He created the heavens and the earth in six days?” – remember how Satan deceived Adam and the woman in the garden, which had devastating consequences. Dr. Mark Sandercock is a retired forensic chemist who worked for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the author of “Foundation: A Biblical Worldview.” This is an abridged extract from Chapter 4. His book is available on Amazon....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

“Transition” victims decry conversion therapy law

In early May, seven people hosted a press conference in Ottawa to express their concerns with Canada’s conversion therapy law. This law bans any practice, treatment, or service designed to help someone identify with the sex that God gave them – if, for example, a man feels effeminate, but wants help aligning his feelings with his male reality, this law bans professionals (including pastors) from helping him. But the group’s unspoken petition was to ban sex-denying medical interventions like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. Each of the seven took their turn at the microphone. Parent Jeff Evely shared how an Ontario hospital tried to surgically “transition” his teenage daughter without his consent. Scott Newgent shared her testimony of how these sex-denying interventions led to lifelong health challenges. Mia Hughes, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the Director of Genspect Canada, described the lack of evidence to support these medical practices. Kellie-Lynn Pirie, a detransitioner and founder of the DeTrans Alliance Canada, Dr. Ann Gillies, a former therapist, and Barry Neufeld, the former Chilliwack school trustee who was fined $750,000 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out against gender ideology, also offered brief remarks. But perhaps the most moving comments were offered by Faith Groleau, who shared her personal story of the dangers of ideological gender medicine. She described being born with a hole in her diaphragm that required extensive surgery as a newborn to fix. At the age of two, she was sexually assaulted. That assault broke her collarbone, reopened that diaphragmatic hole, and rammed much of her intestines further up into her chest cavity. These internal wounds, misdiagnosed as mere asthma, also left her in poor emotional and mental health. Eventually, the same hospital that provided the life-saving surgery as a baby suggested sex-denying interventions as the fix. “A pediatrician overrode a psychiatric diagnosis – several of them,” she explained, to clear her for sex-denying hormones and surgeries. “Instead of assessing my mental health thoroughly, they decided to assume in the emergency room that my suicidal ideation came from the gender confusion. It did not. It was already there long before.” And yet, the medical professionals used this fiction to fast-track sex-denying interventions, giving her cross-sex hormones at the age of 16 and approving her for top surgery at 18. “Everything that had happened to me was wrong and had nothing to do with evidence-based medicine,” she accused. (You can hear both fury and sorrow in her voice during the entirety of her remarks.) “I was experimented on. I was not told they were experimental. I was told it was medicine and that it would help. And it did none of that. It gave me complications that the doctors ignored or would treat as separate illnesses. It made my already pre-existing mental health worse. And my physical health continued to deteriorate.” “These people do not know what they are signing up for because they are children,” she continued. “I was a child. I wanted help. That’s all I wanted. I did not need to be medicalized. I did not need to be cut up. I did not need to be drugged. I just wanted to be loved the way I was.” Faith didn’t further explain what she meant by “the way I was.” But for orthodox Christians, her identity is obvious. God created her as a female, just as He creates every person to be a member of one of two sexes. Whenever someone is confused about their identity as a man or a woman, they don’t need to be “medicalized,” “cut up,” or “drugged.” They need to be counseled that they are wonderfully made in the image of God and to embrace their God-given identity as male and female. Yet these are truths denied by conversion therapy bans across the country and the practice of sex-denying medical interventions. While no explicitly Christian perspective was offered at this press conference, all seven took a stand against harmful conversion therapy bans and sex-denying medical interventions....

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

Perfect planet

It all had to be just right for life on Earth to survive and thrive ***** In our garden is a plum tree. Now this may not sound unusual except that stone fruit trees, like plums, do not grow well on the northern prairie. The cold winter winds can dry out the delicate branches of the plum, killing it. Yet our plum tree thrives. And it is growing larger and producing more delicious purple plums each summer. So why is it not just surviving, but thriving? Because it is planted in just the right spot; close to the house and a garden shed where these two buildings shield it from the brunt of the west and north winter winds. Conversely, in the summer the tree has good exposure to the east and south, providing it with enough sunlight and warmth to ripen the plums by the end of August. Perfectly planted planet Earth is like our plum tree, thriving because it has been placed with care. In fact, everything in the universe evidences the design of a careful Creator. Nobel Prize-winning professor of physics Charles Townes, in his 2003 article, “The convergence of science and religion,” asserted that, “we are here only because the laws of physics have certain particular values.” Townes recognized that these carefully balanced laws of physics, which “may be associated with intelligent planning,” are the reason life exists. In order for our Sun or other stable stars to exist “the properties of nuclear reaction and gravitation must be just right,” wrote Townes. This is because over-abundant nuclear reactions in the Sun would cause it to expand and eventually explode, while it would be inherently unstable if its gravity was even a little too strong. The composition of the elements available on Earth is also fine-tuned. According to Townes, the approximately 100 different chemical elements on earth – including carbon and oxygen on which life is based – could only exist if the electrical and nuclear forces were “just right and balanced.” Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle was impressed by the existence of these finely-tuned laws of physics. Even though he was a religious skeptic, Hoyle recognized that: “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. …he facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” God placed planet Earth in exactly the right spot for life to not just exist, but to thrive. In their book The Grand Design, renowned physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow gave three important reasons why Earth has the right temperature for life to exist: Earth orbits only one star, not two or more. About half of the known star systems are binary (two stars). If a planet were in a stable orbit in a binary star system it would be either too hot or too cold to sustain life; Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. “Eccentricity” is a measure of how elliptical or oval an orbit is. An eccentricity of zero will result in a perfectly circular orbit and an eccentricity of one will be an elliptical orbit resembling a very squashed circle. With an eccentricity of 2%, Earth’s orbit is very nearly circular which keeps our planet’s temperature relatively stable throughout the year. In contrast to Earth’s orbit, Mercury’s orbit has an eccentricity of 20%, causing temperature swings of 93°C as Mercury orbits the Sun. Our Sun is just the right size, and Earth is just the right distance from it for the Earth to have a temperature at which liquid water may exist throughout the year. The size of a star dictates the amount of energy it gives off, and if the Sun were just 20% larger, Earth would be as hot as Venus (464°C), and if just 20% smaller, Earth would be as cold as Mars (-64°C). “Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars." It all had to come together Our blue and green planet is unique in many other ways that make it habitable. 1. A magnetic field For example, neither Mars nor the Moon has a global magnetic field, whereas Earth does. Earth’s magnetic field extends out into space, protecting our world from the solar wind – that stream of charged particles released by the Sun. Without this magnetic field shielding our planet, the constant solar wind bombardment would strip away our atmosphere until our Earth became like the Moon or Mars. 2. Right rotation In addition, the Earth rotates on its axis fast enough and at a sufficient angle of inclination to regulate the temperature across the globe so that it doesn’t get too hot nor too cold. These temperature differences provide us with seasons, but also generate ocean currents that redistribute heat and important nutrients. 3. Moon of right size and location Our moon is also the right size and distance from the Earth to allow its gravity to moderate the ocean tides. Tidal action is not just important for mixing of ocean waters along coastlines, is also vital for the mixing of deep ocean water, the circulation of which allows the exchange of a wide variety of substances between it and the atmosphere. This action is essential to the overall maintenance of the climate system as heat, fresh water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients are redistributed. The Moon also stabilizes the degree of tilt of the Earth’s axis. Without our moon, large variations in the tilt of the Earth’s axis would result, driving cataclysmic changes to our world’s climate. 4. Stable Sun In their article “How special is the Solar system?” astrophysicist Martin Beer and colleagues reluctantly accepted that our solar system is atypical and there is the possibility “that none of the observed planetary systems is likely to harbor an Earth-like planet.” Not only is our solar system rare in that it has only one star, our Sun is in the top 10% of star outputs and its output is incredibly stable compared with other stars of similar magnitude – important factors in making our solar system a perfect place for life on Earth. 5. Goldilocks zone Ever since Isaac Newton first recognized in 1725 that Earth is the only planet in our solar system on which liquid water could exist, scientists have acknowledged that the range of distances from the Sun suitable for sustaining life is very narrow. In Strategies for the Search for Life in the Universe, professor of astronomy, and expert on solar systems, Tobias Owen declared that “in our solar system we have a situation that might be described as Goldilocks and the three planets – Venus is too hot, Mars is too cold, and Earth is just right!” The “habitable zone” occupied by Earth is now popularly described as the “Goldilocks Zone” because it is “just right” for life. Scientists have noted that the temperature of a planet directly affects the interaction between oceans and atmosphere, an interaction that is critical for maintaining a planet’s long-term suitability for life. When oceans interact with carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, a planet that is too cold will become even colder as more and more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans, eventually causing the planet to cool and the oceans to freeze. Conversely, a planet that is too warm will become even hotter as greater amounts of CO2 are released from the oceans into the atmosphere, raising the planet’s temperature due to the greenhouse effect, and eventually rendering it too hot to sustain life. Our Earth is perfectly situated to keep this interaction between oceans and atmosphere correctly balanced. 6. O2 needs to be OK We know that much more than the mere presence of liquid water is required to make Earth habitable. For example, a planet must also have sufficient gravity – but not too much – to retain its atmosphere. “Without our Moon, large variations in the tilt of the Earth’s axis would result, driving cataclysmic changes to our world’s climate.” One interesting fact about our atmosphere is that the oxygen level is exactly what we need for respiration, which supplies the correct amount of oxygen to our brain and organs. Too much or too little oxygen in the atmosphere will have a negative impact on human life, which is finely tuned to an atmospheric concentration of 21% oxygen. The amount of oxygen in our atmosphere is also the right amount needed for humans to work with metals. God gave us the ability to work with metals (Genesis 4:22), which requires heating ore, metals, and alloys with fire. Too much oxygen and fire will burn hotter and the flame will also spread much more rapidly, giving less control over combustion. Too little oxygen and combustion would not be a self-sustaining chemical reaction and the fire would go out shortly after the fuel is ignited. God created Earth as a place for humans to thrive (Ps. 115:16), and so He created our world, including the atmosphere, to be perfectly suited to both human life and human activity. The presence of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere is important not only for respiration but also for oxygen-based chemical reactions which are essential for the existence of life. Professor of physiology Kenneth Olson explained that the vast majority of these chemical reactions “are driven by energy from the Sun; plants capture solar energy to oxidize water to oxygen and reduce carbon dioxide to simple sugars and other compounds while animals reverse the process, obtaining their energy by reducing oxygen to water and oxidizing sugars to carbon dioxide.” Evolution chicken-egg problem Atmospheric oxygen is also necessary to create ozone (O3), which provides an effective screen to shield the Earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, notes Olsen, according to Evolutionary theory, “in the prebiotic world there was neither photosynthesis nor oxygen and life had to take its origin elsewhere,” such as sulfur-rich hydrothermal ocean vents. The problem with Evolutionary theory is that, without oxygen, there would be no protective layer of ozone and so any prebiotic life that did evolve would be bombarded by ultraviolet radiation and destroyed. The fact that our Earth’s atmosphere is oxygenated requires secular scientists to come up with a pathway to get from a prebiotic world without oxygen to the current world of complex life that utilizes oxygen. Many scientists now propose that oxygen-producing photosynthesis first evolved in cyanobacteria – algae – causing oxygen to be introduced into the atmosphere during what they call the Great Oxygenation Event. However, some scientists have pointed out that the presence of any oxygen in the atmosphere would be lethal to emerging life, including the developing algae. Why? Because oxygen is very reactive and will damage DNA and cell proteins, breaking them down. In the beginning, God created living organisms with enzymes that dispose of damaging oxygen as it enters their cells… but life emerging via Evolution would not have had sufficient time to develop these complex enzymes yet. Others explain away this difficulty by claiming that early life first developed mechanisms to deal with various reactive sulfur compounds which, with the appearance of oxygen, were then “tweaked” via evolutionary processes to deal with the presence of oxygen. Once levels of oxygen in the atmosphere increased, secular scientists suggest that more complex organisms must have co-evolved numerous mechanisms to protect themselves from reactive oxygen compounds that would literally bleach the organisms’ proteins and DNA. However, these hypotheses fail to explain how early life survived long enough to develop mechanisms to deal with reactive sulfur compounds in the pre-oxygenated world in the same way that they fail to explain how an organism could survive the rapid damage caused by oxygen long enough for any “tweaking” to take place by the very slow evolutionary processes of mutation and natural selection. The dilemma for scientists promoting Evolution is striking: on the one hand, oxygen forms highly reactive compounds that are destructive to biological life, while on the other hand, scientists contend that complex life could not have evolved without oxygen. Only some of what all needed to happen So, what are the requirements for Earth to be habitable? We’ve hardly named them all, but here’s just some of them: · right planet size, · only one Sun that is stable and the right size, · right distance from the Sun, · a circular not elliptic orbit, · the presence of a Moon of just the right size, · an inclined rotational axis, · a strong magnetic field, · the presence of certain elements in the right proportions – including an oxygen atmosphere of the correct composition, · and a large amount of liquid water. God made our planet perfectly suited to be inhabited (Is. 45:18) and for this He should be praised (Ps. 104:24, Ps. 111:2–4)! Dr. Mark Sandercock is a retired forensic chemist who worked for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is the author of “Foundation: A Biblical Worldview.” This is an abridged extract from Chapter 5. His book is available on Amazon.ca and Amazon.com....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – May 16, 2026

Athanasius vs. Arius, the rap battle Athanasius offers up a hard-rocking right.... "I've never seen a problem so solvable!" – parents hold the key to their kids' literacy Between a fifth and a third of Canadian adults struggle with basic literacy – the reading level that allows you to fill out a job application. So what's to be done? The head of Indigo Canada wants parents to keep their kids away from screens. Making the case for a 6-day creation to seminary students Creation Ministry International – the folks behind Creation.com, one of the world's top creationist websites – is crafting a video course specifically intended for seminary students. They want to reach the next generation of pastors to challenge and encourage them to trust God's Word from the very first chapter of the Bible. Why do 60% of US youth say they prefer socialism? ...because they've forgotten the lessons learned from the past. And because the Church isn't teaching them the same lessons from God's Word. Ben Sasse shows us the difference between dying with dignity and “death with dignity” Ben Sasse is dying publicly, to the glory of our God, using the little time he has left to speak of the comfort he has in his Redeemer. And as James Wood put it: "In a culture that kills to avoid hardship and hides death to avoid reckoning, a man dying well on high-profile platforms is a subtly radical act. He is, without quite saying so, making an argument for life – for its dignity, its giftedness, its meaning even at the last." Do we have it worse than our parents and grandparents? John Stossel notes that in the 1950s homes were smaller, cars were a lot less nice, and we didn't live nearly as long. It is important for Christians to be able to count our blessings – one of the sins of Israel was forgetting how God had blessed them (Ps. 106:7,13,21-22) – and it is one of the tricks of the Devil to have us be ungrateful. Being grateful doesn't mean we have to view the present with rose-colored glasses and go all Pollyanna on today's problems. Inflation has made food more expensive. Homes are more expensive than they were 10 years ago. But let's not let ingratitude blind us to how God continues to provide for us and our church communities too. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
In a Nutshell

Tidbits – May 2026

On logic Sherlock Holmes and his faithful companion Dr. Watson once went on a camping trip. Some hours after they lay down for the night and went to sleep Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars." "What does that tell you?" Holmes asked. Watson pondered for a minute – accompanying Holmes for years had given him countless opportunities to see the power of careful observations, and, as he was no intellectual slouch himself, he thought now might be a good opportunity to put his own keen observational abilities on display. "Well, Holmes, astronomically speaking it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you, Holmes?" "It tells me, Watson, that someone has stolen our tent!" Source: Adapted from a joke making its way around the Internet Simply and truly... There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of "Amazing" when he was born. They gave him the name in the hopes that he would live up to it and achieve great things. But as far as most people were concerned, Amazing never seemed to do anything to live up to his name. He never even got far from where he was born. He worked in the family business, and had some limited – one might even say quite normal or ordinary – success and married his high school sweetheart. While she thought him quite extraordinary, no one else did, and his name left him as the unfortunate butt of countless jokes. These jokes so bothered him that he told his wife that when he died he didn't even want his name put on his tombstone; maybe then the jokes would stop. Well, when Amazing did finally die, his wife honored his request. But she also wanted to have people finally understand how extraordinary her husband had been. So in place of his name she had this inscription placed on the tombstone: "Here lies a man who was loving and faithful to his wife for 60 years."  And now, whenever people walk by, they point and say, "Well, isn't that Amazing!" Source: A joke passed along by my father-in-law Do you like being corrected? David did. We're supposed to love correction. Not throw a fit in response to it, or even stoically accept it. No, we're supposed to love it. Proverbs 9:8 is just one of the texts where God makes this point: Don’t reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. God tells us that reproof is, in fact, a sign that He loves us: "whom the Lord loves, he chastens, And scourges every son whom he receives" (Heb. 12:6). This verse makes good sense to any parent – it's a lot easier to not discipline our kids, to just let it go this time (and the next, and the time after that) but if we love them, then we want to teach them what's wrong and right, and that will necessarily involve reproof of some sort. Still, "love correction" is a hard command to follow, so it struck me when I came across King David's response to the prophet Nathan's rebuke. As you'll recall, Nathan came to David after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba, and murdered her husband to cover it up (2 Samuel 11-12). Nathan came with condemnation, and a curse. Though David confessed his guilt, Nathan informed the king that the LORD would kill the child that he had conceived with Bathsheba. And the child did die. We would all understand it if David didn't think all that kindly of Nathan after that. But, despite his great sins, David was still a man of God, and he shows this in his response to Nathan's reproof. In 1 Chronicles 3:5 we read that, of the four sons David had with Bathsheba, one was named Nathan! Here, then, is a man who was reproved, and seems to have loved the messenger who brought him that correction. The next time you’re grumpy… I saw this four-step cheer-yourself-up process on my sister-in-law’s social media feed and had to try it out. And it worked! Whisper “beep boop” to yourself. Repeat randomly over the next couple minutes Pinch your nose and say “sneep snop” Nose pinched, say “boopdedoop” in a really deep voice Nose still pinched, say “bubbles” in the angriest voice you can Give it a go and let me know if you find it effective too (the fourth one really gets me). But why does it work? The world often acts as if emotions control us, but God talks about self-control as being a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). There’s a sense too, in what God tells us, of emotions being actions we can do. So we might not be called to feel happy, but we are commanded to rejoice always (Phil. 4:4), and rejoicing is something we can express no matter how we might feel. This involves a person trying to actually control their emotions. And because the attempt is something that lines right up with God’s commands, the fruit that results is good. God’s love comes out in His commandments, such that obeying God is good for us. What is the purpose of your home? Some years back Rev. Peter Moelker wrote a head-clearing piece titled "My home, my idol?" in Faith in Focus. He asked Christians to give their head a shake and really think about why we buy, renovate, paint, scrub, tidy, dust, vacuum and have our homes: "Have you ever sat back and asked yourself the question: 'what is my home really for?' What is its purpose? A place to store our stuff? A museum to be shown to select guests? A fast-food restaurant to prepare quick meals for those who hurriedly pass through? What is the purpose of my home? The Bible tells us that our homes are to be places where children are instructed in the Law of the Lord (Deut. 6:7, 11:19), where the righteous experience the Lord’s blessing (Prov. 3:33), where Christians fellowship and worship God together (Acts 2:46), and where others are invited in to enjoy that same blessing of the Lord (Acts 16:15, 18:26, Romans 12:13, 16:23, 1 Peter 4:9, 3 John 1:8)." We might be embarrassed to have guests over when our home isn't pristine and smelling of lemon-scented Mr. Clean, or when we're having some problems with the night's menu. But if we realize the purpose of our home is for it to be used to the glory of God, rather than presented at its best for our own glory we'll have the proper perspective and not sweat such little stuff. Sola Opus Dei "I guess you could say we’ve been saved by works. His.” - Shai Linne, "Active Obedience" from his album Lyrical Theology Part One Why God can't make a square circle Here’s a trick question atheists pose: "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" If Christians answer yes, then God must not be all-powerful since He can't lift the rock. And if we say no, then it again calls into question God's omnipotence – He must not be all-powerful, because it isn't within His powers to make such a rock. But the question misunderstands what Christians are saying about God when we talk about God's omnipotence. While we claim it is within His power to do anything, we aren't saying it is within His character. There are, in fact, many things God cannot do, because to do them would violate His own character. For example, God is eternal, so He cannot cease to be. He also cannot lie, and cannot abandon His elect. And, for the very same reason – because it would violate His character – He cannot make a rock so big He can't lift it (or make a square circle, or homosexual marriage, etc.). God's character is the very basis for reason and logic, and He will not do anything that would violate the essence of Who He is. Diversity by Rob Slane Up is like down when left is like right Cold may be hot when the day is like night The cat and the dog are the same only when The men are like women and the women like men Celebrate diversity for sure, but recall That small really is small and tall really is tall Calling smiling a frown will not make it a frown Up really is up and down really down Updating a "classic" Have you noticed how grim many nursery rhymes are? Jack goes up a hill to get water and ends up cracking his head, while precariously perched Humpty Dumpty breaks his whole body... irreparably. Years back, I decided I absolutely had to draw the line when I made the mistake of reading "rock-a-bye baby" as a goodnight story to my two-year-old. I quickly made a last-line revision that would be far more conducive to my toddler having a restful – nightmare-free – sleep. This is how my version goes: Rock-a-bye baby, on the treetop, When the wind blows, the cradle will rock, If the bough breaks, the cradle will fall, And Daddy will catch them, cradle and all. On patience “Patience is a quality you admire in the driver behind you, and scorn in the one ahead." “Living would be easier if men showed as much patience at home as they do when they’re fishing.” Source: God’s little instruction book Man vs. beast "...our best moralists tell us to treat other animals well – never dreaming of telling the animals to treat us well!" – C. John Collins explaining how even those who say we came from the animals can't help but acknowledge how distinct we are from them. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Stood strong against the tide of liberalism engulfing the Church ***** One of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century was an American Presbyterian named John Gresham Machen. More than any other individual in the English-speaking world, Machen led the intellectual defense of Biblical Christianity against the attacks of theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Machen was among the top-ranked Biblical scholars of his generation, and he was the point man for conservative Protestantism when it looked like believing the Bible was no longer going to be plausible for educated people. Started OPC & WTS Among Machen’s achievements was the founding of three notable institutions: Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All three of these institutions continue to exist today. One of the most recent biographies of Machen is J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought by Stephen J. Nichols. Nichols recounts Machen’s life and also describes the significance of his books. Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1881. His father was a successful lawyer and his mother came from a well-to-do family in Georgia. She was a staunch Presbyterian and raised her son to love the Bible. He did very well at school and ended up attending Johns Hopkins University. Subsequently he decided to do graduate studies at Princeton University while taking some divinity courses at Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS). It’s important to note the historical significance of PTS. That seminary was the leading conservative Protestant seminary in the English-speaking world from about the mid-1800s until 1929 (when it would be taken over by theological liberals). In the latter part of the nineteenth century and initial part of the twentieth century, the best known of the Princeton theologians was Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield the leading defender of Biblical Christianity in his day. Warfield would have a strong influence over Machen, and the two became friends. In the lion's den If this short article has whetted your appetite to learn more about J. Gresham Machen, you'll be interested to know there is a 41-page biography by John Piper available online, for free. Gresham's biography is packaged with 2 others, about John Owen and Athanasius, in Piper's Contending For Our All. A free pdf copy of the book can be downloaded here. During the 1905-1906 academic year, Machen studied in Germany under Wilhelm Herrmann, an influential and articulate theological liberal, who argued, among other things, that it wasn't even vital whether Jesus really lived. Machen’s conservative views were severely challenged at this time, but ultimately he was able to resist Herrmann’s sinister theological perspective. After returning to America, Machen became a professor at PTS, teaching the New Testament. He was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or PCUSA in 1914. When the United States finally entered World War One in 1917, Machen volunteered to serve in France with the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), where he would operate a canteen, serving refreshments to French and American soldiers on the front line. Although he didn’t engage in combat himself, he saw the fighting and its effects first hand. You can’t split a rotten church During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the insidious tentacles of theological liberalism were rapidly spreading among the Protestant churches of North America, turning people away from belief in the Bible as a supernatural revelation from God. The stage was being set for a showdown between orthodox believers and the adherents of fashionable unbelief. Machen discussed with B.B. Warfield the possibility of a split in the PCUSA that would separate real Christians from the theological liberals. But as Nichols records, Warfield, seeing the widespread success of liberalism among the leadership of the PCUSA, famously replied, “No, you can’t split rotten wood.” In 1921 Warfield died, and with him (in the estimate of many people) Old Princeton also died as the stalwart defender of theological conservatism. Soon the pack of liberal wolves (in sheep’s clothing, of course) would seize control of the seminary and place it in the service of unbelief. On a more positive note, Machen’s first book entitled The Origin of Paul’s Religion was published in 1921. In each of his books Machen would defend historic, orthodox Christian beliefs against the rising tide of liberalism. Theological liberalism, as Nichols helpfully summarizes it, takes “as a starting point the position that the Bible is not a divinely inspired book, but a human one, deriving from a religious community and traced with legend and myth.” Machen had a thorough knowledge of the current scholarship on the apostle Paul and was able to defend genuine Christianity against its challengers. Christianity and Liberalism Besides being a theology professor and author, Machen was becoming increasingly popular as a speaker at various Christian events. In the theological battle between conservatism and liberalism, Machen was beginning to take center stage as the conservative champion in the academic field. In 1923, his book New Testament Greek for Beginners (a text for learning Biblical Greek) appeared to wide acclaim. It’s still in use today. But it was another of his books published in 1923 that would become his most important: Christianity and Liberalism. “With this book,” Nichols writes, “Machen emerged as the singular spokesperson for the rigorous defense of orthodox Christianity in response to the challenge of liberalism.” It became a classic, clearly demonstrating that historic Christianity and theological liberalism are, in fact, two entirely different religions. Due to his efforts in defense of the truth, Machen received the support and accolades of fellow believers. From some of those on the other side, however, Machen received hate mail. According to Nichols, one liberal sent him a letter addressed to “Prof. of Bigotry” that referred to his “miserable theology” and instructed him to “learn to be a Christian or else get out.” The fall of Princeton Seminary As time went on, momentum was clearly on the side of the liberals within the PCUSA, and in 1929 they managed to “reorganize” the governing board of Princeton in such a way as to give control to liberals. Nichols states that with this development, Machen “was left no real choice but to resign.” As a result, with a small band of supporters he founded Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) in Philadelphia in 1929, with the intent to recreate a seminary in the image of Old Princeton. Among others who left PTS to join with Machen in this endeavor were Cornelius Van Til and John Murray. Some PTS board members also resigned in order to be on the board of WTS, including Samuel Craig, the founder of Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (or, as it is more commonly known today, P&R Publishing) In 1930 Machen produced another significant book, The Virgin Birth of Christ. Liberals, of course, denied that Christ had been born of a virgin because they were unwilling to believe the miracles recorded in the Bible. Nichols writes that this book became “the standard scholarly defense of this crucial, orthodox doctrine for decades to come.” The final battle A decisive showdown between conservatives and liberals in the PCUSA finally occurred in the mid-1930s. In 1933 the PCUSA (along with six other denominations) released an official report entitled Re-Thinking Missions. It “advocated a paradigm shift in missions premised on the notion that Christianity is not the exclusively true religion.” This was the liberal view: Christianity should accommodate people of other religions rather than proselytize them. A battle within the PCUSA ensued between conservatives (led by Machen) who believed that Christianity is the one true religion, and the liberals who were religious pluralists. To make a long story short, the liberals won. In response, Machen founded the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM) so that conservative Presbyterians could give money to missionaries who believed in evangelizing non-Christians. Having a missions board that is not under the authority of the church is not the Biblical ideal, of course, but the intent was good. However, the General Assembly of the PCUSA declared the IBFPM to be unconstitutional and proceeded to discipline its supporters. Nichols notes, On March 29, 1935, making front-page news in The New York Times – "Presbytery to Try Machen as Rebel," ran the headline—Machen was officially defrocked and stripped of his credentials. Machen appealed this decision but his appeal was rejected by the General Assembly in 1936. Then in June 1936, Machen and his supporters founded the Presbyterian Church in America. In 1939 its name was changed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) due to a lawsuit filed by the PCUSA. Machen had a lot of work on his hands as the leading figure of both WTS and the OPC. He was becoming worn out and exhausted. Then in December 1936 he took a train out to North Dakota to help a struggling congregation there. He caught pneumonia and died on January 1, 1937. His death was a tragic loss for the cause of truth. But he had fought a good fight and left numerous books that would help to strengthen believers in their faith. He also left the institutions he founded that would continue to maintain a testimony against theological liberalism. Conclusion Gresham Machen was widely recognized as one of the greatest Christian scholars of his generation. He used his God-given talents, education and social standing to uphold Biblical Christianity in the face of unrelenting attacks from theological liberals who sought to undermine the faith. Machen was the conservative scholar of highest standing in this struggle, and his efforts encouraged many Christians to stand fast for orthodoxy. Of course, Biblical Christianity would have survived even without Machen, but he demonstrated that genuine Biblical scholarship supported the truth of the Bible. The conflict wasn't between educated, intelligent liberals and uneducated, ignorant conservatives as some believed. The liberal scholars could not refute Machen's work. Christians did not need to fear that their religion was being disproven by modern scientific discoveries, as the liberals alleged. In his own way, Machen lifted high the standard of orthodox Christianity, providing a rallying point for those who continued to believe the historic faith. The tide of opinion in his day swirled furiously against Biblical Christianity, but he was a rock against which the waves of unbelief harmlessly broke....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Radicalized and Reformed? Someone we know tried to kill the president.

The news traveled in Reformed circles like wildfire on a Saturday evening: the young man who tried to kill President Trump and members of his cabinet was one of our own. 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, who traveled across the country by train from California to Washington DC with a plan to murder dozens, was a long-time member of Grace United Reformed Church in Torrance, California. How could a young man raised in the church and living under his parents’ roof have become so radicalized that he would attempt such a heinous, violent crime?  Allen’s written manifesto, sent out to family members and friends moments before his attack, gives some clues of what type of news and opinions he had been consuming: “I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” National Public Radio reported on statements Allen’s sister made to the Secret Service and Montgomery County police. She said he was involved with a “No Kings” anti-Trump protest recently, and was influenced by a group called “The Wide Awakes,” a self-described “open source network who radically reimagine the future… Disruptive, visionary, accountable… We believe liberation is a game and all of us can play now and forever.” It should be noted, however, that “The Wide Awakes” also declare that “we can emancipate ourselves without violence.” No doubt we will learn more about the type of influences that radicalized Allen as he stands trial on two charges related to the assassination attempt. We can wonder how someone who sat under faithful preaching of the Gospel could ignore all the teachings of the Bible and turn to violence and hatred. Because Allen seemed to believe terrible things about President Trump and members of his cabinet, he apparently thought he needed to take justice into his own hands, without a trial, without a judge or jury. From his manifesto: “Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.” Today’s social media and online world is full of conspiracies, outright lies, and malignant forces. Algorithms are designed to feed us more and more of whatever we’ve shown an interest in, and we may find ourselves over time believing the lie instead of the truth. May we guard our hearts and minds, and those of our children, and look for ways to encourage others in our church family to free themselves from harmful influences. Photo of Cole Allen is from an April 25 post to TruthSocial.com/@realDonaldTrumpDonald, the US president’s own Truth Social account....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one word: lust. As far as it goes, this is true. But we need to get behind that word, so to speak, to find out what we actually mean by it. A good place to start is by studying the words of James in his Epistle: “From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? You lust and have not. You kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain. You fight and war, yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:1-3). I have highlighted out three phrases here, because it seems to me that they are key to understanding lust (and incidentally not just lust, but all sorts of other sins that James alludes to). Now, I don’t always use the King James Version but did here, because it uses the word “lust” where other translations use “passions” or “desires.” “Lust” gives the better flavoring here, because while desires and passions can be both good or bad, lust is what happens when passions and desires go awry, which is what is happening here. Lust, according to James, is at root a desire to have something that we haven’t got and which isn’t rightfully ours, to seek to obtain it but always fall wide of the mark, and consequently to fail to be satisfied. It is a vicious circle in which failure to obtain the satisfaction we desire drives us to seek it again in other places. This, by the way, at least partly explains why pornography, as with drugs, is often a gateway habit, with users going on to seek harder and harder stuff in order to be satisfied. But of course true satisfaction never comes. Sexual desire isn’t bad, until porn twists it Like all other vices, pornography is driven by the twisting of good and noble inclinations in a direction to which they were never meant to go. Pardon the pun, but there are no “original sins.” There is “Original Sin,” but there are no “original sins” in the sense of actions that are entirely thought up by the devil or by man with no reference to God. Rather, all sins are perversions and mockeries of something good that God has given to man. Imagine a father who buys his son a toy drum, only to later find him using the stick to whack his little sister. The stick was meant to be whacked. It was meant to beat something. But it wasn’t meant to beat people. And so, although some of the actions involved are nearly identical to what the stick was meant to be used for, in his mind and in his actions he has twisted it out of all recognition so that it is now actively used for vastly different purposes than the one intended. This is how pornography works. God has given us the good and noble inclination to want to be satisfied. Physiologically, he has given most of us the good and noble need to be sexually satisfied. Why do I call it good and noble? Because it is the consummation of and the most intimate part of the marriage relationship, which the writer to the Hebrews tells us is honorable (Hebrews 13:4). And without it, humanity would die. What pornography does it to take this God-given desire for satisfaction, and the physiological need for fulfillment, and wrench it out of all recognition, fixing the gaze on another object than the one intended. Twisted, it can’t satisfy Yet the irony is that by using the gifts that God has given us for entirely different and incompatible purposes than the ones intended, we find that fulfillment eludes. If the sexual drive was created to lead us towards intimacy, how can pornography, which is entirely non-relational and involves people who have never even met, fulfill? The answer, as hinted at by James, is that it can’t. To the extent that it appears to users to provide some fulfillment, it does so only in the way that scratching an itch does – entirely temporary relief, but with the catch that when the itch returns, it will be even harder to appease than before. Herein lies the pornography trap. We are designed to find fulfillment in a real relationship, but it is partly the fact that pornography is non-relational that makes it so appealing. Relationships are hard. Life is often a monotonous routine. Living with another sinner is often far from easy. But as for the people in the pictures or the video, you don’t need to worry about their sins. You don’t need to live with them and deal with their issues day after day. And so the thrill and excitement of being taken out of normal life into some fantasy world where real satisfaction apparently resides can become intoxicating. No faithfulness is required to obtain satisfaction there. No commitment is required to achieve satisfaction there. No dealing with another person in an ongoing relationship is required to get satisfaction there. And yet the irony is that true, lasting satisfaction is the one thing it can never bring. Lots of reasons to stop, one remedy What then is the remedy? That might seem like an odd question. Surely I’m not about to suggest that there is one remedy for all of this? Actually I am. There are plenty of reasons and inducements for somebody who has a pornography habit to break it, but ultimately there is only one remedy, which I’ll come on to that in a moment. But first here are some reasons and inducements. 1. Come to see how much it dehumanizes, both yourself and others Pornography is by its very nature dehumanizing. Not just for the people who make it, but also for the one viewing it. By its nature it objectifies and commoditizes people, which means that if you are a user of pornography, you are both an objectifier and commoditiser of people. That’s not a good thing to be. 2. Understand that it cannot bring you the satisfaction you desire As mentioned, the use of pornography is rooted in a desire to be satisfied. Yet as any counselor of those with a porn habit will tell you, it has never yet brought anyone true joy or lasting happiness. If you are looking for satisfaction in something which demonstrably cannot bring you what you are looking for, it’s probably a good time to question whether you are seeking satisfaction in the right places. 3. Recognize how ridiculous it looks There’s something to be said for just sometimes stepping out of yourself and your circumstances, so to speak, and looking at what it is you are actually doing. What do you call fantasizing about having some sort of sexual encounter with a person you’ve never met, never will meet, and if you did meet them it would never take place? Isn’t it about as absurd a scenario as it’s possible to conjure up? 4. Stop referring to your habit as an addiction The word addiction has become one of the most abused words of our day, and is often used as an excuse for responsibility avoidance. While I have no doubt that pornography produces certain chemicals in the brain that can take a powerful hold on us, the idea that we become passive victims is not borne out either biblically or practically. Biblically, pornography falls into the category of sexual immorality, and Scripture is plain that this is a sin that we should avoid, can avoid, and must avoid, chemicals notwithstanding. Practically, the fact that many “porn addicts” break their “addiction” shows that, though undoubtedly hard, it can be done. “Porn addiction” is in reality a “porn habit,” and it is there to be broken with willpower and determination. 5. God tells us that those who don’t break with it will be excluded from the Kingdom of God In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul says this: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Despite the wonderfully elaborate attempts of many modern Christians to ignore, twist, deny, camouflage or dispute much of this, there it is. Seems pretty clear to me. Make of it what you will. The solution? No half measures Yet finally, as I mentioned above, whilst these are all good reasons and inducements to break the porn habit, they are not the remedy itself. What is that then? Biblically speaking there is only one, which is this: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). That’s it. All the reasons and inducements in the world will not help the user of porn to break his or her porn habit unless they are prepared to do the one thing necessary. Flee from it. Don’t walk, run. Don’t dabble, don’t skirt along the edges, don’t case furtive looks. Get away from it. Have nothing to do with it. This article was first published in Reformed Perspective in the July/Aug 2017 issue of the magazine. Rob Slane lives with his wife and six children in Salisbury, England, about 90 minutes drive from Wales. He is the author of A Christian and Unbeliever discuss Life, the Universe, and Everything and contributes to the Samaritan Ministries blog where a version of this article first appeared under the title "The pornification of society, part 2."...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Teachers lead the way in adopting, and sometimes restraining, tech

The Spring issue of Redeemer University’s Resound magazine featured an article about Dr. Katie Day Good, a Christian professor who has been researching the history of how tech gets adopted, and what sort of impact it has. “She found that teachers have often been early adopters of technologies including motion pictures, stereographs, records, illustrated magazines and radio to enliven and increase the effectiveness of their teaching…. Teachers around the world were eager to think about how these technologies could help their students think beyond their borders.” Teachers loved the tech, because it was all about connecting their students to the world around them. But today we’re finding something quite different. As Dr. Good put it in that same article, “Hope beyond the screen”: “What we're discovering as we grow and age with these technologies is that they can also stand in the way of meaningful connection. They can even lead us to feel estranged from our neighbours, from our environment, from God.” AI is only going to make that estrangement worse, with reports already of people turning to these super-powered programs for companionship. So how can we deal with the digital distraction, and the social isolation? There’s no one answer, but Good shared what a couple of groups have chosen to do. “Something I've seen is parents banding together to create landline pods, using landline phones to encourage friendship and independence among their children without having to rely on smartphones.” Then there is “The Luddite Club” she learned about – a group of New York students who have chosen to unplug and connect in tech-free ways. Earlier this year, a Cornell University prof made news for getting her students to type their reports. She brought in bunch of old typewriters, and the students had to shift gears entirely – the lack of a delete key had them thinking through what they were going to type before they typed it. With their phones banned, students weren’t distracted by notifications, but also couldn’t research in an instant, and ending up asking each other for help – their class become a place for conversation rather than head-down, isolated scrolling. There there’s what’s happening at Redeemer itself. This past year, faculty at the Christian college who are involved with its “Core Curriculum” – 10 courses that all students have to take – have “adopted a tech-wise approach, encouraging students to swap laptops and tablets for pen and paper.” They aren’t going full Amish – this is just a select number of courses, and while pen and paper are encouraged, laptops aren’t banned. It’s a small but real effort being made to put restraints on tech usage. Why? Because it just makes sense. As Dr. Jonathan Juilfs, Redeemer’s associate professor of English, explained, “many studies have shown that students retain more information and learn better with traditional note-taking methods.” That’s not a startling revelation, but it is news how some schools are starting to act on what we all already know: our screen usage has gotten out of hand, and that even includes our purportedly “educational” usage too. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – May 2, 2026

Original Sin rock battle What I absolutely love about these rock/rap battles is that it's no straw man being presented here: Pelagius gets to make his case. And Augustine's response is true, but not at all the "gotcha"-esque "you got owned" moment we see pitched all over the 'Net. Which is what makes this presentation as valuable as it is entertaining. This man tried to disprove God with a box of nails It might have seemed compelling even... at first. But, as Not The Bee put it, this "is what the kids would call a self-own." A fun one worth checking out and sharing. When Christians don’t “get with the times,” they change empires "...Christians would search out and save little girls who were left to die by their pagan families. After a few decades of this life and death dynamic, there was a shortage of women for pagan young men to marry. So many ended up going to church to find wives. Also, because Christian women did not have abortions at the same rates as pagan women, a particularly brutal practice at the time, they also had higher fertility rates. In the end, the explosive growth of Christianity across the empire was all about math. God used the obedience of early Christians to change the world." Why Canada should scrap its plastics ban Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing things for appearance (see Matt. 23) and warned about practicing "our righteousness before others in order to be seen by them" (Matt. 6:1). That, there, is Canada's plastics ban, implemented to address a problem – plastic trash – that was a problem in Asia, not Canada. And like so many environmental policies, even if you presume the problem the policy was meant to solve really needed government intervention, the actual intervention offered by our government makes things worse: "According to the government, the anticipated reduction in plastic waste—roughly 1.5 million tonnes by 2032—will be outweighed by nearly 3 million tonnes of additional waste from heavier substitutes such as metal, porcelain, glass, wood and aluminum. As a result, the ban would increase total waste overall. (Remember, these are the government’s own projections.)" When can I trust what scientists say?  Rob Stadler offers up six criteria to consider, including: repeatability direct observability assumptions disclosed... This is an Intelligent Design presentation, but even in the subsequent articles – When Can I Trust Scientists About Evolution, and On Evolution, Here is What We Can Believe with High Confidence – it's pretty much all material a creationist would love too. A creationist take on climate change (10 min) Is global warming happening? It seems to be. Is it going to be catastrophic, like Greta Thunberg is despairing of? No. Genesis 8:22 says, "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease..." Is it strange to base your evaluation of secular science on a Bible verse? Not at all. God's Word is authoritative. And we constantly have to test the reliability of secular science against what God says, to decipher what could be or isn't true. "Science" says that girls can become boys, and no, that isn't so, and we could always know so because we know God chooses our gender, not us (Gen. 1:26-27). And some of the same people and organizations who are touting climate change were pushing overpopulation hysteria too, which as Christians we could rebut right from the start (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 9:7, Prov. 17:6, Ps. 127:3-5, Ps. 113:9, etc.), but which the world has only started to realize as of late. ...

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 38 39