Most Recent

Theology

Does 1 Corinthians 6 mean Christians can never appeal to the courts?

When Charter rights appear to be violated, what can a Christian do?

*****

Does being submissive to the ruling authorities mean that a Christian cannot seek their day in court? Would going toe-to-toe with the government in a court of law be a form of insubordination, or show a lack of respect and submission to the civil government?

Or can Christians take the government to court?

Does the Bible give us any guidance on this question?

Some Canadian constitutional context

Court action, in a constitutional democracy, is a legitimate form of government interaction.

Within the modern constitutional state, there are three branches that hold each other in check: the legislature (makers of the law), the executive (those who carry out the law) and the judiciary (those who review the application of the law). This separation within the civil government is described in our constitution as “the separation of powers.” No one man is lawmaker, police officer, judge, jury, and executioner. We divide power, and for good reason: power tends to corrupt fallen man.

All of the civil government in Canada is limited, by law, and is under the law, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the Charter govern you as a citizen? No, it doesn’t. It is the highest law in Canada, but it only limits the power of the civil government. So, judges, lawmakers, and police officers, together with the Charter, are a package deal, and together make up “the civil government.”

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to our constitution in 1982. It owes some – though not all – of its language to the Christian legacy of limited state power. (If you want to read more of the legacy, I shamelessly recommend chapters 2 and 4 of A Christian Citizenship Guide, 2^nd Edition, which explains it in detail.) The preamble to the Charter states that: “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.” This “Supremacy of God” clause is supposed to be a reminder to our lawmakers that they are under the ultimate Lawgiver. (Even if they don’t believe in God, they should at least be able to recognize that they aren’t God!)

But note as well the reference in the Charter’s preamble to the rule of law. That echoes the Belgic Confession, article 36, which in turn echoes Deuteronomy 16 and 17 – we are to be governed not by the whims of kings and tyrants, or bureaucrats for that matter, but by laws and statutes. And everyone is under the law, including the king, the prime minister, the premier, the police, the bylaw officer, and any other government employee. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, in some ways, a product of Christianity’s influence on law in the West.

So, what are some things the Charter guarantees? In Canada, according to the Charter, everyone enjoys fundamental freedoms like freedom of religion, conscience, expression, and association, certain democratic rights and mobility rights, certain legal rights and more. These are not absolute rights; the civil government can restrict them in certain, limited circumstances. But, when the civil government imposes on Charter rights like freedom of peaceful assembly, the burden in law is on the civil government – not citizens – to demonstrate that the restrictions are justifiable in a free and democratic society.

But what good does this do us in light of everything we know from Scripture about submission to the governing authorities? So what if we have legal rights – aren’t we called to just submit to the government?

What does 1 Corinthians 6 teach?

Our tendency as Christians is to be suspicious of using the judicial branch due to the misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul seems to be telling Christians not to go to the secular courts.

"If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court – and this in front of unbelievers!"

However, this passage applies to two private individuals, particularly, two members of the church, and the passage urges settling the matter before going to an “ungodly court.” In the case we are considering here, the “ungodly court” and the other entity in the legal dispute are of the same nature – both government bodies. What we are doing is much more akin to Paul’s own appeal to Caesar in Acts 25 than to Paul’s urging to avoid court.

Further, the 1 Corinthians 6 passage must be seen in the context of internal church strife: in the church the wisdom of fellow-members or church leaders should prevail over the need to go to court, assuming that these “wise men” dealing with the matter will deal with it in a just, calm, and wise manner. The brothers challenging each other on a judicial matter should be humble and spiritual enough to accept the wise counsel of fellow believers rather than sue each other. A court challenge of the government’s allegedly unjust actions or laws is not within the scope of what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 6.

In Canada, then, a judge is allowed, or even duty bound, to curb the injustice of a higher civil power for the protection of the people under his oversight. In our current context, the Canadian civil government is split into three arms (the "separation of powers"), as explained earlier.

Thus when a Christian challenges government action in court (or defends himself against government action in court) it should not be seen as a lawsuit in the sense that we hear about from time to time – a vengeful opportunity to get rich over against an equal opponent. Rather, we are simply approaching one of the three branches of the government and asking the magistrate to do its God-given duty to call the other branch to account, and to remind it of what exactly its obligations are under the Constitution and what its obligations are with regards to justice and righteousness.

But what about Romans 13?

But what about Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17? Don’t these passages demand submission to the governing authorities?

Yes, the general rule of Scripture is that Christians are subject to the governing authorities. But in order to make a proper application of this rule, we have to understand how our civil authorities govern. How citizens interact with governing authorities looks different in a constitutional democracy (where the constitution is supreme even over judges and premiers) than in an ancient absolute monarchy.

In a participatory democracy, it isn’t only the premier who gets to decide what the law requires. In fact, lawyers and judges, and police officers and citizens should all know what their rights and responsibilities are in law. We are all equally under law and ruled by law. This legal reality is a blessing of Christendom. The Magna Carta, which enshrined this concept over 800 years ago in English law, is rooted in Christian culture. Ambiguities, over-reach, constitutional violations, inequal application of the law, all of this needs to be winsomely exposed, and Christians ought not to shy away from this. It is good and right to point these injustices out.

Furthermore, the judiciary is also part of the civil government. When a citizen appeals to a judge to clarify whether or not the actions of the government are constitutional (i.e. legal), then this shows respect for the government and her institutions and uses the law to our advantage.

Paul – who wrote Romans 13 – does this multiple times, when he uses his Roman citizenship status to avoid being flogged (Acts 22:22-29), then again when he demands that the local magistrate personally escort him and Silas out of jail after their rights had been violated (Acts 16:37-40), and again when he appeals to Caesar (Acts 25:10-11).

Daniel’s example

Consider also Daniel’s example. It’s a striking story: King Darius signs a law that says, for 30 days, if men are going to pray, they can only pray to Darius and no other. Daniel 6:10 says, “When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.” Daniel acts immediately and decisively. And what is the charge against him? “Daniel pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed.” In other words, “Daniel is violating Romans 13, O king! He’s a lawless man, O king. Throw him to the lions!”

But what is the first thing Daniel says to King Darius, after miraculously surviving a night with the lions? “O king, I have committed no crime against you” (Dan. 6:22). (If there were any lawyers in the room, they would have interjected, “Oh yes you did! You broke the clear meaning of the law. You prayed to your God, and your God is not the king, and the law says explicitly and clearly that you can’t do that, and we have witnesses and …!”) But Daniel says, rightly, that by disobeying this silly law, this law which does not align with God’s law, he commits no crime against the king. In other words, obeying the law of God, even if it clearly breaks the law of man, is no crime. More than that, when citizens obey the law of God, they will be no threat to a ruler, Christian or not.

John Calvin on legal action

In Calvin's Institutes, in the chapter on the Civil Government, Calvin outlines several factors in favor of pursuing litigation: He writes:

“Judicial proceedings are lawful to him who makes right use of them; and the right use… is… without bitterness, urge what he can in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and…demand what is just and good.”

Later, in the same subsection, Calvin writes, “When we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a sacred gift from God, we ought the more carefully to beware of polluting it by our fault.” This then, speaks of a specifically Christian approach to litigation: that we “feel as kindly towards opponent… as if the matter in dispute were amicably transacted and arranged.” Later, Calvin also rejects the idea that Paul absolutely or universally prohibits litigation in 1 Cor. 6; rather, an interpretation of that text is to apply to brothers inside the church.

Even so, Calvin speaks very highly of the Christian duty, as private individuals, to respect the civil government. Nevertheless, he does discuss briefly the role of other parts of government, which is very applicable to the question of whether Christians in a constitutional democracy can also challenge government action or laws in court. He writes (quoting from a modern translation):

“there may be magistrates appointed as protectors of the people in order to curb the excessive greed and licentiousness of kings… I would not forbid those who occupy such an office to oppose and withstand, as is their duty, the intemperance and cruelty of kings. Indeed, if they pretended not to see when kings lawlessly torment their wretched people, such pretence in my view should be condemned as perjury, since by it they wickedly betray the people’s liberty of which, as they ought to know, God has made them defenders.”

Asserting legal rights is not (necessarily) insubordination

Asserting Charter rights is not insubordination. As a Canadian citizen, you bear Charter freedoms. Making your case in court, as the law entitles you to do, is a lawful exercise of your office of citizenship. So there may be situations where both the civil government and the Christian citizen must justify their actions, the former in a courthouse and the latter before God.

What should make Christians distinct from their neighbors is not whether we speak up about our freedoms but how. Our tone of respect, our posture of prayer, and our spirit of submission sets us apart. And not only our tone, but also our philosophy of freedom and submission will shape a distinctly Christian approach to speaking up.

Will we advocate for outright defiance, or make our case calmly and reasonably, according to law? I reject the passivism of being totally and silently subservient to the State. This is not biblical (Ex. 1:15-21; Dan. 3:8-23; Dan. 6:5-10; Mark 12:15-17; John 19:11; Acts 4:18-20; Acts 5:17-42; Acts 16:37; 2 Cor. 11:32-33). But I also reject the revolutionary spirit of obstinate civil disobedience.

Two examples

Let’s consider two examples.

Pro-life billboards

First, a couple years ago, one of the Ontario ARPA chapters raised a few thousand dollars to put an ad on London city buses that simply said “Canada has no abortion laws.” About a month or so into the contract, due to mild pushback, the city pulled the ads down, without explanation, without notice or opportunity to reply, and without compensating the local ARPA group for the remaining two months of the contract. We wrote to the city, explaining that what they had done was unconstitutional, and asked them to reinstate the ads. They refused. So, together with ARPA Oxford, we took legal action. And we won! It cost time and money, but the city apologized for what they had done and ran the ads again. A few years later, the City of Hamilton refused to run an ad from another local ARPA chapter, this one simply stating, “We stand for women’s rights. Hers, hers, and hers too” – with the final “her” referring to an ultrasound image of a baby. Again, we are taking the City of Hamilton to court, because their silencing of citizens’ participation in an ongoing political and moral debate is repugnant.

Standing up for freedom through the courts shows respect for our laws, and for political or legal institutions. This is not about freedom of expression to say whatever we want to say, whenever and however we want to say it. It is the freedom to communicate a message that ought to be shared, without censorship.

Dining but not the Lord’s Supper

A second example: during the first summer of Covid, a Reformed church presented a re-opening safety plan to a government bureaucrat working within the local health authority. The document indicated that the church planned to recommence with the sacrament of holy supper. By this time restaurants were open again, and churches were gathering at 30% capacity.

What was the reply of the local government employee? Without any sense of irony, he told the church that sacraments were “off the table.” Could the bureaucrat point to any law, order, or regulation that prohibited the sacrament? No. It was merely his opinion that allowing the church to celebrate the sacrament was too risky.

That is unjust on its face, and a church would do well to challenge such a decision. A church that decided to celebrate communion anyway would not be the one acting illegally. The one acting illegally is that particular bureaucrat.

Conclusion

Like Paul, Christians ought not to shy away from appealing to the courts of law for redress. It is good and right to contend with injustice. May God preserve the rule of law in Canada for the sake of the gospel witness of the church.

André Schutten is ARPA Canada’s Director of Law and Public Policy and General Legal Counsel (ARPACanada.ca).

Full Article

Assorted

A pastor on anxiety

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

News

Saturday Selections – July 22, 2023

What would you say to the claim porn improves relationships? Porn has become so pervasive that some will now, without shame, discuss their viewing of...

Interview with an artist

Julia Veenstra is expressing the world!

Interview with an artist **** Breakfast at Tiffany's48” X 72” - Acrylic on Ca...

News

Peace, peace? Will the CRC be lulled into losing their way?

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – July 2023

When they call God “she” Remaking God in their image, homosexual “pastors” are professing Him to be a “her.” That’s blasphemy by God’s standards, of course, but is objectionable even by their own replacement rules. After all, as Tim Barnett recently noted, they aren’t doing to others what they want others to do unto them (Matt. 7:12): “God has chosen to reveal himself using singular masculine He/Him pronouns. Why won’t they use God's preferred pronouns?” Chesterton on drinking “The sound rule in this matter would appear to be like many other sound rules – a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.” Wonders to behold by John Hultink Imagine living in a world where a pair of robins built their nest in a wreath attached to your front door. This spring and summer they lay their eggs twice – the first time three eggs and the next four. Yes, on two separate occasions. Robins sit on their eggs for only a few weeks before they come to life. Then, for a few more weeks, it’s a feeding frenzy. All day long. The newly hatched robins grow by leaps and bounds. And then, in just a few more weeks, these new creations hesitatingly abandon their nest, the one hatchling with more finesse than the other leading them off. And so, these new creations take their place in God’s creation. All this took place twice in a nest built in a wreath attached to our front door. It was as if God said: “Here, take a look at this.” My wife and I had a “grandstand view” of the entire proceedings from one or the other side windows in which that door is set. And on occasion, when both parents were out hunting for food, we could open the door and carefully take a closer look at this new life. It was a wondrous development to behold. We witnessed God’s display of the origin of life played out day by day from start to finish, the entire process taking only weeks. Kind giving birth to kind, exactly as God had Moses describe it for us in the first chapter of Genesis. Thank-you God for that eye-witness account of your creative power! Famous first words When Alexander Graham Bell first succeeded in getting his invention, the telephone to work, his first words were, “Mr. Watson – come here…” When Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1877, one of the first devices capable of recording a sound and playing it back, he tested it by reciting “Mary had a little lamb.” In contrast, just a few decades earlier, when Samuel Morse sent out the first official message on his invention the telegraph he wrote, “What hath God wrought?” This is from Numbers 23:23, where Balaam is, to the frustration of Moab’s King Balak, the man who hired him, prophesying how God is going to do such mighty things for Israel that it’ll be said, “What hath God wrought!” My daughter says that if she invents the next big whatever the first words she’ll speak into it, to be recorded for all of history, are “Stop abortion and turn to God.” Media lies of omission Just ahead of June, American retailer Target began featuring a line of “Pride” wear. Some reports also said they were selling “tuck friendly” girls’ swimsuits for boys (with extra space for their male parts down below) and while that last point may or may not be true, it got people calling for a Target boycott. Mid-June the Washington Post reported: “Target stores see more bomb threats over Pride merchandise.” Did this headline have you worried that some Pride opponent had lost his mind and threatened to get violent? If you clicked through and started reading the opening paragraphs you’d be left with the same impression: “Target stores in at least five states were evacuated this weekend after receiving bomb threats. Though no explosives were discovered, the incidents tie into the backlash over the retail chain’s Pride Month merchandise.” It’s only after you get eight paragraphs in that you’d find out who the real culprits are. The letter writers “…accused Target of betraying the LGBTQ+ community…” What? Yes, the bad guys were Pride sympathizers. They were angry that in response to the boycott calls, Target had moved the Pride displays from the front of their stores to further back. In my first-year journalism class, years ago, the prof explained that if a story “continued on page A6” you could count on losing 80 percent of the readership at that point. So biased reporters could bury any inconvenient facts in the back end of their story where hardly anyone would see them. The Washington Post pulled this same trick knowing that headline-readers and article-skimmers – the majority of media consumers these days? – would be left with an impression that was exactly opposite of what really happened. In Proverbs 4, Solomon tells us wisdom is something to grab hold of – it can’t be had by flipping through your social media feed. It might mean reading the whole article. It might mean skipping the paper and diving into a great podcast, or book. So yes, the media lies to us… but many, like this one, can be easily spotted, if only we ingest with intent. It starts with salvation “Look, folks, the reason the Church today is having so little impact is too many Christians view their faith only in terms of a personal relationship with Jesus. But Christianity does not stop with salvation: That’s only the beginning. We’ve got to learn how to present our worldview in a winsome way. And if we don’t do this, it simply dooms our churches to isolation and irrelevance – just when our culture desperately needs the hope of the Gospel more than ever.” – Chuck Colson (perhaps riffing off of Hebrews 5:11-14) Christians give more reverence to the F-word I sometimes get sent “screeners” for an upcoming Christian movie – a free online viewing before it hit theaters. This time it was a sports film, so I thought I would take a look. But three minutes in, one of the game’s announcers took God’s name in vain. I didn’t watch the rest of it, but I know no one ever used the F-word. Not a single time. That doesn’t happen in Christian films. Christian novels follow the same practice – never a single instance of the F-word but you will find about every second title taking God’s name in vain. I emailed the movie publicist asking for answers. Why never the F-word – even though it’s such a common part of everyday speech – and yet God’s Holy Name is regularly abused? I didn’t hear back. Amazing animals The blue whale is the largest animal that ever lived, larger even than any dinosaur. Its heart weighs 400 pounds and its tongue weighs more than two and a half tons, roughly the equivalent of two Volkswagen Beetles or one Tesla Model S. An elephant’s trunk has 40,000 muscles (we have 600 in total) and their nose’s abilities extend to being a hose, spade, spoon, and backhoe. It is strong enough to uproot a tree, and delicate enough to pick up a pin. While your backyard rooster doesn’t always crow this loud, at their loudest they can get up to 130 decibels, which is “about the same intensity as standing 15 meters from a jet taking off” according to Science.org’s Kimberly Hickok. One rooster even got up to 143 decibels! While the crowing only lasts a couple seconds, a rooster might do it several times, and cries out morning after morning, so how come they don’t deafen themselves? It turns out when the rooster opens its beak wide open, that closes a quarter of their ear canal – God gave them built-in ear plugs! Materialism can’t account for meaning or reason Sam Harris, one of “the four horsemen” of atheism, once wrote a book about how man had no free will, because all we are is just the matter that we’re made of, which will interact as it will with the environment around. There’s some logic to what he says, if indeed there is no God. He then went on a book tour in which he also encouraged people to treat prisoners more kindly because, after all, they couldn’t help what they did – their misdeeds weren’t the result of choices they’d made but just the chemistry that they amounted to. Harris’ audiences didn’t recognize that his clemency request rebutted his presentation. He wanted to convince us to treat prisoners nicer because our lack of free will means they aren’t really responsible for their crimes? He was asking us to choose to be nicer to the prisoners, because choices don’t exist. He should have read more Chesterton and Lewis. “If the materialist view is true, our minds must in reality be merely chance arrangements of atoms in skulls. We never think a thought because it is true, only because blind Nature forces us to think it. We never do an act because it is right, only because blind Nature forces us to do it.” – C.S. Lewis “The great human dogma, then, is that the wind moves the trees. The great human heresy is that the trees move the wind. When people begin to say that the material circumstances have alone created the moral circumstances, then they have prevented all possibility of serious change. For if my circumstances have made me wholly stupid, how can I be certain even that I am right in altering those circumstances?” – G.K. Chesterton It ain’t enough to show they are hypocrites... The folks at PragerU will often visit US campuses to challenge students who hold to the “latest thing” whether they can defend what they believe. In one of their latest videos, “If you can choose your gender can you choose your race?” they went to UCLA to set a trap of sorts. The interviewer first showed students some celebrities who’d used black make-up to caricature blacks. After the students all condemned this “blackface,” he then raised the term "womanface" to describe guys who say they identify as women. He argued it would be hypocritical to object to someone saying they are transracial, if you think transgenderism is valid. It's a good point, and it is a fantastic video. But it has a problem, and the same one that all secular "apologetics" have – the interviewer is attacking a lie without presenting the Truth. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27) – that’s the corrective here. But when he just confronts students with their hypocrisy, they are left knowing they have made an error, but not knowing which way to head. It's like the old joke about a man who insisted to his family and anyone who’d listen that he was dead. They finally took him to a doctor, hoping he could help. The doctor thought he had just the thing, and asked the man, "Do dead men bleed?" to which the man replied, "No, of course dead men don't bleed." The doctor then pricked the man's finger and, after the man saw the drop of blood forming, the patient shook his head, amazed, then stood up and gave the doctor a hug in appreciation. "I'm sorry doctor, I was totally wrong,” he said, “It turns out dead men do bleed." These students could also choose to resolve their hypocrisy the wrong way. They could decide: "I guess blackface – I guess transracialism – is okay." To be a light to the world, Christians have to go one step further. We should get inspired by videos like this so we can tear down the lie using our creativity to highlight the world's silliness. But we need to do so while standing unashamedly on God's Truth. ...

News

Saturday Selections – July 15, 2023

Dr. Van Dam talking creation with ICR (41 min) Reformed Perspective contributor, author, and professor Dr. Cornelis Van Dam recently did a guest appearance on the Institute for Creation Research's In the Beginning podcast. Wildfires got you worried about a coming climate apocalypse? (10-min read) Then the first graph in this article will be encouraging! MrBeast video shows the self-serving nature of democracy when it is unrestrained by Christianity George W. Bush tried to export democracy to the Middle East, seemingly seeing it as a good all in itself. But Christians need to understand that democracy only worked as well as it has because it's been tried in countries that were largely Christian. A godless mob will elect godless rule. Comparing COVID-era deaths across countries While I've forgotten a lot of the "Science" presented during COVID, one thing that's stuck was the many predictions of how terribly Sweden would do, since it wasn't locking down like the rest of the world. Now the BBC is reporting on "average death rates from March 2020 to February 2023 compared with the five years before." The table below doesn't count deaths attributed specifically to COVID, but instead compares all the deaths in a year to the rate at which death was happening the five years before. And by that measure Sweden did spectacularly, and better than all but one of the ten countries considered. It is, of course, an apples to oranges comparison as no two countries have the same demographics, living arrangements, and lifestyles. But it is still the very opposite of what was predicted. WWII German pro-euthanasia film was banned then; might have won an Oscar today "Those who advance euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide laws... should have to demonstrate just how their arguments differ from Nazi propaganda. If they cannot or will not, it is more evidence that this movement, expanding rapidly around the world, should be stopped." Roe vs. Wade: one year later Great satiric video showing what pro-choicers are really saying, if only we remove the varnish. ...

Politics

There is no neutrality so will the State be secular or Christian?

When thinking about political issues, it is important to understand that every society is based on some sort of worldview or philosophy. There is no such thing as a society based on “neutral” principles. There must be a philosophical rationale for the kind of political system that governs a society and the laws that it implements. Anyone who thinks that a “neutral” society is possible should ask themselves what the “neutral” position would be on any of the controversial issues of our day. For example, what is the “neutral” position on abortion? Is killing unborn children ever “neutral”? Of course not. Is allowing them to live “neutral”? No, it’s an active recognition of their humanity. So where is the middle ground of a supposedly “neutral” position? Such neutrality is clearly impossible The same reasoning applies with regards to LGBTQ issues. What is the “neutral” position on same-sex marriage? In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized the status of same-sex marriage in that country. Now every level of government must formally recognize and enforce laws consistent with same-sex marriage. As a result, some Christian businesses have been under attack from government agencies for failing to comply with the new, non-Christian concept of marriage. All political issues – whether abortion, marriage, or anything else—are approached from one philosophical perspective or another. There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to politics and law. The only question is, which philosophical perspective (or worldview) will inform the political system and the laws it enacts? Secular or Christian? Douglas Wilson, the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, has written a book that helpfully addresses this question head-on. The book is called, Empires of Dirt: Secularism, Radical Islam, and the Mere Christendom Alternative, and it was published by Canon Press in 2016. Most of the book deals with matters of secularism versus Christianity, since no Christian would argue in favor of an Islamic society. Some Christians, however, do seem to prefer secularism to Christianity as the governing philosophy for the United States. Generally speaking, countries like the United States and Canada are considered to be “secular” countries, and that is seen as being religiously neutral. But religious neutrality is impossible, and secularism is a worldview with its own belief system. Rather than being neutral towards Christianity, secularism is actively anti-Christian, and this is becoming increasingly evident over time. If there must be a worldview underlying the government and laws of every society, which worldview should Christians embrace for this purpose? Christianity would be the obvious choice, and this is the point asserted by Wilson. He argues for what he calls “mere Christendom” and explains it as follows: “By mere Christendom I mean a network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgement of the lordship of Jesus Christ and the fundamental truth of the Apostles’ Creed.” A Christian nation In essence, this means the formal recognition of Christianity as the basis for a country’s political and legal system. How would that look? For the United States, Wilson writes, “it would be by means of something like referencing the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the Constitution.” When a nation formally submits to the authority of Christ, that nation becomes a Christian nation. However, Wilson is quick to point out that being a formally Christian nation is not the same as having an established church. It is possible to argue for the government acknowledging the authority of Christ “without supporting an ‘established church,’ which – in the form of tax revenues – I do not support." Even without an established church, though, any reference to an explicit political recognition of Christianity immediately leads to objections about the potential persecution of non-believers. If the Lordship of Jesus Christ was recognized in the U.S. Constitution, wouldn’t that mean adherents of other religions would lose their civil rights? No, it wouldn’t. Wilson explains as follows: “There must be a God over all. That God may tell us not to hassle the people who don’t believe in Him, and that is precisely what the triune God does tell us. In this mere Christendom I am talking about (you know, the idyllic one, down the road), Muslims could come from other lands and live peaceably, they could buy and sell, write letters to the editor, own property, have that property protected by the cops, and worship Allah in their hearts and homes. What they could not do is argue that minarets have the same rights of public expression that church bells do. The public space would belong to Jesus.” State coercion It is true, though, that political rule inevitably involves coercion. The civil government is the one institution in society with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As Romans 13 says, the civil magistrate bears the sword to execute wrath on evildoers. The question then becomes: how does the civil magistrate distinguish good from evil? For a Christian nation, the Bible determines what is good and what is evil. When it comes to using force, then, a government in a Christian nation is limited by Biblical law. Wilson explains that “a Christian social order should want to strictly limit coercion to the bounds assigned by Scripture. Unless I have a word from God, I don’t want to make anybody do anything.” As an example of where coercion would be justified, he writes, “Because of this I am willing to have tight abortion laws – I am willing to make people not kill other people.” The Christian Taliban Secularists like to compare American Christians to the Taliban and claim that Christian policies in the United States would make it look like Afghanistan. But nothing could be further from the truth. The liberty that Americans have experienced over the centuries is the result of their Christian heritage, not in spite of their Christian heritage. Wilson points out that those who worry about Christian policies in the United States “envision a dark and dystopic Amerika when, on these two topics , it would actually look more like America in 1960. Was America in 1960 a free society? Sodomy was against the law everywhere, and no locales were carving out room for sharia." This is worth thinking about. During the lifetime of many Reformed Perspective readers, abortion and homosexual activity were illegal in both Canada and the United States. Were they not free countries at that time? Of course they were. They weren’t perfect by any means (no country will ever be perfect), but in some respects they may have been freer than they are today. The truth is, it was Christianity that led to the development of the freest societies in the world. Christianity, that is, leads to political freedom. Therefore, in advocating for an explicitly Christian nation, Wilson writes, “I am arguing for a return to the preconditions of civic freedom, and am not arguing for an abandonment of them. Unbelief does not generate free societies.” Tolerance and intolerance Wilson also makes another point that is worth emphasizing: every worldview tolerates some behaviors while prohibiting others. It is true that Christianity does not tolerate same-sex marriage or the killing of unborn children. But progressive ideology does not tolerate Christian wedding service businesses that refuse to participate in same-sex weddings. And in some Canadian cities, progressives even try to suppress pro-life advertising because they can’t tolerate pro-life messages. Wilson explains the toleration issue this way: “As soon as a man shows his hand, and we know what he tolerates, he is put in a position where he cannot tolerate those who refuse to tolerate what he does. A wide acceptance of the homosexual agenda, for example, means that a society has to crack down on the ‘homophobes.’ Not whether, but which.” In other words, intolerance of some behaviors is inescapable in every society. No society tolerates everything. “Every organized society excludes certain behaviors by definition and is inclusive of others. This is what it means to be a society. Every society has shared values, and it polices on behalf of those values.” This means that the secularists who accuse Christians of being uniquely intolerant are hypocrites. Those secularists inevitably also refuse to tolerate certain behaviors. There’s no getting around this. Preaching So, how would a “mere Christian” society be achieved? Would it require some sort of military crusade? Perhaps a clever political campaign or an active legislative agenda? Certainly not. A Christian society can only result from preaching, not from any sort of coercive measures. As Wilson explains, “We will not bring this about because we have reached into our arsenal and pulled out our armies and navies, our parliaments, our laws, and our ivy-covered halls of learning. The next Christendom will come to be when Christian preachers speak it into existence through the folly of preaching.” In other words, the only way a society could be Christianized is by the spread of the gospel. When large numbers of people are converted, every area of their lives will be impacted by the truth of the Bible, including their political views. This would inevitably impact society and influence it, like yeast permeating bread dough. In short, such change would be a grassroots, bottom-up process, not imposed from the top-down. Conclusion There is no such thing as neutrality in government and politics. Every law and every policy is guided by some underlying philosophy or worldview. The only question is: which philosophy or worldview? Douglas Wilson’s book, Empires of Dirt, helpfully explains this topic from an explicitly Christian viewpoint. If Christianity is true (and it is), then ideally it should be the worldview basis underlying every society and government. The alternative to Christianity is not “neutrality,” but an opposing worldview that is inherently hostile to Christianity. That is what we see increasingly in Canada and the United States today....

News

Saturday Selections – July 8, 2023

Prove it David Crowder, a little more up-tempo than usual... and now with monster trucks! What were the "waters above"? Four creationist possibilities are on offer here. Dutch king's slavery apology falls short The King of the Netherlands recently offered an apology for his country's role in the slave trade. But "for an apology to be any good, it must be accompanied by sincere efforts at restitution, as well as the resolve to not offend again." The former is practically impossible, but the latter is quite do-able. However the Dutch continue victimizing Africans by funding the murder of their unborn citizens. An open secret: social contagion is driving the astronomic rise in teen gender dysphoria (10-min read) The explosion of gender confusion shows it this is a social contagion – it can be caught. But that's an inconvenient fact to those busy spreading the contagion Organ donations and "presumed consent" "In a spiraling culture of death, Canadian jurisdictions disregard bodily autonomy by opting in residents by default." These beetles are da bomb! A former evolutionary professor Dr. Jobe Martin, explores a bug that makes chemicals that explode! How did it evolve this ability when an error could blow itself up? ...

Dating

10 questions to discuss when “interviewing” someone for marriage

Being the Church

...but I have a couch

Rosaria Butterfield's The Gospel Comes With A House Key came highly recommended, and after reading it I understand why. Rosaria is honest and insightf...

News

A Big Win for Free Speech from the US Supreme Court

Parenting

Kids and alcohol: parents are more influential than they may know!

News

Brain surgery in the womb!

“Look, it’s not brain surgery” is a saying for a reason. Brain surgery is a delicate task that needs a lot of experience to do successfully. Which makes it even more amazing that doctors in Boston recently carried out brain surgery on a fetus – they did it on a baby while it was still in the womb. To achieve this, doctors had to use ultrasound imaging to help them guide a needle into the mother’s abdomen, through the uterus wall, and into the fetal brain. This might sound terrifying to a mother, but the risk was worth taking. The particular problem that this surgery was trying to solve was a malformed blood vessel in the child’s brain, where a vein connected with an artery. Since arteries carry blood at higher pressure, blood coming directly from the heart, this blood can pool in the vein. The goal was to fix this malformation of the artery and vein before birth. If you think this sounds complex and intricate, it certainly is! It was the first surgery of its kind ever performed, and proved this new technique is possible. But why do it in the womb? Well, the process of birth changes how blood flows in the fetus, and after birth there was an increased likelihood that this connection between the artery and vein could have led to a cascade of other problems for the baby, including blood clots, heart failure, and effects on the brain. Doing a surgery in the womb meant that, rather than bracing for the multiple complications this kind of blood vessel malformation could cause the baby, surgeons could prevent these problems from ever happening. This surgery adds an interesting wrinkle to the debate over when life begins. If we can do brain surgery on a fetus in the womb – and we think it is worth the danger and expense of treating a fetus – then it provides the world another piece of evidence that these living beings are valuable, long before birth....

News

Saturday Selections – July 1, 2023

Got some bored kids? Are your kids are looking for some summer holiday inspiration? These Dude Perfect juniors are doing amazing trick shots that might spawn some imitation. Parents: reading to your children supports your biblical calling Reading routinely to your children helps you set aside time to teach, shepherd, and love on your child. It is costly – it takes time you might not feel you have – but if you were to talk to a future you about whether they wished they had done more of it, you can be sure of the answer. A parent's guide to teen slang The folks at the Christian parenting organization Axis have created a short guide to some of the most popular teen slang. They've divided it into 3 categories, starting with "Fun, harmless, silly" followed by "Be aware of" and finally "Red flags." This heads-up is worth the 5-10 minutes it would take to scan through it. In praise of silent Cal This article, on the occasion of Calvin Coolidge's 150th birthday last year, celebrates an American president who was best known for thinking government should get out of the way. Air pollution has plummeted in the U.S. over the last 50 years Even as Canada's wildfires had a lot of people eating smoke, air pollution has been going down a lot over the last half century. We hear so much doom and gloom these days, it's a good corrective to hear how things are getting better. Social media is all about gracelessness (3 min) Our own online responses should presume the best of whomever we're talking to (Matt. 7:12). But if Marshall McLuhan was at all right about "the medium is the message" (ie. the deliverer has a huge impact on the message delivered) then we shouldn't be naive about what sort of negativity social media fosters. ...

Economics - Home Finances

On investing, with Wade Van Bostelen

Thoughts from an experienced financial advisor ***** Reformed Perspective interviewed Wade Van Bostelen, a Christian certified financial planner operating out of Burlington, Ontario. Wade and his wife Leanne have two sons, and are frequent visitors to the west coast. Marty VanDriel: Are there Scriptural principles or texts that you use as guidance for how you advise clients to invest or in your own investing? Wade Van Bostelen: My guiding principle comes from Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” When it comes to investing personally and with clients, I also return to a passage that speaks to it in Matthew 25:14-30. It speaks of the gifts of the Father and using those gifts, but it comes from an example that people would have understood even in Roman times. Christ uses the example of three servants who understood that their master had given them talents, had set them to work, and they’d invested these talents, with varying outcomes. While the parable has a much deeper meaning than simply investing, the fact that our Lord uses this as an example indicates that this is a valid way to work in His kingdom – maybe even an expectation that this is a way to work in the kingdom. MV: What kind of things can Christians be on the lookout for as they look to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to them? WVB: I will sum it up with a few words – Prudence – Understanding – Self-control. PRUDENCE: Several principles come into investing that help define prudence, but mainly, I am talking about diversifying what you are investing in to have some degree of protection or safety in what you are doing. You also want to ensure that you have the assets to invest without hindering your ability to take care of your responsibilities and personal needs. Christians can be caught up in the world’s obsession with generating wealth or freedom and forget that their obligation is first to serve the Lord. So Christian investors have first to ensure that they have given of their first fruits, then they need to provide for their household, and then they can invest. What I find difficult to understand are the extremes: Christians that have wealth but do not give and Christians that make a fine living but spend all they have and save virtually nothing. Both are not acting as effective stewards. UNDERSTANDING: Christians can get caught up in the hype as quickly as others and invest in things they do not understand. Some may even make money doing this, but it does not make it a good practice. If you cannot explain what you are investing in, the types of companies, the kind of asset, the way a business works, how you will make a return on a real estate rental property, how you will be taxed on assets that you have, then you likely should not be investing in them… SELF-CONTROL: It is known that most investors are driven by two basic emotions: fear and greed. Fear drives people out of their investments because of a lack of prudence and understanding. It also drives them into investing because they are missing out, or they have a fear of missing out (FOMO), also known as greed. Christians have to do better than that. Emotional investing is not stewardship. MV: What is your opinion on investing in the stock market? How does a Christian do so in an ethical manner, in alignment with God’s Word? WVB: I sense a bias in the question, so I will frame it differently before I answer it. Let’s ask the same question and substitute a different market - What is your opinion on investing in the real estate market? Rental income market? Commodity market? Livestock market? or any other market. There is a sense that I have in this question that the other markets may be more ethical, or more in alignment with God’s Word than the stock market. All of these markets are financial markets, and all of them come with risks and ethical questions. Is it prudent for a young couple to stretch themselves to the limit of what they can afford payments for to purchase a house? What drives them to do so? Have they considered the ethical aspects of their decision – for example, will it keep them from contributing to kingdom work because they have stretched themselves so far? Have they considered the ramifications of their leverage? Have they been driven into the market by fear of missing out? What happens if their dual income becomes a single income? Will they still be able to make ends meet? As a farmer, are you effectively using the commodity markets to sell your crops or make decisions on the amount of livestock to purchase? Are there ethical questions that arise working in a quota system that does not allow competition? How do you justify these questions? As a rental real estate investor, have you considered the ramifications of what would happen if your renter fails to pay and you need that rent to cover your debt payments? What if you fail to rent the 70% of your building you need to rent to make ends meet? How did you figure out your math? Were you driven by principal or emotion when you invested? So each market has its questions - the stock market is not at all different than other markets, and you need to exercise prudence, understanding and self-control. You need to be able to justify why you invest in the companies that you do, and be willing to walk away from others. You can engage in positive activism as a shareholder to change the way that companies do business. You need to be willing to exit positions in companies when their activities are unethical. If you are doing these things investing in the stock market is no different than investing in any other market, but more so, you need to think like an investor. In every market I have listed, you need to think long-term to invest successfully. In all markets, your greatest risk occurs right after you have invested – before you have made a return. The one thing that is different about the stock market compared to the other markets is that stocks are priced daily, so you can become obsessed with your short-term returns and not longer-term returns. Real estate investors, for instance, tend to think in 10-year periods or longer. Stock market participants should also think along those lines, and not look daily at their prices. Could you imagine valuing your home every day? What is the price someone will pay today for my house? It seems ludicrous, but people will do that with their well-diversified portfolio and lose sleep or become euphoric based on the price change in a day, month or year. If you are investing for your retirement income – why are you worried about today? MV: What are your thoughts on "investing" in cryptocurrencies? Or companies that are in the crypto industry? WVB: As indicated before, you have to have prudence, understanding and self-control when investing. If anyone claims to understand cryptocurrency, I would like them to explain why it has value. There have been manias before in investment history. Our Dutch heritage has an exciting period referred to as "Tulipmania" in the 1630s – people were gripped by a speculative desire to own tulip bulbs. Fortunes were made and lost on tulip bulbs. The crypto space is unregulated. That is why people like it, because it falls outside government control. They have ascribed a value to things that previously had no value, and the value has increased because of limited supply. This is not a realm of investment as I would define it because you have no expected future value based on anything that you can quantify. You have no definable present value because it produces nothing – there is no inventory, there is nothing that society needs that it offers, no product. That being said, many crypto-related things may cause some change and are investible. The technology that runs it is called blockchain. It does facilitate immediate transactions. It allows you to move assets from one country to another instantaneously. It requires servers, microchips, technology development, internet service providers, electrical generation, etc. So, there are ways to legitimately invest in these things by investing around the hype, rather than speculating in the hype. If you go into the crypto space now, you are speculating. I find it hard to define speculation as an investment; it is more akin to a gamble. You can make money on speculation as you can with gambling, but don't call it an investment. Unfortunately, because of a lack of regulation, the tax rules are not yet written…but they can be backwardly enforced. There are also opportunities for charlatans like Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) to fraudulently gather assets for personal use because even astute investors, like Kevin O'Leary, can be taken in by fraudsters when they don’t understand what they are buying. MV: What is your own favorite investment and why? WVB: My favorite investment is my own company. I had the advantage of working with another advisor who allowed me to start my own business while working with him. Eventually, I also bought his business from him when he was ready to retire and then consolidated two other companies into my own. I have been blessed to work with partners who have worked alongside me to help build my enterprise while I helped them in their enterprises. But more than anything, my business has allowed me to work with clients from all walks of life to help them develop their financial plans. This has been as enriching for me as for them – so that has to be my favorite investment!...

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Getting even crazier: 27% of Canadians think being poor is good enough reason for euthanasia

Is poverty itself reason enough to allow someone to opt for doctor-assisted suicide? The question seems ludicrous – poverty is a condition that can change over a lifetime, and is hardly comparable to terminal lung cancer (an example of the “reasonably foreseen” death that’s previously been used to justify euthanasia). Yet a recent survey found 27% of Canadians agree with allowing doctor-assisted suicide in cases of poverty. This is one in four people you might meet! The survey was done by Research Co. and the results were released on May 5. Almost immediately it began making headlines with 11% of respondents saying they “strongly agree” and 16% that they “moderately agree” poverty was reason enough to let people kill themselves. We might be surprised, but the reality is, once suicide is an option and personal autonomy is valued, it’s not clear on what grounds someone would be prevented from asking for death because of poverty. After all, why shouldn’t the poor be able to make these kinds of decisions for themselves? If assisted dying is available to all Canadians, why should the poor be considered less able to choose? Christians know we are commanded to have compassion for the poor, not seek to eliminate them. But in a society where the government provides both social support services and medically-assisted dying, there is a financial incentive to reduce the cost of what gets provided to struggling people. This inevitably puts the poor in a vulnerable situation, a situation where they should receive the support and advocacy of their neighbors around them in a system that can be cold and impersonal. “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov. 29:7). Insisting that the poor have the full capacity to make a choice for euthanasia misses all the ways they might not feel like they have much of a choice. This survey also demonstrates how far opponents of euthanasia have to go in influencing public opinion. Do people really understand what they’re saying when they answer a poll question like this? The most charitable interpretation is that the poll responders wanted to emphasize the personal autonomy of a poor individual. But a personal choice is never made in isolation. Ultimately to declare poverty as reason enough to consider euthanasia is to devalue the worth of all the poor. To say poverty is enough reason for one person to consider no longer living is to say this kind of suffering decreases the value of that life. This comes into starker contrast looking beyond our borders to take in the poor worldwide. Tell humans who are barely getting by that they don’t need to struggle anymore, tell them that they can decide their life has no value and they can quit it. What would they say about this attitude to the life they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep? Suffering does not erase the meaning and value of being alive. But in a modern world where personal fulfillment and the individual’s choice matter above everything else, this message will be a challenge for Christians to drive home....

Being the Church

In the right place to serve: Christians are leading the way in helping one city’s homeless

News

Alberta and BC champion very different responses to drug use

Family, Movie Reviews

Sesame Street's 25th Birthday: a musical celebration!

News

Saturday Selections – June 24, 2023

A seed that walks? Absolutely awn-some! (5 min) These seeds can walk and dig themselves into the ground! Psychology's culpability in the transge...

News

2023 wildfires an exception to three decades of declining fires

As millions of Canadians and Americans have been exposed to the smoke from Canadian forest fires already this year, along with a steady stream of media coverage, they would be forgiven for coming to a similar conclusion as Prime Minister Trudeau, who recently tweeted “We’re seeing more and more of these fires because of climate change.” But as Dr. Ross McKitrick, professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, explained in the Financial Post, Trudeau’s statement is wrong twice over. Pointing to publicly-available data from the Wildland Fire Information System, McKitrick said that wildfires have in fact been getting less frequent in Canada over the past 30 years. “The annual number of fires grew from 1959 to 1990, peaking in 1989 at just over 12,000 that year, and has been trending down since. From 2017 to 2021 (the most recent interval available), there were about 5,500 fires per year, half the average from 1987 to 1991.” The same is true for the amount of area burned, which also peaked 30 years ago at 7.6 million hectares, far above the current average of 2.4 million. McKitrick also pointed to global data which shows a similar decline in wildfires in recent decades. One reason why fires are getting so much attention this year is because 5.29 million hectares have already burned in 2023, and we are still relatively early in the season. Another reason why fires are getting more attention is because they seem to be getting more dangerous, spreading quickly and threatening entire towns. Is it due to global warming? McKitrick offers another explanation, quoting from forestry experts Stefan Doerr and Cristina Santin: “ aggressive fire suppression policies over much of the 20th century have removed fire from ecosystems where it has been a fundamental part of the landscape rejuvenation cycle…. We cannot completely remove fire from the landscape…That is the misconception that led to the ‘100 per cent fire suppression’ policies in the U.S. and elsewhere that have made things worse in many cases.” In the past government agencies, and even private land owners, have used “prescribed burns” – deliberately lit and managed fires – to burn away undergrowth. When done with some regularity these are lower temperature fires, clearing the ground but without burning the trees down. 100 per cent fire suppression policies do away with these burns, and as McKitrick explained, “this has led to a buildup of fuel in the form of woody debris leading to the risk of more explosive and unstoppable fires.” God has entrusted us with stewardship of His creation (Genesis 1:28) and part of stewardship requires an accurate understanding of this creation, including the importance of fires for healthy forests. Picture is of fires near Hope, BC earlier this year (edb3_16 / iStockphoto.com)....

In a Nutshell

Tidbits - June 2023

Those wild and crazy Vikings! You may have learned in school that Vikings visited North America long before Christopher Columbus did, but I bet you never learned how they did it. Their marine tech wasn’t anything close to what Columbus had, but what they lacked in equipment, they made up for in chutzpah. To get to North America, the Vikings had to “surf” the north edge of nasty storms. As Glenn Sunshine explains in his book 32 Christians Who Changed Their World: “We don’t often appreciate the difficulties the Vikings faced sailing west across the Atlantic. Their ships had square sales, which means they could not tack into the wind; the wind had to be blowing from behind them for the sails to propel the ship. Since prevailing winds in the north Atlantic blow from west to east, to sail west the Vikings had to rely on storms. Severe storms turn cyclonic, that is, the winds circulate counterclockwise around the eye. This means that by riding the north edge of the storms, the Vikings could take advantage of westward blowing winds to propel them across the ocean.” Gary North on breaking your TV habit Gary North (1942-2022) was a Christian economist and such a prolific writer he must have followed the advice he offers here and entirely kicked his TV habit. “Put a piggy bank next to the couch where you watch TV. Every time you watch a one-hour show, put $2 into the piggy bank. If someone else watches, and you're a free rider, have that person put in $2. Then break the piggy bank – or at least empty it – in the last week of December. Put the money in your bank account. Then write a check for this amount. Send it to a charity. In short, put a price on your time. Pay the price. Economics teaches: ‘When the price rises, less is demanded.’ You will cut your TV habit by 50%. If not, make it $3.” Source: Gary North’s Tip of the Week, January 3, 2015 Those guys are right too? It’s been a crazy few years, what with too many of yesterday’s conspiracy theories turning into the next day’s headlines. So when I heard that there was now irrefutable proof the earth was flat I didn’t know if I could handle it. Could it be possible? Could those guys be right too? Well, prepare for your mind to be blown! As you know, most of the world is water – 71% of the planet is covered with it. But what they never told you, what you probably never thought about before, is the fact that none of it is carbonated. Not even a single percent. Ergo, the world really is flat! Source: inspired by a Douglas Wilson quip Learn the right lesson The trouble with learning from experience is the inbuilt tendency to overreact. If drunkenness has ruined someone close to us, we could conclude Christians should abstain. A child who tries out for a basketball team and gets cut might think they’ll never be good at any sports. A young man mocked by the first girl he asks out will wonder whether he should bother with a second. That many a Hollywood movie is vile, has some convinced all movies must be. That 95 songs on the year’s Top 100 list are vulgar, could lead parents to conclude that rock and rap is purely the Devil’s domain. And that dirty dancing is a thing, will have some thinking pure dancing is not. But Mark Twain has a warning for us to consider: “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it, lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will not sit down on a hot stove-lid again – but also she will not sit down on a cold one either.” Experience is quite the tutor, but we can learn too much from the lesson. That’s why we must test our experiences against the Bible. Then we can understand that despite the frequent abuse of wine, there remains a legitimate use (Isa. 25:6, 1 Tim. 5:23) and instead of banning it, we need to model right usage. Dancing might be dirty, but it can also be done to the Lord (2 Sam. 6:14). And the gun-shy young man can be assured that a good woman is worth risking rejection (Prov. 31:10-31). 4 thoughts on education “I am much afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which means are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must be corrupt.” – Martin Luther, in his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation “The surest way to keep a people down is to educate the men and neglect the women. If you educate a man you simply educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate a family.” – James Emman Kwegyir Aggrey (1875-1927) "The family is the main engine of education. If we use schooling to break children away from parents... we're going to continue to have the horror show we have right now." – John Taylor Gatto (1935-2018), New York City’s 3-time “Teacher of the Year” “Education is the process of selling someone on books.” – Douglas Wilson That explains a lot Who are smarter, men or women? A good test might be to ask this question in mixed company and see who’s dumb enough to answer. A case for men could be made by pointing to the greater number of males who win top prizes, like the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (183 to 8) or the Abel Prize for mathematics (25 to 1). But the case for women could be made by pointing out how men take many more unnecessary risks, like driving while drunk, which leads to 3 times more men than women dying, according to US stats. So which is it? Well, according to the late Walter Williams, economist and educator extraordinaire, both cases are correct. “Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Female intelligence is packed much closer to the middle of the bell curve, whereas men’s intelligence has far greater variability. That means that though there are many more male geniuses, there are also many more male idiots. The latter might partially explain why more men are in jail than women.” Source: Walter Williams’ “Are We Equal?” posted to WalterWilliams.com May 27, 2013 If we really believed in recycling… …why don’t we stop charging tax on recycled goods? They’ve already been taxed once, when they were new, so the government has gotten their pound of flesh. Should a good be taxed twice, just because it has been refurbished or in some other way made useful again? We live in a throwaway culture, and what an incentive it would be if used goods could be sold tax-free. Giraffe necks are neat Did you know a giraffe doesn't need its neck muscles to hold its neck up, but rather to bend it down? As a ruminant (an animal that chews its cud) the giraffe has to be able to bring food back up its neck to chew again. It also has to have an enormous heart to create enough pressure to get the blood up to its head. And then it has to have shut-off valves of a sort, to relieve the pressure when it bends its head down to drink, otherwise the blood pressure would cause it to blow out its own brain. The brilliance of their design comes out more and more, the closer you look....

News

Dodgers honor drag queen “nuns”

CORRECTION: The original title for this article was "Dodgers honor drag queen 'nuns' in front of empty stadium" was true, as videos showed that when the nuns were honored before the game, very few people were in attendance. But it turns out, they showed up afterwards, so we've edited the article to reflect that. **** In May, the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team extended an invitation to the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a self-proclaimed queer and drag order of nuns, to receive the team’s Community Hero Award. This “order” is defined by what it mocks: the Roman Catholic Church. Conservative Christian groups voiced strong objections, which prompted the Dodgers to rescind their invitation. This, then, sparked controversy among progressive groups. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence released a statement asserting that their organization is based on love, acceptance, and celebrating human diversity. But their performances contradict this claim. For example, each year, they organize an Easter event that includes a "hunky Jesus and foxy Mary" contest. Drag queens dress in skimpy outfits, imitating Jesus and even simulating crucifixion, with another drag queen pole dancing on the "Jesus" figure. The event also features a character called "Fesus," hatched from an egg, who claims to be the alpha and omega. Fesus mockingly proclaims: "I was born 30 seconds ago, yet I was created with no beginning, no middle, and no end. Sent from the heavens to slay and take away the sins of the world." Due to pressure from progressive factions, the Dodgers organization ultimately reversed its decision, issuing a Twitter statement that expressed apologies to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and their friends and family. And they re-invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to a pride night event on June 16 where they received an award from the Dodgers for their work in the community. In the face of such open hostility, how can Christians respond? 1. Remain steadfast The Dodgers organization appears very concerned with pleasing people. However, as Christians, our focus must be on faithfully following God's commands (Galations 1:10). The Bible forewarns us about facing persecution and being judged, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 4:3-4, where Paul affirms, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me." When we stand firm in the truth revealed in God's Word, we should expect judgment and slander. Yet, we should adopt Paul's attitude toward such judgment, recognizing that our ultimate accountability lies with God alone. 2. Educate our children The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, all provide a solid understanding of what we believe and why we believe it. And so too does Pastor Chris Gordon’s New Reformation Cathechism on Human Sexuality. While catechizing can present challenges, it is an immensely rewarding endeavor. And if we won’t catechize our children ourselves, then they will be catechised by the world. 3. Consider boycotts Recent examples, such as Target and Bud Light, garnered backlash for endorsing woke ideologies. According to a report by Fox, Target and Bud Light suffered a combined loss of $28 billion, with even larger figures expected since then. So boycotts can sometimes send a message. 4. Pray for those who oppose us In the famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs us: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). Jesus commands us to love and pray for the progressive movement. Loving them does not imply tolerating their beliefs, but rather sharing the truth with grace. Let us make it a practice to pray specifically for the LGBT community this pride month. Pray that they would come to repentance and turn from the path that leads to destruction. Create a list of individuals you know or organizations that support this lifestyle and commit to praying for them daily throughout the month. Noah Faber is a member of Cascade Christian Reformed Church in Maryville, Washington. Picture was taken by Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com. ...

News

Saturday Selections – June 17, 2023

How you should spend your words (2 min) We only have so many words we're going to speak. So what are you going to build – or destroy – with yours? The mental health crisis of American teenage daughters Is it just social media, or is there more causing it? Should I take the birth control pill? The birth control pill has three separate actions: the first two prevent conception, and should those two fail, the third acts to prevent the conceived children from implanting in the mother's womb – it acts as an abortifacient. Listen to this as a 20-minute podcast, or tackle it as a 10-minute read. 30% of Gen Z Americans would welcome gov't monitoring inside their homes A third of Americans under 30 would favor government surveillance in their homes, in the name of reducing spousal and child abuse. Christians might think that if we aren't doing anything wrong what does it matter if we are being watched? But do you spank your children? Might some government official somewhere want to recast that as abuse? Do you teach your children that God made us male and female? Do you insist that marriage is between one man and one woman? What might some in the government think about that? To be constantly monitored is to be constantly assessed. And knowing, as we do, that our governments don't measure right and wrong by God's standards, we should fear the prospect. That a third of these young Americans are okay with constant government surveillance shows they don't know about surveillance states of the past, like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They don't know about China's current "social credit system," where citizens are constantly monitored and granted freedoms based on their government score. And these young people must not haven't read 1984, or any other dystopian fiction. That a third of American young people would grant their government this much power isn't an endorsement of their government's trustworthiness, but only shows how badly it has run the public school system – young people by the millions have been so abysmally educated, they aren't aware that governments that try to run everything ruin everything. FOBO - the fear of better options It wasn't so long ago that kids had to contend with FOMO: the Fear Of Missing Out. It's a fear that can run kids ragged, going to this event and then that, to be sure they'll be there for whatever epic times might happen. Today kids have to contend with FOBO: Fear Of Better Options. Kids won't commit to an event just in case something better comes up. It's so widespread, kids will think nothing of ditching out on a friend they have committed to. So, in the quest for having the very best time, they leave behind people who were counting on them for friendship and companionship. 12 important questions to ask your dad on Father's Day This is a secular article, but very much about honoring your father (Ex. 20:12) by seeking his wisdom while you can. And for a double dose of fatherly attention, John Stonestreet weighs in on how the importance of fathers shouldn't be overlooked. The video below is humorous – different denominations discussing how they'll celebrate Father's Day – but has a mention of drag in it, so isn't all ages. ...

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

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

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

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Magazine

Past Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

VOTC

About Us

Advertise

Search CATEGORY: RP App

Theology

Does 1 Corinthians 6 mean Christians can never appeal to the courts?

When Charter rights appear to be violated, what can a Christian do?

Some Canadian constitutional context

What does 1 Corinthians 6 teach?

But what about Romans 13?

Daniel’s example

John Calvin on legal action

Asserting legal rights is not (necessarily) insubordination

Two examples

Conclusion

Assorted

A pastor on anxiety

News

Saturday Selections – July 22, 2023

Interview with an artist

Julia Veenstra is expressing the world!

News

Peace, peace? Will the CRC be lulled into losing their way?

In a Nutshell

Tidbits – July 2023

News

Saturday Selections – July 15, 2023

Politics

There is no neutrality so will the State be secular or Christian?

News

Saturday Selections – July 8, 2023

Dating

10 questions to discuss when “interviewing” someone for marriage

Being the Church

...but I have a couch

News

A Big Win for Free Speech from the US Supreme Court

Parenting

Kids and alcohol: parents are more influential than they may know!

News

Brain surgery in the womb!

News

Saturday Selections – July 1, 2023

Economics - Home Finances

On investing, with Wade Van Bostelen

Pro-life - Euthanasia

Getting even crazier: 27% of Canadians think being poor is good enough reason for euthanasia

Being the Church

In the right place to serve: Christians are leading the way in helping one city’s homeless

News

Alberta and BC champion very different responses to drug use

Family, Movie Reviews

Sesame Street's 25th Birthday: a musical celebration!

News

Saturday Selections – June 24, 2023

News

2023 wildfires an exception to three decades of declining fires

In a Nutshell

Tidbits - June 2023

News

Dodgers honor drag queen “nuns”

News

Saturday Selections – June 17, 2023