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

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

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



In a Nutshell

Tidbits - April 2023

Media-created news

If you feel a need to know all that’s going on in the world around you, it’s important to understand how little the media account may actually represent reality. Jonathon Van Maren makes that point in his article “Malcolm Muggeridge on Christ and the Media”:

In his slim 1977 volume Christ and the Media, Malcolm Muggeridge describes a scene instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with political protest in our TV age. He was in Washington, D.C. working as a correspondent and came across a group of protestors moping about, holding slackened signs, chatting. Bored police were also present. What were they waiting for? The cameras, as it turned out. Once they showed up – action! “Whereupon placards were lifted, slogans shouted, fists clenched; a few demonstrators were arrested and pitched into the police van, and a few cops kicked until, ‘Cut!’” Moments later, the streets were again silent. On TV that evening, it all looked very impressive. “On the television screen,” revolutionary Jerry Rubin once observed, “news is not so much reported as created.”

Reasons to read

“A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.”
– C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

If Dad told only dinosaur jokes

As you might expect with dinosaur jokes, all of these are oldies. And some of them are even goodies.

What do you call a dinosaur that never gives up? Try-try-try-ceratops
What dinosaur makes a good police officer? Tricera-cops.
What did the dinosaur call her blouse shop? Try Sarah’s Tops.
Why don’t dinosaurs drive cars? Too many Tyrannosaurus wrecks.
What do you call a T-rex in a cowboy hat? Tyrannosaurus Tex
How do you invite a dinosaur to a cafe? “Tea, Rex?”
Where does the T-rex spend its money? At a dino-store
What do you call a sleeping T-rex? A dino-snore
What do you get when a dinosaur scores a touchdown? A dino-score
What did the dinosaur use to build his house? A dino-saw
Why did the dinosaur wear a bandage? It had a dino-sore

SOURCE: Charles Keller’s Colossal Fossils: Dinosaur Riddles, and the world wide web

A need for the outrageous?

There’s a fellow I read occasionally because he has some unique insights into our culture. But I rarely quote him, because the way he talks is generally outside the bounds of what even Christians find acceptable. I’m not talking about truly offensive speech, but more that he’ll call spades spades right when everyone else is avoiding mention of dirt-moving equipment altogether. He explained:

“…I personally decided to say things that are outside the Overton Window, knowing that this came with risks. My bet was that the good I could do was likely to outweigh the possible negative outcomes. You might make similar choices. The idea then is not to live in fear, but to be smartly and strategically courageous.”

The “Overton Window” is a term to describe the range (window) of acceptable discourse – what makes for polite conversation. And this Window can be shifted. For example, publicly stating that homosexuality is sinful fell inside this Window when I was kid, but it doesn’t anymore. Why did things shift? Because some on the outside were willing to publicly state outrageous things like “homosexuality is good!” By repeatedly making these “out of bounds” statements they normalized the thought, and started pulling the Window in their direction. The eventual result was that what they were saying wasn’t viewed as outrageous any more.

This Christian writer has taken that lesson, and decided to state his positions baldly, even when they fall well outside the Overton Window. He’s doing so in an attempt to pull that Window back where it belongs. The problem with his approach is that he’ll sometimes sound rude and crude, even to the Christians who agree with him.

I’ve had a different approach, generally trying to make my case in as winsome a manner as possible. I want to frame what are becoming outrageous positions – that euthanasia is murder, the unborn are as valuable as you and me, etc. – as if they actually fall within the Overton Window, as they obviously should.

But the problem with my approach is that no matter how reasonably I might present something today, unless God brings our country to repentance, it’s only a matter of time (only a matter of weeks?) before what was once acceptable is deemed bigoted. And then I’ll either have to be okay with being outrageous, or I’ll have to take back what I’d previously said.

So whose approach is better? Well, when saying “what is a woman?” will get you in trouble, then the time might be now for all of us to get comfortable with being outrageous.

Don’t go it alone

"In more than a decade of pastoral ministry, I've never met a Christian who was healthier, more mature, and more active in ministry by being apart from the church. But I have found the opposite to be invariably true. The weakest Christians are those least connected to the body. And the less involved you are, the more disconnected those following you will be. The man who attempts Christianity without the church shoots himself in the foot, shoots his children in the leg, and shoots his grandchildren in the heart."
-- Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in our Holiness

A turn of a phrase

“Paraprosdokians” take a common figure of speech and put a twist on the ending. Comedian Groucho Marx (“I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn’t it”) was a master, but the authorship of the very best examples is hard to track down. And what makes the very best good too, is that they are in fact true, the proof being in how they parallel Scripture.

  • Don’t argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. (Prov. 26:4) – Mark Twain?
  • When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water. (Prov. 15:1) – unknown
  • Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak. (Prov. 17:28) – attributed, probably incorrectly, to Einstein
  • Truth is hate to those who hate truth. (Prov. 9:7-8) – unknown

The Andy Griffith Show on children "choosing" their gender

In a Nov. 13, 1961 episode of The Andy Griffith Show titled “Opie’s Hobo Friend,” Sheriff Andy Taylor is concerned with the influence a hobo is having on his son. So he decides to have a talk with the man, David Browne. Browne wonders why the boy, Opie, can’t just figure things out on his own.

BROWNE: “Who’s to say that the boy would be happier your way than mine. Why not let him decide?”
SHERIFF TAYLOR: "Nah, I'm afraid it don't work that way. You can't let a young’un decide for himself. He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it. Then, when he finds out there's a hook in it, it's too late. Wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter that it's hard to convince ‘em that other things might be better in the long run. All a parent can do is say 'wait' and 'trust me' and try to keep temptation away."

I almost titled this, “More sense in the 60s” but realized this wasn’t an example of things being better and people being smarter back in the day. Instead, it was the opposite, showing that they were wrestling with similar problems then too. Maybe that’s one reason why Solomon warns us “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions” (Eccl. 7:10). We won’t appreciate the blessings of today, nor the courage of our parents, if we keep imagining that yesteryear was so much better.

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary, Movie Reviews, Watch for free

Wings of an Eagle - A Musician's Journey into America

Documentary 98 minutes / 2017 RATING: 8/10 Winnipeg's favorite singer-songwriter Steve Bell gets his own documentary. Bell's been a traveling man for decades, crisscrossing the country, doing thousands of gigs, winning a couple of Junos, and even performing with symphonies across Canada. He's also headed south regularly and traveled the world. But he's never really "made it big." This is the story of both his contentment with the success God has given him, and the many friends who, encouraged by his music, want him to reach that larger audience and are doing what they can to help. While Bell's music is only shared here in snippets, it might be enough to inspire the young musician in your midst to start tickling the ivories once more or to pick up their long abandoned guitar. And Bell's appearance with the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra can't help but foster an appreciation for this full grand sound (the swelling music even got to Bell, who shared that during this concert had to keep focussing on "Don't cry, don't cry."} The film is also an eye-opener for all that's required to make it as a Christian musician. There are no guarantees, no matter how hard a man might work. But whether he's on a high or low, Bell manages to keep smiling... for the most part.  He can see the humor in being a quiet success. At his Winnipeg Symphony performance he shared this story with the audience: "Have you guys seen all those bus boards that we've had out advertising the concert? They've got me on the side of the busy. It's cool to see yourself on a bus, except for... I use the bus. So it gets a little awkward. But this actually happened: I was staying on Henderson Highway, I had my guitar, and all of sudden I hear this voice behind me saying 'You play guitar?' And I turned around and this guy was standing there and he wanted to talk about guitars. So I turned, my back to the street. He started talking about his guitars and he asked me what kind of music I did and I told him and then he said,  'I'd like to hear you sometime. Where can I hear you play?' No word of a lie: the bus pulls up... my face stopped right there, and I just kind of tilted the same way and I smiled at him and got on the bus. It was just very awesome!" Cautions As the documentary details, Bell is the son of a Baptist pastor who has his first break with an album giveaway on a Roman Catholic TV program. That's one reason I wonder if Bell might tend to blur some important Christian distinctions. While the Steve Bell output I'm familiar with has always been orthodox, that'd be a caution to keep in mind if you're looking into more of his music. Conclusion I started watching this with kids, and while one of our girls cut out to go play with the neighbors, we also has a neighbor come by and plop down for the whole of it. So it has broad appeal, even among the younger set who'd never heard of Bell before. And if you have any musicians aspiring to a professional career, this might be one to watch together, and discuss what trade-offs they would and wouldn't be willing to make for such a career. It definitely comes with a cost. To watch Wings of an Eagle for free, head on over to RedeemTV.com, where you'll need to sign up for a free membership to gain access....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar 25, 2023

How do evolutionists explain how the first cells replicated? (14 min) To evolve, cells would need to be able to replicate, so how do evolutionists explain the origin of replication? This cartoon Intelligent Design presentation is a fun watch but, admittedly, gets pretty technical. Fortunately, you don't need to get it all to catch the gist: that evolutionary explanations for the origin of life don't explain it at all. The one-sided environmental thinking behind Avatar: The Way of Water While this is a secular critique of what has become the 6th highest-grossing film of all time, the latter half lines up with God's mandate for us to have dominion over Creation (Genesis 1:26-28): ours isn't simply to have a hands-off approach. Don't trust ChatGPT When Dr. Bredenhof did some testing on the AI website ChatGPT, he found that it provided both dreadful and impressive answers. What does "woke" actually mean? Folks who are too scared to define "woman" really want us to define the term "woke." Can we do it? Yes we can. Tim Challies on the changing of the dictionaries Dictionary.com's word of the year for 2022 was "woman" but how long will they have a clear definition of it? Steve Jobs pitching educational vouchers (4 min) In this 1995 interview, Apple's founder makes an impassioned plea for more parental control in education via vouchers. It's a great idea, but comes with its own hitch: government money comes with conditions, so a school might only be accredited if they adopt aspects of the government's ideology. Still, distributing educational dollars through parental hands would be a real upgrade on the direct government distribution we have now. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
History

The long road to Christian broadcasting in Canada

How Christian activism successfully changes governmental policy ***** The presence of Christian radio and television stations in Canada is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first Christian radio station went on the air in 1993 and the first Christian TV station began broadcasting in 1996. Radio and television had been around for decades, so why were the Christian stations so late in coming? The short answer is government policy. The federal government regulatory body with jurisdiction in this area would not allow specifically Christian radio and TV stations in Canada until the mid-1990s. Importantly, the change in policy that did occur at that time was the result of Christian activism. 1920s – Anti-JW feelings used to ban religious stations in general Religious organizations in Canada began using radio by the late 1920s. In 1928 the federal government started receiving complaints about broadcasts on stations owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The broadcasts were said to be unpatriotic and abusive of various churches. A Royal Commission on Broadcasting was then appointed, in part due to the controversy over JW broadcasts. In 1929 the Royal Commission recommended that broadcasting in Canada should serve the national interest by fostering a sense of national unity and Canadian identity. Religious broadcasts should not be used to foment religious controversy or attack the leaders and doctrines of particular religions. A policy then evolved whereby religious organizations were no longer granted licenses for radio stations since it was believed they would serve only sectarian interests rather than the community as a whole. Religious organizations could purchase time on secular stations, but could not have stations of their own. 1950s & 60s – Birth of the CRTC However, there were some restrictions even on the organizations that purchased airtime on other stations. Ernest Manning, for example, experienced problems with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which was not only the national broadcaster, but also the federal regulatory body over broadcasting throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. Manning was the Premier of Alberta, but he was also a radio evangelist. By the 1950s he had extended his radio program, Back to the Bible Hour, out of Alberta and right across the country. The CBC did not like Manning appealing for funds on his radio program, and it pressured certain radio stations to delete Manning’s financial appeals. In 1968 a new regulatory body for broadcasting was created, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). As a result, the CBC was removed from a regulatory role. Despite this change, the situation did not improve for potential Christian broadcasters. In some cases, the hostility to religious broadcasting was so intense that even proposed stations that weren’t explicitly religious were denied licenses out of fear that they could evolve into primarily religious stations. 1970s – Canadian Family Radio kiboshed It should be noted that by the late 1970s opposition to “religious” radio or TV stations, in effect, meant opposition to evangelical radio and TV stations since it was only evangelical organizations that seriously attempted to establish their own radio and TV stations at the time. In 1978 Ralph Jacobson, a former missionary with the Sudan Interior Mission, applied to establish Canadian Family Radio in Vancouver. He did not present it as a religious station but one with general programming of interest to families. He and his supporters were concerned about increasing social problems and wanted positive, uplifting radio content that didn’t contribute to the problems. In February 1979 the CRTC granted approval in principle to Jacobson’s application provided he could find a different radio frequency (a technical detail) and that he reduce the proportion of religious content, especially non-Canadian programs. He was assured that he could proceed to acquire facilities and equipment, which he did. Unbeknownst to Jacobson, the “mainline” (i.e. liberal) churches (United Church, Anglican Church, etc.) got wind of his achievement and went to work to thwart his plans. They had formed a group called Interchurch Communications which contacted the CRTC in May 1979 requesting that the Commission pull the plug on Jacobson’s station. In August 1979 the CRTC complained to Jacobson that he was still proposing too much religious content, and in July 1980 the CRTC withdrew its approval of his station. Alberta Report attributed the CRTC’s change of heart to the intervention of the mainline churches. Mainline churches like to trumpet their “tolerance” when it comes to sinful practices like abortion and homosexuality, but they give no quarter for evangelical Christianity. 1980s – CRTC says yes to Playboy, no to Christian TV In April 1981, Crossroads Communications applied for a license for a satellite television station. This, too, was strongly opposed by Interchurch Communications which feared the proliferation of religious (read: evangelical) stations. The Crossroad’s application was turned down, but as a result of the application, the CRTC held public hearings in January 1982 on whether it should license pay TV channels for religious broadcasting. The result of those hearings was that in the spring of 1983 the CRTC adopted a policy of allowing one religious pay channel, as long as it carried material from a wide spectrum of religious groups across Canada, not just Christian groups. This suited the mainline churches since it would marginalize evangelical programming to a certain degree. The result of this decision would ultimately be the creation of Vision TV, which was licensed in 1987 and formally launched in 1988. Although evangelical organizations would purchase time on Vision TV, its controlling board has had a decidedly leftist slant for many years. While the CRTC maintained its stance against exclusively Christian radio and television stations, it had no such reluctance about pornography, and it allowed the Playboy pay TV channel to broadcast in Canada. In August 1983 the CRTC rejected the application for an AM gospel radio station in Edmonton. The spokesman for the group behind the application was a local news anchorman, Doug Main. The application was also supported by local Tory MP David Kilgour. The CRTC agreed that the proposal for a gospel music station was not the same as an explicitly religious station, but feared that it could get a Christian image “and result in the development of a ‘religious’ programming service.” The CRTC was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough “balance” in the content, that is, not enough non-Christian content. Even today, the CRTC makes a big deal that religious stations (and only religious stations) must incorporate “balance” into their programming. But as Doug Main put it, “Really, is a Christian going to put up all sorts of dough so a Buddhist or a Moslem can get on the air?” And David Kilgour also had pertinent criticisms of the CRTC’s rejection of the application. “Our youth must run less risk of being corrupted by pornography, in the minds of the CRTC, than by the dangers of gospel music.” And furthermore, “The CRTC speaks in fine, high-sounding terms about the public interest, and maintains a myth of neutrality, but they’ve already shown an antipathy for people who want to listen to something as innocent as gospel music.” In February 1986 a Christian group in Lethbridge, Alberta began rebroadcasting the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) from the USA, and also applied to the CRTC for permission to do so. In August of that year, the CRTC rejected the application. Rebroadcasters of TBN would subsequently emerge in Edmonton, Lloydminster, and Grand Prairie, Alberta. This rebroadcasting was technically illegal. 1990s – Christian civil disobedience works...in part Late in 1991, the CRTC summoned the four rebroadcasters for a hearing in Edmonton for the following January. The CRTC was in for a bit of a surprise because not only did the rebroadcasters show up, but also about 600 of their supporters. When a CRTC official stated that all broadcasters must have a license, the crowd chanted, “Then give them a license, give them a license.” One of the rebroadcasters, Russell Pearson, saw his activity as a form of civil disobedience to force the issue of religious broadcasting. “Technically we are breaking the CRTC’s laws right now,” he admitted. “But we hope that the end result will be freedom of religion in Canada.” Henry Morgentaler had flouted Canadian law for many years, and by 1992 he was receiving government funding for the abortions he performed. Sometimes civil disobedience works (for good or evil – evil in Morgentaler’s case). At least in part due to the strong showing of support for Christian broadcasters, in June 1993 the CRTC lifted its ban on the licensing of religious broadcasters in Canada in a new Religious Broadcasting Policy. The Lethbridge group that had been rebroadcasting TBN prepared an application, and on April 4, 1995, it received the first CRTC license for a Christian television station in Canadian history. It would subsequently go on the air as the Miracle Channel in January 1996. Other applicants, however, were not so lucky. In November 1995 seven applications for Christian TV stations across Canada were rejected by the CRTC for lacking “balance” in their content. The Broadcasting Act does require “balance,” but many people believe what it means is balance (diversity) among the many stations in an area, not specifically just for programming on Christian stations. Christian lawyer Gerard Guay came to the aid of the failed applicants arguing that the CRTC erred in its application of the balance requirement and the Broadcast Act’s freedom of expression requirement. He wrote that the: “CRTC improperly determined that the Broadcasting Act requires each over-the-air undertaking devoted to religious programming to be 'balanced,' whereas the Act requires balance of the whole broadcasting system. In other words, you get 'balance' by viewing many channels. This CRTC requirement is especially unfair, since only religious broadcast undertakings have to provide balance. “The other major error in the CRTC's decision is that the CRTC failed to comply with the Broadcasting Act's imperative requirements on freedom of expression. This is another example of how disturbing the CRTC's policies on religious broadcasting are, since there is a specific section in the Broadcasting Act that requires that the Act be applied in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.” On October 29, 1996, the CRTC gave Pastor Allan Hunsperger a license for a gospel music station in Calgary. Previously he had received a license for a station in Edmonton. He had been working towards the establishment of a Christian radio station in Alberta since 1978, and his persistence had finally paid off. There were also two other Christian radio stations in Canada by this time, one in Vancouver and one in Ottawa. However, Christian television proposals continued to be rejected. In July 1997 the CRTC rejected a number of Christian applicants including the Roman Catholic EWTN station, which had the support of 10 Canadian bishops. At the same time, the CRTC accepted cable distribution of the Playboy Network. The Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) then produced a pamphlet exposing the hypocrisy of the CRTC’s decision (rejecting religion but accepting pornography) and distributed 200,000 copies of it across Canada. On April 9, 1998, the CRTC licensed Canada’s second Christian television station, Crossroads Television System. And a Christian TV station was approved for Vancouver in 2000. So things have been moving in a positive direction as Christian radio and television stations spread across the country. Conclusion Over the course of the last few decades, it appears that the CRTC has been responsive (to a certain degree) to public pressure. It was pressure from the mainline churches that apparently helped squelch Ralph Jacobson’s radio station in 1980. But since then continual applications and pressure from conservative Christians pushed the CRTC to accept a religious television station (although Vision TV is a tremendous disappointment), and finally to reluctantly accept Christian radio and television stations in the 1990s. Part of this Christian success is apparently the result of the civil disobedience of the Alberta TBN rebroadcasters. Lawyer Gerard Guay put it this way: Had it not been for individuals who decided to fight the historic ban on Christian broad­casting and had it not been for those who joined that fight and insisted in a change of policy, (even if they had to accept prison terms), the prohibition against religious broadcasters in Canada would never have been lifted and we would not even have the opportunity of submitting applications. So it would seem that Christian activism against the anti-Christian policies of the CRTC had a decided effect. It took many years and was undoubtedly very discouraging for those involved, but the persistent ones, like Allan Hunsperger who soldiered on in the face of obstacle after obstacle, ultimately triumphed and paved the way for Christian broadcasting in Canada. This first appeared in the May 2008 issue. REFERENCES Alberta Report. "The CRTC tangles with religion." September 26, 1980, p. 36. Holly Bannerman. "A battle for the airwaves." Alberta Report, September 25, 1981, pp. 49-50. Mike Byfield. "A million-dollar miracle." The Report, July 22, 2002, pp. 44-45. Gerard Guay. "CCLJ Appeals CRTC Decision." Law & Justice, January 1996, pp. 1-2. Bill Johnson. "A warm welcome for the CRTC." Alberta Report, January 27, 1992, pp. 38-39. Robert Lee and Stephen Weatherbe. "The CRTC and the needle's eye." Alberta Report, September 12, 1983, pp. 40-41. David Marshall. "Premier E.C. Manning, Back to the Bible Hour, and Fundamentalism in Canada." In Religion and Public Life in Canada: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Ed. Marguerite Van Die. University of Toronto Press, 2001. John Simpson. "Federal Regulation and Religious Broadcasting in Canada and the United States: A Comparative Sociological Analysis." In Canadian Issues Volume 7, 1985, Association for Canadian Studies. Stephen Weatherbe & Marilyn McKinley. "Christ and the CRTC." Alberta Report. June 20, 1983, pp. 42-43. Joe Woodard. "A state blessing, after 18 years." Alberta Report, December 16, 1996, p. 36. Joe Woodard. "Porn over prophecy." Alberta Report, September 15, 1997, pp. 34-35. Joe Woodard. "Christian TV breakthrough." Alberta Report, May 18, 1998, p. 34....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar 18, 2023

St. Patrick's bad analogies In honor of St. Patrick's Day just past, and our God who has made Himself known, and yet remains incomprehensible. Case studies – 2 Canadian, 1 Australian – show how ideology is preventing inquiry When it comes to the free exchange of ideas, Christians are often portrayed as suppressors because we have a problem with pornography and blasphemy - we do want to put some restrictions on "speech." But God has told us that iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17) , and that one person questioning another can help us find the truth (Prov. 18:17). Thus there is a biblical basis for allowing speech we disagree with: to help us better seek the truth. But what basis outside of Christianity is there for freedom of speech? Whatever reasons are offered will either be founded on a Christian foundation (if only you dig deep enough) or aren't strong enough to stand up to groupthink, as is evidenced by the reaction to the three follks here, who are guilty of wrongthink. Britain's 1984 moment The "conservative" government across the ocean has just voted for criminalizing the thoughtcrime of silent prayer outside abortion clinics. The silver lining here is that when the Devil overreaches – when he uses the iron fist, rather than the siren song – his lack of subtlety makes it possible for even the most tongue-tied among us to clearly present the antithesis: that the world must choose between bowing the knee to God, or standing with the baby-killers and the thought-police. That's clarity we can be grateful for. Fight for your pastor Shepherds not only have to contend with wolves but they are called to tend sometimes contentious sheep. So what are we doing to sustain them in their role? Are you fighting for your pastor? 3 rules of rational parenting derived from... economics? A Christian professor taps into economics to explain why you should never give in to your child's tantrums – this is a parenting lesson unlike any other :) This is a coat! (4 min) For parents everywhere.... (h/t Anita) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

Tolerance

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

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Mar 4, 2023

Trick shot basketball (5 min) Everyone talks basketball in March, so here are some highlights from the "That's Amazing" crew and the Harlem Globetrotters. 60 questions for pro-choice Christians For anyone you know who professes to be both Christian and pro-choice, here are questions to clarify a different sort of "choice" they need to make: between supporting abortion or following Christ. Our badly designed pharynx?  Christians will sometimes wonder if they should give evolution a hearing since there's supposed to be so much evidence for it. But how much of that evidence is simply ideology? Here's one example: some evolutionists will point to humans' pharynx  – the shared opening we have in our throat for both food and air – as an example of the bad design you'd expect chance and time to produce. They point to it as evidence of evolution's trial and error. But if we don't presume that our pharynx was Designer-free, then you'd see it for that example it is of stupendous design – it took genius to make this work just so. COVID might have been created in a lab... and now you're allowed to say it The findings are still not definitive. What is definitive is that the social media censorship and mainstream media dismissal of this possibility two years ago tells us a lot about how little we should trust these information gatekeepers. Girls are getting sick from Tik Tok "One of the strangest stories of the last couple of years is how teenage girls have been stricken with facial tics after browsing the video-sharing app TikTok." But is it only facial tics that are contagious over social media? Or is social media also responsible for “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” and the increase in teens identifying as LGBT? "Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues, in a sweeping new analysis, that this catastrophic rise in teen mental illness is largely caused by social media use." What's the greatest of all Protestant "heresies"? Roman Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) thought assurance was the worst of all Protestant doctrines...which is high praise indeed. A dueling banjo To set the scene: in this clip from The Song, Rose has just met Jed King, the singing act for her vineyard's annual wine-tasting festival. When Jed asked her why she seems distracted, Rose finds herself oversharing – to a complete stranger! – that she'd just bumped into her ex-boyfriend Eddie who'd dumped her for... well, for being a good Christian lass. And to top it off, the jerk brought his new girlfriend along. So... Jed decides to sing Rose a song.  ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Drama, Movie Reviews, Watch for free

2081: Everyone will finally be equal

Drama 2009 / 25 minutes RATING: 8/10 “The year is 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law you see; they were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else…" In 2081 a “golden age of equality” has been ushered in by the “Handicapper General” whose job is to assess everyone’s abilities and, if they have any advantages, to then assign them “handicaps” to take them away. In the film’s opening scene, we meet George who, being a little stronger than most, is sunk down in his easy chair by the heavy weights he’s been assigned to sap his strength. He’s also outfitted with earphones that hit him with piercing sounds to make it impossible for him to use his higher-than-average IQ. Meanwhile, his wife Hazel sits comfortably on the couch, knitting. She hasn't been outfitted with any handicaps because she's been deemed to have no advantages. So they are equal. But is it an equality we want to have? Hazel and George are now just as fast, just as strong, and just as able to do math as one another. But this is an equality of the lowest common denominator. To bring this equality George's gifts had to be diminished until he was at Hazel's level. And for the government to bring about this type of equality, it had to treat them quite differently: Hazel is free, while George is in chains. Surely this isn't what we mean by equality, is it? There must be some other, better sort? While the film doesn't really direct us to the equality that is worth pursuing, the Bible does. In passages like Leviticus 19:15, Ex. 23:3, 1 Timothy 5:21, and James 2:8-9 we're pointed to a type of equality that involve treating all alike, not favoring the less advantaged over the rich, or the rich over the poor. Instead of endorsing 2081's equality of outcomes, God tells us to extend an equality of treatment. 2081 is so short I don't want to give any more of the plot away. But if you're looking for a great conversation starter, this is a fantastic film to watch and discuss, though be sure to do so with a Bible in hand. You can watch the trailer below, and to watch 2081 for free, follow this link (you do need to sign up to their email list, but they won't spam you, and you can always unsubscribe). Questions to consider In 2081 equality is said to have been achieved. But has it really? Are Hazel and George and Harrison equal to the Handicapper General? Can you think of any historical examples where governments brought a form of equality to the masses, that they didn't want to share in themselves? Does the Bible support an equality of outcomes or an equality of treatment (aka, an equality of opportunity)? See Leviticus 19:15, Ex. 23:3, 1 Timothy 5:21, and James 2:8-9. How is Hazel’s situation improved by George being handicapped? Why would she hate it if he removed his handicaps? How does Ex. 20:17 apply here? Is income inequality (2 Chronicles 1:12; Ex. 20:17) something that God calls on Christians to fight? Is poverty (Prov. 19:17)? What was Harrison Bergeron hoping to accomplish? If no one remembers his speech then did he die for anything? If we take an unsuccessful stand for what is right why could that still be worth doing? In what way is our measure of success different than that of the world's? In 2081 the government controls every aspect of people's lives. Why do governments grow? Who is it that's asking them to do more? What are the dangers of governments that get too big? (1 Samuel 8:10-22) ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

The problem with "pan-millennialism"

“I’m not amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial. I’m pan-millennial.” “Huh?” “Yep, I’m pan-millennial—I believe it will all pan out in the end!” I’ve occasionally heard this humorous remark made when the end times are discussed. Technically, if we believe in the biblical gospel, we should all be panmillennialists. The risen and ascended Christ will return and everything will “pan out” for believers who will ultimately enjoy “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). But the person who tells the “panmillennial” joke, and really means it, isn’t interested in details about the end times. He realizes that eschatology (the study of last things) is loaded with difficulties, and says, “I’m not going to think much about end times doctrine anymore. Jesus is going to make everything right when He comes again, and that’s good enough for me.” This man hasn’t just given up on figuring out what “a thousand years” means in Revelation 20, but has decided that thinking about the end times beyond generalities is just too hard and ultimately fruitless. There’s a major problem with the panmillennial mindset. The Bible does speak about the particulars of the end times, so to ignore those verses is to disregard what the Holy Spirit made sure was included. Furthermore, when we skip over those passages, we lose more than just knowledge. God has spoken in understandable ways about the end times to give us hope and joy Transforming grief The Thessalonian believers enthusiastically awaited the return of Christ (1 Thess 1:9-10). But after Paul was forced out of town by persecution, some believers died, sending the remaining Christians into a state of hopeless grief (4:13). They didn’t just miss the deceased believers, but apparently thought the dead believers would miss out on some blessing at Christ’s return. Paul addressed the Thessalonians’ ignorance by speaking of some of the details about the day of Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he gave an order of some of the events of that day: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.” In the first frame of a Peanuts comic strip, Lucy is looking out the window and says, “Boy, look at it rain… What if it floods the whole world?” Linus responds, “It will never do that…In the ninth chapter of Genesis, God promised Noah that it would never happen again, and the sign of the promise is the rainbow.” Lucy replies, “You’ve taken a great load off my mind…” So Linus concludes, “Sound theology has a way of doing that!” Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead in order to give them sound theology so they could take a great load off of their minds. They needed to know that their beloved sleeping believers (4:13) wouldn’t miss anything when Jesus came back. Instead, they would have front-row seats! With that kind of information, their grief would undergo a dramatic transformation. Paul refused to ignore the details about the return of Christ in addressing the Thessalonians, because he understood how relevant and encouraging that information really was. He even charged them to “encourage one another with these words” (4:18). What words? The specific words about the believers who had died and their participation in the events surrounding Christ’s return. Blessed is the one… Revelation is full of end times information, yet it is one of the most neglected books of the Bible due to interpretive difficulties. However, in his opening comments John promises, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near” (1:3). We should humbly admit when we are confused about certain aspects of Christ’s return. Yet, not everything that God has said about the end times is puzzling. Read those verses carefully and thoughtfully, and blessing is sure to follow. Copyright © 2013 Steve Burchett (www.BulletinInserts.org). Permission granted for reproduction in exact form....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Being the Church

“good” vs. good

Our political leaders think they know what’s best for us. But by what standard are they judging what’s good? *****  Why should Christians participate in political action in the first place? That’s an important question to answer, since Christian involvement in politics is largely misunderstood by the world, and not always clarified that well by Christians themselves. So, again, why should Christians get involved in politics? To advocate for society to be built on Christian principles, since we know these principles are what God commands in His Word. We also want to advocate for the freedom for God’s people to do what He has called us to do. Don’t force your morality on me! Now, the world around us will ask us to kindly keep our religion to ourselves and they’ll tell us we shouldn’t try to force our morality on them. Other Christians can also be among the most vocal opponents of applying an explicitly Christian approach to public policy. You might hear them argue that while God’s Word is authoritative for us and for how we live, it isn’t authoritative for the world around us. Who are we to think that we can apply our faith to public policy? Isn’t it inappropriate to apply biblical principles to those who do not believe? We might be tempted to think that if someone’s choices are not hurting anyone, then do we still need to advocate for Christian policy? This might be particularly so when it comes to the whole area of sexuality: if two men are living together, or a couple is shacked up before marriage, should we really care? Maybe we should just keep to ourselves and avoid any sort of “political” conversations around marriage, or gender, or family.  The “common good” But if we rule out a Christian approach to politics, then what’s left? The alternative typically proposed relies on the idea of “the common good” or “the public interest.” Policies are presented as being good for various groups of citizens. So, for example: decriminalizing abortion is presented as giving women the right to choose legalizing euthanasia is presented as a means of relieving suffering redefining marriage is presented as allowing people to love whoever they want Other examples would include how certain housing policies are presented as strategies to reduce homelessness and policies allowing safe injection sites might be presented as preventing overdose deaths. In these cases, does the government care about the common good? In their minds, yes. But their perspective of the common good is often different from a Reformed Christian’s perspective. The fact is, every policy springs from a particular worldview. Our worldview directly impacts how we define policy issues and how we propose solutions. If I think that choice or autonomy is the ultimate good, then abortion and euthanasia would seem to be good things. But if I know that God’s law places important limits on choice and autonomy, I’ll understand that abortion and euthanasia must fall within those limitations. Policy decisions impact real people, but how we view that impact depends on how we see the world and our place in it more broadly. And we must also examine the worldview of our policy-makers as we consider the policies they champion. A “faith” in science or liberalism or secularism or autonomy or anything else will affect how they view law and policy.  For the true good of our neighbors Because of differing ideas of the “common good,” some Christians might say that we should only advocate for policies based on social scientific evidence that the world can agree with. But if we forget about the biblical worldview behind our evidence, it will often be interpreted in a way that is detrimental to those around us. For example, as governments seek to redefine the family, the prevailing attitude is “all kids need is a loving family - it doesn’t matter what the family structure is.” It can be easy to fall into this thinking. After all, aren’t loving gay parents better than an abusive mother and father? We begin to look at extremes instead of a biblical starting point for the family. And we fail to hold to an objective foundation for what is truly good for the people affected. Christians need to be confident in both the wisdom and goodness of our God, and consequently certain that principles set forth in the Bible will yield policies that are good for Canadians. It is in the Gospel where we find the truth about humanity and the world. Therefore, we should also seek to influence our society with God’s law. As Christian philosopher James Smith explained in his book Awaiting the King, “if we are convinced (convicted) that in Christ and His Word we know something about how to be human, then shouldn’t we seek to bend social practices and policy in that direction for the good of our neighbors?” This applies not just to life issues like euthanasia and abortion, but also when we’re talking about the family, gender, and sexuality. There too, we need to recognize God’s good design for human beings before we can understand what is truly good for our neighbors. And when we know what God thinks, then the facts will fit too – as ARPA Canada explained in a recent policy document, the natural family as God designed it is statistically most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. The world’s “good” exposed As confident as we can be that God knows best, we can also be certain that the world’s “good” will eventually be exposed as anything but. I recently learned about one organization that focuses on trying to help the “survivors of the Sexual Revolution.” That’s language you don’t often hear in the broader culture, because our society views the Sexual Revolution as a beneficial liberation from the constraints of sexual morality. But victims abound, including many who didn’t survive: prostituted and abused women, people who have undergone “sex reassignment” procedures, children who have lost a parent due to divorce, and of course the many aborted children. A recent example of harm caused by the Sexual Revolution is the enactment of a national, criminal ban on conversion therapy. The ban assumes that biblical views on gender and sexuality are harmful to people struggling with their gender or sexuality. In reality, the law hinders people who are struggling from receiving the help they need. This brings us back to the question of worldview. A Christian worldview in this instance presents the truth about God’s design for humanity, the reality of a fallen world, but also the way of restoration. Conclusion The world will criticize us for advocating for biblically based policies, and characterize it as trying to “force our own morality on others” or as “getting involved in something that doesn’t concern them.” Other Christians may even find fault with bringing the Bible to bear in the public square. But it is because we care deeply about our neighbors that we want to share and advocate for what is true and good. And it is because of God and His Word that we know what is true and good. So when we hear of a policy decision, we need to step back and look at biblical principles and what God’s Word says about what is glorifying to God and good for our neighbors. From there, we can analyze whether the government truly understands what is good for our neighbors based on God’s good design. As Nancy Pearcey writes in Love Thy Body: “Christians must be prepared to minister to the wounded, the refugees of the secular moral revolution whose lives have been wrecked by its false promises of freedom and autonomy.” Advocating for Christian policy is not selfish nor oppressive. It is truly for the common good....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Australian Christian couple wins discrimination case against foster care agency

In 2017, Byron Hordyk, a self-employed carpenter, and his wife Keira Hordyk, decided that they could open their home to provide foster care to needy children. The Hordyks, who are members of Baldivis Free Reformed Church (FRC) in Australia, applied with Wanslea Family Services, a Perth-based agency that connects families with foster children, among other services. During the application process, the Hordyks were asked how they would deal with a child who was homosexual, or began to be interested in homosexuality. The couple had made clear that they were interested in providing short-term care to young children under the age of five (since their oldest at that time was about six years old), so this line of questioning seemed a bit out of place. (Some of the questions dealt with how the Hordyks would deal with reports from school about same-sex attraction or gay activity.) Byron and Keira answered honestly that they would not be able to encourage homosexuality. As Christians, they believe that a gay lifestyle is against the Word of God, and therefore they would not be the best fit long term for a child who persisted in pursuing that way of living. The Hordyks made clear that the agency would not need to immediately remove the child from their home, and that they would still show love and support to such a boy or girl while in their care. Ultimately, Wanslea Family Services rejected the Hordyks’ application in 2019, marking their case file as “assessed not to meet competencies” (although they were earlier judged to be suitable to become foster parents). Despite the fact that there is an enormous shortage of families willing to provide foster care in Western Australia, the agency did not believe that the Hordyks were fit to give a home to needy children, simply because of their Christian view of homosexuality. Disappointed, Byron and Keira sought legal advice from John Steenhof, a lawyer and fellow FRC member. Steenhof saw the potential importance of the case for religious liberty and against religious discrimination, and took on the case pro bono. (Steenhof at the time was working in private practice, and has since gone on to join the Human Rights Law Alliance.) He recommended that the Hordyks challenge Wanslea Family Services’ rejection as discrimination under Western Australia’s Equal Opportunities Act. The Act states that it is unlawful for a person who provides services to discriminate against another person on the basis of their religious or political conviction. Giving testimony to the Tribunal along with the Hordyks was Rev. Wes Bredenhof, frequent contributor to Reformed Perspective. Bredenhof provided an extensive written background of the Free Reformed Churches, showing that the Hordyks’ belief that homosexuality is sinful has long been a shared stance of confessional churches that take the Word of God seriously, such as the FRC. This past December, over five years after the Hordyks’ initial application, the State Administrative Tribunal ruled in their favor, deciding that Wanslea Family Services had treated the Hordyks unfairly, and awarding them damages of $3,000 each. Many news agencies including ABC News in the US, and newspapers all across Australia covered the court case, often with an antagonism to God’s warning against homosexuality. Lawyer Steenhof believes the case is an important one for religious freedom and against discrimination. He wrote that: “this landmark case demonstrates how societal hostility to religion – and especially Christianity – is increasing, especially within our institutions. Christians who established, grew and then gave to Western cultures their key social institutions such as hospitals, universities, aged care facilities and foster care agencies are now facing increasing exclusion from those very institutions.” After five years in this process, the Hordyks are eager to put this chapter of their lives into the past. They have gone on to have two more children, and are not likely to re-apply to become foster parents, since they would have to start all over again, and their personal circumstances have changed. Through discrimination against Christianity, Wanslea Family Services has removed from the pool of potential foster homes a family that could have provided loving care for kids in their community. Christians may hope that the Hordyks’ perseverance in this case, and the hard work of their legal advisor Steenhof and others, may result in more fair treatment for potential foster families in the future. The Lord has not promised us an easy road here on this earth, but Christians in the western world have become accustomed to relative freedom to hold to the timeless truths of the Bible. We are seeing more and more that the world is rejecting God’s truths, and wants to outlaw speech and thought that calls sin what it is. May the Lord provide courage to us all to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet doing so with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Court decision “a welcome dose of balance and common sense” by John Steenhof The recent decision by the State Administrative Tribunal that Byron and Keira Hordyk were discriminated against because of their religious views is a landmark case that demonstrates how societal hostility to religion – and especially Christianity – is increasing, especially within our institutions. As supported by expert evidence in the case, the Hordyks’ beliefs on marriage were consistent with those held by almost all branches of the Christian faith up until the sexual revolution of the mid-20th century, “that marriage is a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman; all extra marital sexuality is contrary to the Bible. Homosexual lusts and behaviors are contrary to the Bible and that there are two fixed genders or sexes, namely male or female.” Wanslea Family Services has sometimes recast their logo in the LGBT rainbow. Wanslea Family Services considered the Hordyks’ views unacceptable. This is increasingly common in many Australian institutions. The Hordyks were rejected as potential foster parents not because they were unsuitable to provide a temporary home for vulnerable toddlers, but because they held unacceptable religious views. The Hordyks are not alone in falling afoul of these institutional purity tests. In 2022, Andrew Thorburn at the Essendon Australian Rules Football Club was forced to resign because he held the wrong views. In 2021, the Australian Christian Lobby had venue bookings cancelled by the Western Australian government because their Christian beliefs were inconsistent with “diversity, equality and inclusion.” This increasing animosity to religion can be attributed to a variety of factors: the increasing secularization of Australian society generally, the irresponsible and hostile reporting of religious issues in the media, the ascendancy and triumph of LGBTQ dogma in Australian culture, the hard fusion in popular discourse of Christianity with the evils of colonialism, and the fragmentation and polarization of civil dialogue in a social media age. Whatever the causes, these cultural trends should be of concern to all Australians. While heteronormative Christians are the target today, there is no reason why this cultural trajectory will not progress to declare other social and political convictions as anathema and beyond the pale. The recent Essendon public apology to Andrew Thorburn, and the Hordyk decision are a welcome dose of balance and common sense in an otherwise fevered cultural environment. The tenacity of the Hordyks in seeking vindication through a grueling 5-year process demonstrates that there is value in pushing matters to the Courts past the loud cultural voices that have captured many of Australia’s institutions and which have declared Christianity anathema and unsafe. A pluralistic and multicultural society requires the participation of a variety of people with diverse and conflicting religious beliefs, political convictions and personal opinions. The friction lines between competing views will often be difficult to adjudicate, but the Courts have shown that, regardless of the prevailing ideological fashions of the day, religious Australians must be given a fair go. John Steenhof is the Principal Lawyer at Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), founded in 2019 to “provide assistance, advice and advocacy to ordinary Australians under attack for living out their faith and convictions in public.” John and his wife Lana have six children between the ages of 6 and 19, and now live in Canberra, Australia’s capital, where they attend Southside Bible Church, a Reformed evangelical church....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Feb. 18, 2023

Recycling plastic is bad stewardship (7 min) Recycling paper and cans can make sense. Despite what we've been told, recycling plastic most often doesn't. How long have you been battling sin? Tim Challies on how "In some way each of us carries a heavy load through this life. In some way each of us finds it a long marathon more than a brief sprint. In some way each of us is called to endure with fortitude, even for a very long time." 1984, China, and Sydney WorldPride 2023 As George Orwell wrote, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four" - it is the freedom to say what really is, including that men can't become women, and homosexuality is a sin. Declare that anywhere around Sydney this upcoming week, and you will not be tolerated or celebrated for your diverse thinking - you will be instead a candidate for the "two minute hate." Trans "medicine" is based on bad science A new study is debunking the “Dutch Protocol” research that was being used to promote and legitimize "trans" treatments. Creationist Christians were always aware that ideologically-driven bias exists in "Science" but now the trans agenda is making that increasingly plain to everyone else too. A biblical identity for adoptees Adopted children can struggle with their sense of identity. How can we help them to cultivate a biblical identity? Coherence - amazing evidence of our design (1 min) If you've ever had to replace a missing screw from this or that gizmo in your house, you already know the importance of coherence – it isn't enough to have a screw; you need to have the exact right screw that the gizmo has been designed to work with. The coherence in our bodies – eyes that precisely fit eyeball sockets, wrist bones that each, individually fit alongside the other wrist bones, muscles that attach at just the right points, arteries that carry blood to exactly where it is needed, etc. and etc. – is clear evidence of our own brilliant design. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Soup and Buns

Friends or acquaintances?

Loneliness can make you pretty sad. In lonely times, you may ponder your relationships and realize that they are superficial. Perhaps you have wanted to strengthen them and not known how. Perhaps you have tried, but you have not yet been successful. It may be that a little analysis and understanding could head you in the right direction. In the realm of relationships, there are four categories that people fall into: strangers, acquaintances, companions, and friends. Strangers are those whom you haven’t met yet; the other three categories can somewhat overlap. Acquaintances and companions Acquaintances are people whom we have met. They may be neighbors, fellow students, customers or co-workers. They may also be the majority of the members of our church. We know them by sight and reputation, and may feel comfortable having a conversation with them. The level of the conversation is usually superficial, pleasant, and relevant to our activities or the weather. Companions are the people whom we are together within a specific group. We function together because we are together. But as soon as we graduate, retire, or move away, we rarely stay in touch with most of them. The group defined our activities and without its structure, we drift apart. Friends Friends are on a level above these categories. Some will be close and one or two may get the title of “best friend” within your lifetime. Friends enjoy, love, and encourage you. They stick by you in difficult times, and are never an intrusion. Friends don’t keep track or keep score. Friends understand you and share your deepest griefs and your highest joys. They help when necessary and possible. This connection rarely disappears, for even if busy friends live far apart, they still value contact. I read about a tribe in an African country where each person is assigned a friend when he is young. This person is his official best friend, and they are to care for one another throughout their lives. It is considered as sacred a relationship as marriage. What a remarkable way to honor friendship, instill loyalty, provide security and prevent loneliness! The people there didn’t move away from home, so outside of death, this friendship was a certainty in a person’s life. It was stability, a fact to be counted upon. To call everyone a “friend” on a daily basis is sometimes easier than trying to subdivide into all of these categories. But it can be helpful to analyze and determine which of your companions you might like to encourage to become your friends. From one to the other How do you change the categories? A friendship must be built. Proverbs 18:24 states, “A man that has friends must show himself friendly.” From this we learn that selfless effort is the way to get started. I'll note it is somewhat like a dating relationship, even as I'll quickly add I am not talking in any way about a sexual attraction. Two people are determining whether the other person’s company is worth an investment of their time. Usually, one person is more proactive in pursuing the relationship at the beginning. It helps to know that. This is not necessarily because the friendship is undesired by the other party. Rather, it is just because the other person is busy, isn’t as eager for company, or is kind of lazy about that sort of thing. Let’s face it, it’s easier to relax at home than to get out and interact with people. Think about your companions and choose someone who might be “friendship material.” Now it is time for both action and patience. Think of an activity that you might enjoy together and call with an invitation. Or just call to say hello and talk for a while. If it goes well, try it again after a week. Take joy in the slow progress, and be patient because depth takes time. If nothing comes of it, still give it a try at another time, and/or choose someone else to befriend. Don’t be discouraged if the person doesn’t issue invitations to you or initiate the call, as long as he or she is glad to hear from you and spend time together. Some people aren’t good at initiating but they enjoy responding. On the other hand, if you are accustomed to responding and not initiating, and you really want friends, you might want to pray for courage to get the process going instead of feeling sad that no one is calling you. As we put forth the efforts to build friendships, we can also pray and ask God to provide for us in this way, because a friend is a gift from God. We should also realize that others may need to have our care and friendship. It is important not to get so caught up in our own little worlds that we neglect growing closer to the members of our congregation. This first appeared in the December 2007 issue of Reformed Perspective. Find more of Sharon's articles by clicking here. This column is one of several dozen collected in her book "Soup and Buns," which you can purchase by contacting the author at sharoncopy1@ gmail.com. ...

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
Evolve Digital logo.   Benchpress theme logo.   Third Floor Design Studio logo.
Bench Press Theme by Evolve Digital  & Third Floor Design Studio