RP App | Reformed Perspective

Transgenderism

The transgender debate isn't about washrooms

Or, how to argue like a Christian

Here’s the scenario: there’s a fellow in front of you wearing a little black dress. And he wants to know your thoughts on the transgender debate. You’re considering two possible answers.

1) “This is a debate about what feelings can and can’t do. God says He determines our gender (Gen. 1:27, 5:2, Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6) but now many people are saying that it’s our feelings that do that. Do feelings have that power? I don’t think so. What we know about our feelings is that they often run counter to reality. We can feel attracted to people we know wouldn’t be good for us. We can feel pulled to do things we know we shouldn’t, or to put off things we need to get done. Sometimes scarily thin girls can feel fat, and bullied boys can feel worthless. We can feel angry when we have no reason to be, or feel happy when the more appropriate response would really be shame or regret. In everyday life our feelings can, so often, prove to be a horrible guide for us. Our feelings don’t shape reality, so we need to shape our feelings and emotions to conform to the world as it is. And that’s what God tells us when it comes to gender too (Deut. 22:5). He chose our gender, and we have to shape our feelings to fit that reality.”

2) “We’re worried that some guys will pretend to be transsexual just so they can get access to the women’s washroom. So, for the sake of the women and children, we can’t let biological males use women’s washrooms. It’s a matter of safety.”

Which answer do you choose?

Most Christians seem to be going with the second answer. It’s not without controversy – Red Sox legend Curt Schilling got fired from his ESPN job for arguing this point – but it’s nowhere near as controversial as the first. The second also has some clear advantages. It is shorter, and when it’s important to say things just so, brief is better. And it focuses on the safety of women and children, which is a hard point to object to.

But it doesn’t mention the Bible or God.

Some might think that another advantage. After all, our country has rejected God, so they don’t care what He says. If we bring up God, aren’t we just setting ourselves up to be ignored? Wouldn’t it be better to present neutral/secular arguments, to increase the odds that we’ll be heard?

Secular arguments can’t stand on their own

The short answer is, no.

The longer answer is “Nooooooooooo!”

Secular arguments might be less controversial, but they have no foundation. They are based on a worldview that is insubstantial. Thus there is a very practical objection to relying on them: they can’t stand on their own.

Already, we can see the shaky nature of secular arguments in our bathroom debates. The US department store Target was hit with a one-million-signature petition protesting their decision to let transgender customers use the washroom of their choice. But as one commentator noted, the vast majority of Target stores have single-stall family restrooms. If we’re worried about the safety of our wife, or our children, then all we need to do is use these single-stall facilities.

A gay legislator from Alabama took down the safety argument a different way. Patricia Todd noted that most sexual assaults occur

“…in locations where children gather, school, church, parks, etc…. So if you really want to protect your children from child predators, don't take them to school, public parks, church or allow them to play sports or use the Internet.”

We can also predict that if we keep talking about safety the other side is going to counter with safety concerns of their own. They are going to start sharing stories about dress-wearing guys who got harassed in the men’s washroom. Or, rather, we’re going to hear stories about dress-wearing boys, and crewcut girls who were hassled. If we’re all about safety, then what about these children’s safety?

Canada’s recent past provides an even better example of the shortcomings of the purely secular argument. During our country’s gay “marriage” debate I did a presentation in one of our churches and asked the audience to list all the best arguments for our side. We came up with a half dozen or so, and some in the crowd seemed to get worried when I rebutted all but one of them. The reason I could do that is because all but one of them were based on secular reasoning. I could slap them down as quickly as they were raised because they were all built on this quivering, crumbling secular foundation.

“Marriage has been this way for thousands of years.”
“Slavery was in vogue for millennia; does that mean it was right? Some traditions need to be abandoned.”

“Most Canadians are against changing it.”
“Sometimes the majority can be wrong. And besides, will you support gay marriage if/when the majority approves?”

“We shouldn’t let judges force this on us.”
“So if we vote it in you’ll be fine with it?”

Christians rose to the defense of tradition, and democracy, and stood against judicial activism, but how often did we speak about God’s perspective?

Not very.

So we lost. And we lost, in part, because the arguments we were relying on simply didn’t measure up. They couldn’t stand on their own.

Secular arguments miss the point

But there is a still bigger problem: secular arguments don’t fight the battle that really needs to be fought.

When a big culture-wide kerfuffle erupts we need to see this for what it really is. Christians need to ask: “What part of God’s truth is being attacked this time?” We have to understand we’re in a war, and the other side’s objective is always to attack God’s people, His Word, and His Truth. So yes, safety is a concern in the transgender debate, but that’s not what the battle is really about. This bathroom ruckus is only a distraction – it’s the enemy trying to get us to direct out attention to the symptom rather than the disease. What they’re coming after – what they want to overthrow – is Genesis 1:27b: “male and female He created them.”

Safety is a concern. We’re already hearing in the news about sick guys taking advantage of these policies to head into women’s washrooms, to peep, or take pictures, or expose themselves. It’s predictable. It’s ridiculous. But what’s the cause of this craziness? God says He made us male and female, and the other side says, “No, we can create our own genders – God lied.”

That’s the real fight. That’s the truth they are attacking, so that’s the truth we need to defend.

Christian arguments have a firm foundation

So how do we get at it?

We begin with God. We lead with Him and His truth. The world doesn’t want to hear about Him, but He’s what they need.

Canada’s gay “marriage” debate provides a good example of how a good Christian defense can look. During the 2004 election a Christian Heritage Party candidate I was working with gave his riding a solid Christian defense of marriage. Ed Spronk sent a brochure to every household that presented God as the Standard-Maker. Spronk explained that if we abandoned God’s standard for marriage then soon enough we would be left with no standard at all. He then shared news items from around the world to show how this was already happening, with people marrying multiple spouses, marrying objects, and even marrying themselves.

Spronk didn’t win the election, but he was heard – his brochure was the talk of the riding.

The structure of his argument went like this:

Here’s what God says on this matter.
What God says is true, so we’ll see supporting evidence in the world.
Here’s some of that evidence.

A few of the illustrations he presented were the exact news items other Christians were using as standalone secular arguments. For instance, many were pointing to the woman who married herself as an example of what would happen next if we let gay “marriage” happen. But the response to this as a standalone argument was mixture of apathy and disbelief: “Who cares?” and, “It will never happen.” Once again the secular argument couldn’t stand on its own.

Spronk used this same incident, with a difference: he placed it on the firm foundation of God’s truth. He started by explaining that it’s God Who defines what marriage is and isn’t. Then Spronk used this self-marrying single lady as an example of the craziness that ensues when we deny God’s standards for marriage.

It supported his main point, but it wasn’t his point. It was simply one bit of supportive evidence and his core argument – his explicitly Christian argument – would continue to stand with or without it.

In the transgender debate

I began this article began with two possible answers. The first might not look all that similar to Ed Spronk’s traditional marriage defense, but it actually has the same basic structure. Sproink's and this first answer are both built on an explicitly Christian foundation, and both then stack supporting evidence on top of that Christian foundation.

This is how that first answer looks like broken down:

Here’s what God says on this matter: your feelings can’t determine your gender; I do.
What God says is true so we’ll see supporting evidence in the world.
Here’s some of that evidence: examples of when our feelings have run counter to reality, without ever changing it.

This is what a good Christian argument looks like. We need more like this.

Does that mean we have to abandon our bathroom arguments altogether? No, but we need to place them on a Christian foundation. That’s the key. They don’t stand on their own, but they can work well as supportive evidence for God’s truth. Here’s how that might look in a letter to your local paper:

Dear editor,

I’m writing regarding the recent article series you had on children who say they are transgender and want access to surgeries and puberty suppressing drugs.

As a Christian I know all of humanity is made in God’s image, so that means we are all worthy of respect. That, of course, includes people who identify as transgendered. That is why I cannot go along with cultural move to treat gender as something that is subjective, tied to how someone feels, rather than an objective reality. Our gender is not something that our feelings can change; feelings don’t have that power. Our gender is determined for us, by God, and is written into us right down to our DNA. And if we won’t recognize that men are men and women are women and the two can’t switch places, then all sorts of craziness will ensue. Craziness will happen because craziness always does when we reject reality. We will see:

Peeping Toms claiming to be women to gain access to women’s washrooms

High school boys showering with high school girls *
Perverts of various sorts taking full advantage
Men applying for spots in women’s dormitories
A demand for women’s sanitary bins in male toilets “for men who menstruate” *
A demand for urinals in women’s washrooms
Men competing on women’s sports teams *
Men obliterating the women’s records in weightlifting, shot-put, high jump, etc. and etc.
Men winning “Women of the Year” awards *
Men attending women’s colleges *
Sexually abused women feeling unsafe in all public washrooms
Women cutting off their breasts and men cutting off their penises
Children being given high doses of hormones to suppress their normal maturation

There will also be others who will extend this same “I am whatever I feel like I am” logic to other areas including age and race (this is already happening) and maybe even height and species (and, yes, this is also already happening). We need to reject that idea that our feelings can remake reality. I respectfully ask you to stand firm against the notion that “wishing does make it so.”

Yours, in God’s service,

Jon Dykstra

Here the bathroom argument serves as just one bit of supportive evidence for our overall argument that God determines our gender, not our feelings (and if we reject God’s sovereignty over gender, then craziness will ensue). The structure is again the same as we saw with Ed Spronk: our foundation is what God says on the matter, and then because we know that what God says is true, we are able to find supportive evidence in the world around, so we share some of those examples.

Conclusion

When we present God’s truth to an audience we don’t need to hit them with a sermon – we can be brief. But God’s truth needs to be our foundation. The battle we’re in isn’t about bathrooms. It’s about God, and how He determines our gender, and all of reality. That’s the truth that’s under assault, so that’s the truth we are called to defend.

May the Lord grant us the courage to fight where the battle rages.

Pornography

FIGHT! A message from the most porn-riddled country in the world

Internet

One week in: Facebook isn't for everyone

It's been nearly a full week since I deleted my Facebook account. My thoughts so far? Why didn’t I do this before?!? I made my decision to exit s...

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

If I were to do a sample of readers to ask what they think is the driver behind pornography, my guess is that the most common answer would be just one...

Transgenderism

3 problems with transgender surgeries

This summer Pullman Regional Hospital in eastern Washington State announced they might offer transgender surgeries and asked the public for feedback. ...

Transgenderism

Transgenderism 101: Share the truth with compassion

Transgenderism is the latest political cause du jour, dominating media headlines, saturating academic deliberation, the subject of new laws and radical educational policies across the country. Lost in the debate, from either side, are the kids themselves. It is important that, in so far as we are able, we ensure our part in this debate isn’t confused as being an attack on the dignity of individuals genuinely struggling with gender identity disorder. As psychologist Dr. Mark Yarhouse notes, in his 30 years of counseling patients struggling with gender identity, most who come into his office are not seeking to tear down the “social constructs” of maleness or femaleness. They are simply looking for help as they navigate these very troubled waters in these times of social change. Today people who believe they were born the wrong gender are being encouraged by the intellectual elite in media, politics and academia to embrace that notion and run with it. That might mean they start identifying as the other gender, or it might mean undergoing surgery to try to resemble the other gender. This must be strongly opposed. Why should Christians oppose it? Because we know it will hurt people! As one Canadian Reformed pastor said at a recent political rally, these new policies require us to love less. They silence genuine concern for transgendered kids, while advocating a celebration of an ideology that, by any measure of science and common sense, will do irreparable harm. What is transgenderism? The term “transgendered” is an umbrella term for the different ways in which some people might experience or express their gender – their maleness or femaleness – differently from people whose gender matches their biological sex. Put another way, transgenderism describes the experiences or expressions of a small proportion of the population who say there is a difference between their mind and their body when it comes to the question of whether they are male or female. One of the debates within the social sciences today revolves around the question of whether we should bring the body into conformity with the mind (via hormone injections, male genitalia removal, breast augmentation, or other surgery) or bring the mind into conformity with the body (via counseling). Perhaps the group that captures the most attention today are those who struggle with gender identity disorder, also known as gender dysphoria, a psychological phenomenon. We might hear them say something like, “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” or vice versa. According to the revised language of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (the DSM‑5), gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender. Gender dysphoria is a rare ailment: according to the same manual, it manifests in only 0.005% - 0.014% of adult men and 0.002% - 0.003% of adult women. However, we can expect those numbers to increase dramatically as the popularity of the phenomenon increases with the fawning media coverage of transgender celebrities like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and the gender-bending behaviors of Jaden Smith (the son of actor Will Smith who “challenges gender stereotypes” by regularly wearing dresses and make-up, etc.). The celebration and indoctrination happening more and more in elementary schools across the country only exasperates the problem. A somewhat related but separate condition happens when, due to genes, hormones, or body structures that differ from the norm, a child may have an “intersex condition” (in older literature, “hermaphrodites”). This could make it difficult to identify a child’s gender at birth – we live in a fallen world, and one of the results of that brokenness is that some people are born with malformed genitalia. This is not, however, what we’re talking about with transgenderism. An intersexed condition is a biological disorder, and should be distinguished from a transgendered person’s gender dysphoria, which is a psychological disorder. It is important to note that most intersex people are not lobbying to pass as the other sex or as a third sex, but are simply seeking to discover to which sex they belong. Their biological sex identification can typically be discovered through a chromosomal or blood test. Truth with grace We know from the creation story (see Gen. 1:27 and 2:18) that God created humankind in his image (imago dei) and that the wonderful mystery of that design includes the binary reality of the sexes: we are made either male and female. That means a woman’s femaleness reflects something of the image of God, and that a man’s maleness reflects something of the image of God. The binary nature of humanity is implicitly confirmed in the words of Jesus in his discussions on marriage (see Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6) and in Paul’s directions to the new Christians in Corinth and Ephesus and to Timothy on the distinct responsibilities and natures of men and women. (See, for example, 1 Cor. 11:7-9; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:12-14.) To mar or to diminish the masculine and feminine diminishes our God-given identity as males or females. Both reflect the glory of God. This is probably why God forbade cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5. This prohibition goes beyond whether boys can wear dresses (the clothing of men at the time of the exodus from Egypt probably resembled something more akin to modern female clothing today). The point is not the article of clothing per se; it’s the intentional diminishing or obscuring of masculine or feminine differences, which is an assault on our design. It should be unsurprising that the sciences confirm this binary reality. With the exception of a few simple organisms, all creatures (including humans) are marked by a fundamental binary sexual differentiation: male or female markers are imprinted on every one of their trillions of cells. The testimony of biology, chromosomal data, and social-scientific evidence all confirm the essential biological binary of the sexes. (For more on this point, see my book review of Why Gender Matters.) But the Bible does not only speak to the issue of gender confusion, it also speaks to how we should relate and communicate on this issue. The Bible reminds us that gentle answers turn away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger (Prov. 15:1) and that “gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body” (Prov. 16:24). Jesus Christ fulfills this in his ministry and example. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14). Randy Alcorn calls this pairing of grace with truth a paradox, and one Christians must emulate: our speaking and relating and communing on this issue of transgenderism must be characterized by grace and truth. Where truth is conveyed without love, it is nothing but noise (1 Cor. 13:1). The truth needs love, and the truth communicated in love will be kind, patient, and will not be rude, irritable or boastful. (1 Cor. 13:4,5). But love also “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor. 1:6) meaning that we cannot let our instinctive compassion run unfettered because that will end up hurting, not helping. Having established this foundation, let’s examine some of the science and policy surrounding this phenomenon. When helping hurts – medical testimony Celebration of transgenderism is seen by some as the best way to assist transgender individuals. There is no evidence, however, that the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification – including higher rates of suicide and attempted suicide, overall mortality, and need for psychiatric inpatient care – are alleviated by accepting and encouraging alternative gender identities in those with gender identity issues. The theory behind this celebratory approach to transgenderism is not scientific – it is political. Gender dysphoria is a psychological phenomenon. Gender fluidity – the idea that we can shift from one gender to another – is a concept that is socially constructed and normalizes gender dysphoria, and thereby impedes its diagnosis and treatment. To leave the dysphoria untreated is to leave struggling individuals without help, and to ignore experienced researchers in this field. Johns Hopkins Hospital was one of the first institutions in the United States to perform so-called “sex change” operations. Dr. Paul McHugh, the chief psychiatrist there in the late 1970s, commissioned a study of the sex change program. Its authors found that In a thousand subtle ways, the re-assignee has the bitter experience that he is not – and never will be – a real girl but is, at best, a convincing simulated female. Such an adjustment cannot compensate for the tragedy of having lost all chance to be male, and of having in the final analysis, no way to be really female. Some 40 years later, Dr. Sander Breiner concurs, explaining that she and her colleagues had to tell the surgeons that “the disturbed body image was not an organic at all, but was strictly a psychological problem. It could not be solved by organic manipulation (surgery, hormones)”. Many Canadian experts in the field of psychiatry, including those who regularly work with transgendered youth, have grave concerns about the politicization of this psychiatric issue. Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Berger says that some transsexuals “have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or . Scientifically, there is no such thing.” Dr. Ken Zucker sees the political approach to gender identity and fluidity as unsound. And Dr. Susan Bradley considers the political moves of some activists “disgraceful.” Dr. Paul McHugh, cited above, points out, “This is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body.” Canadian policy makers should take these warnings to heart. Apotemnophilia: a comparison Apotemnophilia is a neurological disorder characterized by an individual’s intense and long-standing desire for the amputation of a specific limb. It is a type of Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Some with this condition look for surgeons willing to perform an amputation of a healthy limb and some apotemnophiles have purposefully injured limbs in order to force emergency medical amputation. In 1997, Scottish doctor Robert Smith was performing these amputations before a public outcry brought them to a halt. What would the compassionate option be: to accommodate the person’s self-perception by amputating healthy limbs as Dr. Smith did, or to treat the psychological condition itself? The comparisons between gender identity disorder, anorexia, apotemnophilia and other similar conditions are clear. As Dr. McHugh says, It is not obvious how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia that she is obese despite her emaciated, gaunt state. We don’t do liposuction on anorexics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? What ought we to do as a compassionate society? Alleviating the psychic distress of transgendered individuals requires nuanced answers. We hear about the high rates of suicide among the transgendered. Well, if we want to address this, we must distinguish between suicides that result from rejection by family, isolation, bullying, etc., (all of which are unacceptable) and suicides where psychiatric care is offered that seeks to resolve the dysphoria in keeping with their birth sex. This is not to say that bullying, rejection by family, isolation, etc., are not an issue for transgender people. They can be, and that type of behavior must be corrected. But the reality is that family rejection, isolation and bullying increase suicide risks for all youth, not just transgender youth. The unfortunate politicization of this issue results in the condemning of anything less than full affirmation, reinforcement and celebration of the gender incongruence in transgender youth, a “solution” that compounds the problem. Where family and community walk alongside a transgender individual with love and compassion, all with the goal of resolving the dysphoria in keeping with the patient’s birth sex as much as possible, we predict the suicide rates will dramatically decrease, particularly because other coexisting issues can also be properly treated. The way we frame our approach to this issue is of the utmost importance. A compassionate society must recognize the mental illness dimensions of gender identity disorder and reject the dangerous and unhealthy human experimentation of hormone treatments and surgical amputations and modification. A compassionate society gives space for expression of struggles and helps to answer the questions “who am I?” and “where do I belong?” without deconstructing gender. And a compassionate society affirms the inherent dignity and intrinsic value of every human being as either male or female, including those who struggle with confusion regarding their sexuality and gender. Recommendations In terms of scientific and social research, the field of gender identity is still relatively new. Unfortunately, when the State attempts a radically new policy response to transgenderism, it becomes an agent of forced social and cultural change without any standard or criterion of success, and without clearly understanding the possible outcomes. Take just one example that illustrates this concern: in an effort to accommodate transgendered children, the provincial government in Alberta wants every school to work towards eliminating gender differences not only in the classroom, but even on sports teams and in change rooms. This is not the well-reasoned, scientifically-based public policy we should expect of our representatives. Here are a few suggestions for better public policy as it relates to protecting transgendered youth and enhancing social and public policy. State actors must cease to use the phrase “sex assigned at birth” and maintain the scientifically accurate term “sex.” Sex is a biological reality. It is not assigned. To use the language of “assigned” instils a flawed assumption that any incongruence is a biological error, rather than a psychological Provinces must ban all gender reassignment surgery on children before the age of 18. Further, in light of the fact that those who have had sex reassignment surgery have higher rates of attempted suicide, surgical transition should be abandoned as a treatment option even for adults. Provinces must ban all cross-gender hormone treatment on children, including puberty suppressants, due to unacceptably high risks of depression, suicide and sterility. To chemically alter the natural and healthy development of a child with such incredible risks before the child can give their own informed consent is nothing short of child abuse. The State must provide ample room for civil society to respond to this issue. Parents, the medical profession, churches and other community groups must have the freedom to address gender dysphoria in their families and communities without threat of enforced ideological conformity by the State. Provinces must abandon laws that make gender reinforcement illegal. Such laws violate children’s rights and doctors’ conscience rights and interfere with parental decisions regarding the best interests of their children. For example, Ontario’s Bill 77 – which amended the Health Insurance Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act to prohibit services that seek to change the sexual orientation or the gender identity of patients – should be repealed. This law, and others like it, promote an ideological blindness at odds with the best interests of the patient. The terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” should be removed from law because the terms are based on subjective perceptions and cannot be objectively evaluated or measured. There is no consistent policy reason to protect transgenderism, but not protect trans-racism, trans-ageism, trans-ableism, or even trans-speciesism (all of which have manifested in recent years). Further, laws that add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected grounds of discrimination such as those passed in Ontario and Alberta and being contemplated federally with Bill C-16 are unnecessary since all transsexuals are already protected in law, no less than anyone else. In the interim, we urge that a better balance of rights occur. In places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, (washrooms, women’s gyms, etc.) the biological measure of a person’s sex must be the determining factor for access. Due to the reality that there is no objective means to identify a transgendered person, this measure of preventative access can help protect against devastating consequences. Interestingly, spaces of privacy have become "gender-neutral." Adding different genders has had the pernicious effect of subtracting the difference between the sexes expected in public, and removing the privacy and the shield for natural modesty appropriate to them in certain social contexts. Conclusion Gender matters because people matter. Maleness and femaleness are distinct and complimentary realities that correspond to our biological selves and go to the core of what it means to be human. When governments ignore or undermine this reality they do so to society’s detriment. While some children struggling with gender identity disorder may need exceptional care in their various situations, the State helps no one by “breaking down gender” across the province or country. Canadian politicians must be willing to take a stand for good public policy as it relates to gender and sexuality. With sound public policy, we can help our transgendered neighbors as they navigate these troubled waters in times of social change. Out of compassion for our transgendered neighbors, inspired by our duty to love them as ourselves, we need to speak out against an ideology that harms them. It won’t be easy, but the right thing to do rarely is. This article is adapted from a fully footnoted 2016 Policy Report for Parliamentarians on Gender Identity which is available at ARPACanada.ca. This first appeared in the Nov/Dec 2016 issue....

Culture Clashes

Overpopulation is a myth, and we should have known

While overpopulation fears aren't causing the same panic they once did, this bogeyman hasn't disappeared entirely. The United Nations still has their Population Fund, advising nations on how to handle, as their mandate puts it, "population problems." While China has moved away from a One-Child-Policy – couples were fined, or even forced to have abortion if they had a second child – the government still has a Two-Child Policy. And while India's Supreme Court shut down that country's mass sterilization camps just this past year, the country is still committed to population control. So why does the myth persist? Two reasons: Most aren't familiar with the current state of the world. We don't hear about how things are improving, and how poverty is decreasing even as population is growing. Many still trust these doom and gloom prophets because they aren't familiar with the predictions that were made back in the 60's and 70s. The younger generation, especially, doesn't understand just how outrageously and how disastrously wrong these experts were. The world today Last year Japan’s birthrate fell below 1 million for the first time, while 1.3 million deaths were recorded. Since 2010 Japan’s population has shrunk by approximately 1.2 million (or roughly 1%). And they aren’t the only country shrinking; Russia has roughly 4 million less citizens than it had in 1995. We can see in Europe that population has leveled off, with deaths exceeding births for the first time in 2015, so growth is due only to immigration, not procreation. In Canada, too, we are not having children at replacement levels – whereas we would need 2.1 children born per woman to maintain a stable population (this number is slightly over 2, to account for children who don’t survive childhood), our birthrate is only 1.6. The United States, Australia, and the Western world in general are all under 2. There are problems that come with this, as an aging population doesn't have enough young people to care for it. The overall world population does continue to grow, with the growth focussed primarily in the developing world. For example, Africa's population has just passed 1.2 billion, up from roughly half that in 1990. But even as world’s population increases, we’ve seen not a shortage of food, but an increase in our ability to feed the planet. And poverty continues to decline worldwide – by one measure, extreme poverty has been more than halved over the last 30 years, even as the population has grown from 5 billion to more than 7 billion. Starvation does still occur, but that is due more to government corruption and war than to an inability to produce enough. The predictions of the past But how can things be getting better even as the world population increases? As one of the best-known population alarmists, Dr. Paul Ehrlich, noted, a finite planet cannot sustain infinite growth – at some point the Earth is going to run out of food, room, and resources. That seems to be a matter of basic math. And it's this basic math that had Ehrlich make this prediction in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." People under 40 may not understand the scope of the disaster population alarmists were predicting. Ehrlich said England wouldn't exist by the year 2,000 – this was end-of-the-world-type rhetoric, and people were taking it seriously. This New York Times video does a good job of capturing just how scared people were. https://youtu.be/W8XOF3SOu8I Clearly Ehrlrich was wrong. But to many it is less than clear as to why. One reason is a revolution in agriculture that was deemed "the Green Revolution." Even as Ehrlich was making his doom and gloom predictions, an American innovator, Dr. Norman Borlaug, was developing new strains of wheat and new farming techniques that dramatically increased crop yield. As Henry Miller wrote in Forbes: "How successful were Borlaug’s efforts? From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland." Ehrlich was about as wrong as wrong can be. The world has not ended; things have dramatically improved. And lest we attribute it simply to luck – Norman Borlaug just happening to come around just when we needed him to save us from disaster – we need to view this from a Christian perspective. Ehrlich, and population alarmists viewed each new baby as being a drain on the planet. They didn't see them as human beings given a task to develop the planet. They didn't recognize that while each human being does come with a mouth that needs to be fed, we are also gifted by our Creator with a brain, and with two hands, with which we can produce. We not only consume, we create (and in doing so reflect our Creator God). That's how more people can mean more, not less, resources - that's why food production has gone up, and poverty down, even as population continues to rise. Not just wrong but dangerous Overpopulation alarmism isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. This end-of-the-world rhetoric had a role in the Roe vs. Wade decision which legalized abortion in America. It has been used to justify government-funded abortion, forced sterilizations, and actions like China’s One-Child Policy, and now Two-Child Policy, under which tens of millions of Chinese babies have been aborted, many against their parents' wishes. Meanwhile, in Africa, where the population is growing, the first annual Africa-China Conference on Population and Development was just held in Kenya and hosted by the Chinese government and the United Nations Population Fund. Mercatornet.com’s Shannon Roberts shared how some of the speakers pointed to China’s coercive population controls as worthy of imitation. And at least one Kenyan media outlet thought that wasn’t such a bad idea. The Daily Nation commented: “With a controlled population, the Chinese economy boomed, benefiting from cheap labour from its many people and rising to be the second largest after the United States. Should Kenyans do the same?” Population controls are not just a problem of the past – they exist and are still being advocated for today. That's why we need to bury the overpopulation bogeyman once and for all, before it kills millions more. Christians falling short The Bible doesn't speak to all issues with the same degree of clarity. But when it comes to the population alarmism, God couldn’t be clearer: children are not a curse to be avoided but a blessing to be received (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 9:7, Prov. 17:6, Ps. 127:3-5, Ps. 113:9, etc.). Back already in the 1960s Christians could have spoken out against overpopulation alarmism, based on the clarity of these texts. And some did. But the Church is so often impacted by what we hear from the world around us. We let ourselves be muted, we let ourselves become uncertain. We start to ask, "Did God really say?" And then, like the watchman on the wall who failed to give warning (Ez. 33:6) we become responsible for the deaths we might have been able to prevent, if we'd only spoken out. It's back? While the overpopulation hysteria has died down in recent years, this bogeyman is primed for a resurrection. Global warming and concerns about CO2 emissions have some questioning "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?" The argument, so it goes, is that people can't help but have some sort of carbon footprint, so the only sure way of reducing carbon emissions is to have less people on the planet. Once again we are being urged to have "one and be done." Once again children are being portrayed as a problem rather than as a blessing. The Bible doesn't address climate change as clearly as it does overpopulation alarmism, but what we can be certain of is this: obedience to God is not going to destroy our planet. While obeying God doesn't always lead to a smooth life for Christians here on Earth – following God can lead to a loss of friends, or business opportunities, or result in persecution – when we as a society turn to God then prosperity follows. Then we end slavery, open hospitals, develop Science, create industry. This obedience doesn't even need to be of the heart-felt sort to still reap benefits – even unbelievers, when they follow God's commands for marriage, sex, and parenting will have better results (for a book-length treatment of this thought, see Vishal Mangalwadi's The Book That Made Your World). Our disobedience can be destructive – our self-centeredness, greed, jealousy, and hatred can cause real harm. But not our obedience. That's why the begetting of many children is not something we need feel guilty about, or refrain from, out of concern for the climate. We can be certain that the world’s doom will not be caused by us, in obedience, listening to God and having children. God has spoken out against overpopulation alarmism, so we need to. The next time you hear someone talking about overpopulation, point them to the Bible and share how spectacularly incorrect all the doom and gloom predictions have been. We need to bury this bogeyman....

Pornography

Is Porn more like heroin, or driving a car?

Explaining why it's evil to our non-Christians friends ***** In recent weeks, I’ve come across what seems like a multitude of articles on the subject of pornography, especially articles focused on the fact that more and more teenagers and children are now viewing pornography on a regular basis. The latest piece to catch my eye came from Rod Dreher on The American Conservative website. At one point, Mr. Dreher writes a paragraph in which you can almost hear him weep in sorrow as you read it: “This society has a death wish. I wish I had some idea how it could be saved. What concerns me most of all right now is the horrifying complicity of conservative, even conservative Christian, parents in the spiritual, moral, and emotional ruin of their children and of their moral ecology because they, the parents, are too damn afraid to say no, my kids will not have a smartphone, I don’t care what they and society think of me.” I hope that readers will share his sorrow, and that it might induce parents who have perhaps been blasé to take a long, hard look at their situation and take whatever action they can to protect their children’s innocence. The issue of pornography is a difficult one to even talk about, but we must. I want to consider the societal phenomenon, addressing what I believe is one major way we are being deceived, and how we can communicate the nature of that deception to our non-Christian friends and neighbors. It’s not just a problem for children I would assume that all Christians reading this know instinctively that pornography is wrong. At the same time, I am also aware that we can often fall into the world’s way of thinking on issues, and that this can mean that we accept its solutions to problems and fail to see the real issue. One of the ways we are doing this around pornography is increasingly seeing the major problem as being its spread to children, rather than pornography itself. Of course the spread to children is a massive problem, but it is not the problem. Here’s an example: an article by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic quotes one of the world’s biggest “porn stars” expressing concern that we’re not doing enough to stop pornography getting in front of children. Yet the same article states that “accessing hard core porn is (properly) legal.” This now seems to be the default position: pornography is fine for adults, but we just need to keep it from children. Now it is of course true that pornography filtering down to children is a very great evil. Young minds are more susceptible to habit-forming from new stimuli in ways which adult minds are perhaps not. Nevertheless, if we concentrate all our efforts on simply stopping pornography getting into the hands of children, we miss the point completely. For the problem is not primarily that pornography is falling into the hands of children, but rather that as a society we have opened the floodgates to allow porn in and normalized it. It is absurd to think that it is possible to normalize something like this, and for it not to filter down to children. Children, by their very nature, want to grow up to be adults, and they often want to do adult things before their time. So if we have largely normalized pornography amongst adults – and we have – then no amount of paywalls and banning of smartphones or anything else is going to make much difference. We have become a pornographic society, and children, who aspire to do what adults do, will generally find ways of getting their hands on it by hook or by crook (though of course responsible parents will take as much action as they can to prevent their children coming into contact with it). Drugs? Or driving? Look at it like this. There are two types of activity that adults seek to protect children from. First, there are perfectly good activities that we want them to grow up into, but for which they need to come of age before we allow it. For instance, driving a car. Then there are activities which are bad in and of themselves, and which we try to protect them from not just because they aren’t old enough to do them, but because we don’t ever want them to do them. Taking heroin would fall into this category. So which category does porn fit into? Is it like driving? Or is it like heroin? Is it something a child should one day be able to do, only not just now? Or is it like heroin; something that no sane parent would ever want their children to get into, no matter how old? If our culture puts it in the same category as driving a car, something to be avoided as a child, but something that is perfectly normal once you turn a certain age, then it can be safely said that we have lost all moral compass and are quite sick. If, on the other hand, we see it in the same category as heroin, then at least we would be acknowledging it as a problem to be dealt with. But why don’t we want kids seeing it? Sadly, I would say that we have moved in the last ten years from treating it in the heroin category to the driving category. “We don’t want you to touch it now, but of course there will come a time when it becomes your right to consume as much of it as you like,” is essentially the message. And yet the schizophrenic nature of this is obvious when you think about why it is we don’t want children seeing it. Isn’t it because we know it pollutes their minds? Isn’t it because we instinctively know that it demeans and degrades them? Isn’t it because we are well aware that it will give them a terribly unhealthy and warped view of the opposite sex? Of course it is, but are we really naïve enough to think that it doesn’t have the same sorts of effects on adults? But they’re adults, and we can’t stop their rights, can we? And, of course, if we did enact a law that bans it all, such a law at the point we currently find ourselves at would be as effective as King Canute commanding the sea to go back. What I am suggesting is that our culture urgently needs to stop looking at the main problem as being one of trying to prevent pornography falling into the hands of children. That is only byproduct of the much larger problem society needs to acknowledge: the normalization of pornography among adults. Rob Slane is the author of “A Christian and Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe and Everything.” A version of this article first appeared on SamaritanMinistries.org and is reprinted here with the author’s permission....

Science - Creation/Evolution

Not all humility is humble

John Marks Templeton wanted Christians to be “humble” about the Bible and look to Science for direction. And his Foundation is handing out millions to groups trying to mesh Science with Religion. ***** Sir John Marks Templeton (1912-2008) is best known as the creator of the Templeton Growth Fund, an investment fund established in 1954, which made him a very wealthy man. Two years before his death in 2008, Templeton found himself in 129th place on the Sunday Times' "Rich List" of the wealthiest Brits. But Templeton was not only an investor and moneymaker; he was also well-known as a philanthropist, through the work of his charitable organization, the Templeton Foundation. Established in 1987, the $3 billion Templeton Foundation offers over $70 million worth of research grants each year. The Foundation is currently headed by Templeton's daughter, Heather Templeton Dill, and it is an important source of funding for organizations that include the BioLogos Foundation and the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. One of the Templeton Foundation's purposes is to advance what Templeton called "humility-in-theology." This was the subject of his book, published in 2000, Possibilities For Over One Hundredfold More Spiritual Information: The Humble Approach in Theology and Science. Templeton’s humility How would this 100-fold increase in spiritual knowledge happen? He thought we would get it: “…every two centuries…by encouraging people of all religions to become enthusiastic (rather than resistant) to new additional spiritual information, especially through science research, to supplement the wonderful ancient scriptures" (p. 180). "Humility" was an important word for Sir John Templeton, as can be seen from the title of this book, as well as throughout its pages. Templeton's philosophy of humility, and the way it shaped his thinking and his philanthropically efforts, is exemplified in the following extended quotations. In order to present these quotations in context, and in an effort to avoid misrepresentation of Templeton's message, I present this (rather lengthy) representative sample of his thoughts (I must note that throughout his writings, Templeton writes the word "god" without capitalizing the G, so this is not an error in transcription, and likely reflects Templeton's philosophy): 1. Man isn’t that special "Although we seem to be the most sophisticated species at present on our planet, perhaps we should not think of our place as the end of cosmogenesis. Should we resist the pride that might tempt us to think that we are the final goal of creation? Possibly, we can become servants of creation or even helpers in divine creativity. Possibly, we are a new beginning, the first creatures in the history of life on earth to participate consciously in the ongoing creative process" (p. 41). 2. Creeds restrict progress "Do theologians need to be humble and open-minded? Leaders may be tempted to think that conformity and control are required for the orderliness of religion and for faithfulness. Most religions have developed creeds, doctrines, dogmas, liturgy and hierarchies of laypeople and clergy. Order and tradition of course do help groups to live as an organization of people whose ideals are compatible and link together the generations in mutual ideals. However, because of a lack of humility, have we observed throughout the history of most religions a tendency for dogma or hierarchy to stifle progress? If the members and clergy become more humble, could they re-form dogma in a more open-minded and inquiring way as a beginning point for continual improvements?" (p. 41). 3. We should humor theologians and rely on the sciences "Let none of us have any quarrel with any theologian. Let us happily admit that his or her concepts and doctrines may be right. But let us listen most carefully to any theologian who is humble enough to admit also that he may be wrong - or at least that the door to great insights by others is not closed. Let us seek to learn from each other. Let us try to use sciences to help verify or falsify new concepts. Let us always keep trying many methods to discover over 100 fold more about divinity" (p.50). 4. We can be wrong, so we should be humble about everything "Egotism has been a major cause of many mistaken notions in the past. Egotism caused men to think that the stars and the sun revolved around them... that mankind was as old as the universe. Egotism is still our worst enemy. In fact, things are still not what they seem. Only by becoming humble can we learn more... Are those who believe only what they see pitifully self-centred and lacking in humility?" (p. 59). Humble to the point of heresy So where did this understanding of "humility" lead Sir John Templeton? To ideas such as these: "Many religious concepts come directly or indirectly from ancient scriptures. An unavoidable limitation of utilizing such texts as a total basis for contemporary faith is that they were written within a context which may no longer be appropriate for ours today. Recent sciences reveal a universe billions of times larger and older and more complex than the one conceived by the ancients. The creative challenge is to enrich understanding and appreciation for the old with a welcoming of concepts and perspectives which may represent truly new insights and creative improvements, which can leverage the power of the past into a forward-looking adventure of learning more and more about the wonders of god and his purposes through ongoing creativity. Can it be an inspiring challenge to read the Bible in this way, which can help each generation of god’s people to search for far more of divine realities than can ever be contained in the language and thought patterns of any age? Should we not be able to give a fuller and wider interpretation of divine revelation today, now that the range of our understanding of the universe has been so vastly enlarged? Why should we often try to express spiritual truths using obsolete words, limited concepts and ancient thought patterns? If some scholars think that Jesus himself wrote nothing, could this suggest that what he had to teach should not be frozen into words, even in his own age? Thus, he did not limit for future generations their range of spiritual concepts and research" (p. 47-48). Ideas have consequences. While Templeton was an elder in a Presbyterian congregation (Presbyterian Church - USA), and even sat on the Board of Princeton Theological Seminary, he did not "limit" himself to the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. His "humble approach" led him to declare, "I have no quarrel with what I learned in the Presbyterian Church. I am still an enthusiastic Christian," and then to ask, "But why shouldn't I try to learn more? Why shouldn't I go to Hindu services? Why shouldn't I go to Muslim services? If you are not egotistical, you will welcome the opportunity to learn more." The sad fact is, however much one claims to be "an enthusiastic Christian," believing that the teachings of religions that deny Christ can be positively appropriated by a Christian makes one, for all intents and purposes, anything but. And this unfortunate truth is also clearly revealed in Templeton's book. While Templeton denied being a pantheist (one who believes that the universe is God, and God is the universe), his understanding of the nature of God can only be described as a form of panentheism, which declares that God and the universe are distinct, but that the world is "in" God. Or as Templeton wrote: "Traditional pantheism can serve a useful purpose in suggesting the co-terminacy of spirit and matter and a personal relationship between the creator and creation. But it may not be compatible with the Christian concept of a personal god vastly greater than material things and who loves all of us and numbers the hairs of our heads. Profound mutual indwelling between man and divinity may be better stated by the Unity School of Christianity, 'God is all of me: and I am a little part of him.' Such a notion implies an inseparable relationship between god and us. As even 'a little part of him,' we may realize the mutual unity of god and his creation. We may conceive that our own divinity may arise from something more profound that merely being 'god's children' or being 'made in his image'" (p. 86). True humility is submitting to God’s Word At this point, it must be said that, for all his self-proclaimed "humility," Templeton's foundational beliefs are, in Christian perspective, anything but humble. True humility is expressed in Psalm 8: "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens... When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man, that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?" (Ps. 8:1,3, ESV). True humility is expressed in humble submission to the LORD, the Creator, who has revealed himself clearly and completely in his Word - those "ancient Scriptures" which we humans have not outgrown, or surpassed, with all of our scientific understanding. True humility is acknowledging our origins as the direct creation of God, acknowledging the reality of the Fall into sin, and its enduring impact on humanity and all of creation, God's provision of a Way of salvation, and the fact that we can do nothing in ourselves to merit that salvation. We are created in God's image. That image has been badly marred by sin. But in Christ, that image is being restored among God's people. True humility is submitting ourselves to Jesus Christ, who declared that he, and only he, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Templeton's "humility" is, at bottom, and however unwittingly, the height of human arrogance and pride in disguise. In refusing to submit to God's perfect Word, Templeton set a man on the throne in God's place. And now, through the work of his Foundation, Templeton's utopian vision for human society, based in anything but the Word of God, is continuing to be spread. Templeton’s vision looks to science to show the way Templeton foresaw a "glorious" future, and thanks to his great financial savvy, his legacy lives on. His Foundation has three billion dollars in its reserve fund, and that money is being spent to promote that legacy, with a very definite, and very long-term, goal in mind. Templeton's vision of the future is summed up in two citations in his book. He first cites Marceline Bradford: "...Millions of intellectuals the world over have become disenchanted with backward-looking religious institutions... In order to recapture the great thinking minds of the world, the clergy must turn their heads 180 degrees from past to future. With feet planted squarely in the present and eyes directed to the future, leaders can find factual bases in science for viable, solid, dynamic doctrines. For science and rationality are enemies not of religion - only of dogmatism" (p. 47). Next, he cites Ralph Wendell Burhoe, who was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1980: "It is still my bet that at several points in the next few years and decades the traditional theological and religious communities will find the scientific revelations a gold mine, and that by early in the third millennium A.D. a fantastic revitalization and universalization of religion will sweep the world. The ecumenical power will come from a universalized and credible theology and related religious practices, not from the politics of dying institutions seeking strength in pooling their weaknesses. I cannot imagine a more important bonanza for theologians and the future of religion than the information lode revealed by the scientific community... It provides us with a clear connection between human values, including our highest religious values, and the cosmic scheme of things. My prophecy, then, is that God talk, talk about the supreme determiner of human destiny, will in the next century increasingly be fostered by the scientific community" (p. 103). His favorite charities In the conclusion of his book, Templeton lists a number of the "founder's favorite charities," which also provides real insight into Templeton's agenda. Some we might find agreeable. He is interested in the promotion of entrepreneurship, and the enhancement of individual freedom and free markets. Others included supporting research and publications in genetics; supporting education and other help in voluntary family planning; supporting character development research, and also: "Supporting the publication and dissemination throughout the world of the religious teachings of the Unity School of Christianity of Unity Village, the Association of Unity Churches and of closely similar organizations, provided that major support for such organizations shall continue only so long as the Trustees of the Foundation... determine that such organizations adhere to the concepts of: usually pioneering in religion and theology with little restrictive creed, usually teaching that god may be all of reality and man only a tiny part of god and generally accentuating the positive ideas and attitudes and avoiding the negative" (p. 183). With friends like these Such were the goals of Sir John Marks Templeton, and such are the goals of his foundation. A serious examination of Templeton's guiding philosophy, and the philosophy of the Templeton Foundation, in the light of Scriptural principles, should lead us to a sense of genuine concern about any organization that the Foundation chooses to support financially. And it should lead us to question the ultimate motivation behind this support, and the fruits that this foundation is bearing in the numerous organizations that receive its funding. "The Humble Approach" of Sir John Marks Templeton has absolutely nothing in common with the genuinely humble approach of the Lord Jesus Christ. Templeton’s utopian vision has nothing in common with the eschatological vision of God's Word. Follow the money Now, those who receive large amounts of financial support from the Templeton Foundation may do so "with no strings attached," and perhaps some recipients may be unaware of the totality of the Foundation's founder's spiritual vision. But could it be that they are unwitting victims of a larger, and more nefarious, agenda, which has at its base a desire to proclaim a different gospel, by denying the explicit teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his exclusive claims? We are warned against keeping company with the wicked (1 Cor. 15:33, Psalm 1:1, Prov. 13:20) and it doesn’t seem that much of an extension to think how this applies to accepting funding from a group with a wicked agenda. Science, science, and more science A little research shows the incredible reach that the Foundation's money has. And an examination of the nature of the grants that the Foundation provides, as well as the purpose behind these grants, is telling indeed. One of the Foundation's main funding areas is "public engagement," and a representative sample of grants (ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars) clearly shows the Foundation's goals. Here is a small sample of grants that have been made over the past three years: Vatican Observatory Foundation - "Building a bridge between faith and astronomy" John Carroll University - "Integrating science into college and pre-theology programs in U.S. Roman Catholic seminaries" Union Theological Seminary - "Project to develop a spiritual worldview compatible with and informed by science" Cambridge Muslim College - "Developing religious leaders with scientific awareness" American Association for the Advancement of Science - "Engaging scientists in the science and religion dialogue" Luther Seminary - "Science for youth ministry: The plausibility of transcendence" Christianity Today - "Building an audience for science and faith" Other grants have been made to train Roman Catholic teachers and preachers to engage the dialogue between science and religion, to promote science engagement in rabbinic training, and to measure science engagement in Roman Catholic high schools and seminaries. Further investigation in the nature and purpose of these grants reveals a common thread. For example, La Jolla Presbyterian Church received a grant from the Templeton Foundation for a program that "seeks to engage young adults (college and post-graduate) in a discussion of science and faith with leading scientists who are Christians." The McGrath Institute for Church Life at Notre Dame University received a $1.675 million grant for their Science and Religion Initiative, which "seeks to frame science education within the broader context of Catholic theology." According to the Institute's director, "The perceived conflict between science and religion is one of the main reasons young people say they leave the Catholic church... this grant allows us to address this misperceptions and help high school teachers create pedagogues that show that science and religion - far from being incompatible - are partners in the search for truth." Multnomah Biblical Seminary has received a Templeton grant (as well as a grant from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, itself supported by the Templeton Foundation), to "equip pastoral studies majors to become more effective in engaging our scientific age." Among a number of other Christian theologians, Niels Henrik Gregersen, professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Copenhagen, received a Templeton research grant for his work on the constructive interface between science and religion. Another recent recipient of the Templeton Foundation's largesse is Regent College in Vancouver, which this year received a grant funding a program called "Re-faithing Science at Regent College." The program will seek, over the next two years, to address this question: "How can the relationship between Christian faith and scientific endeavour be conceptualized and communicated in a way that effectively engages diverse audiences?" The detailed description of this particular grant on the Templeton Foundation website is insightful: "Sir John Templeton recognized that science and spirituality should be neither sealed in separate boxes nor positioned at opposite ends of a battlefield, yet even a cursory glance at contemporary culture reveals that the supposed incompatibility and even hostility between faith and science is something of a truism in much of Western society. Regent College believes that this widespread perception is a significant threat to the development of theology and science alike, as well as to the spiritual and intellectual flourishing of countless individuals." So, utilizing Templeton's funds, Regent College's project team will "propose an alternative model for the relationship between faith and science: mutual coinherence, or existence within one another." Their goal is to communicate this proposal "in an accessible form" that will encourage and enable further exploration of science, theology, and their interaction, using academic publications, public lectures, graduate-level courses, and an online presence, to "target different audiences with the same basic narrative, a story of one world, created by one God, who can be known and worshipped through both theology and science - and who is best known and best worshipped when theology and science work together." Science in the driver’s seat What can we learn from all of this? If we were unaware of the foundational principles behind the Templeton Foundation, perhaps all of this would appear to be somewhat innocuous. After all, who could argue against Christians being involved in the sciences? Why oppose efforts aimed at developing "scientific awareness"? Certainly we shouldn't want to bury our heads in the sand, and ignore what the sciences have to offer, as if science were somehow "off-limits" to the faithful Christian, should we? But remember this important fact: the Templeton Foundation has a very clear agenda – a utopian, panentheistic philosophy that has an ecumenical goal of uniting the religions of the world around a synthesis of "science" and religion, with "science" seated firmly in the driver's seat in this relationship. This agenda is being promoted by the lavish dispersal of funds to Islamic, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and other religious organizations, including, sadly, many evangelical Christian groups, many of which are making their influence felt in Reformed churches as well. Standing in Templeton’s way Two popular sayings come to mind: "Follow the money," and "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The money trail leads us to Sir John Marks Templeton. And clearly, Templeton's agenda is making headway in many places, although it is also clear that this agenda faces many obstacles. 1. Reluctance among religious leaders First of all, there is reluctance to accept the premises of this movement among religious organizations, as can be seen from the numerous grants being made to support efforts to decrease the resistance of religious leaders and members of religious groups, including evangelical Christians, to this religious/scientific paradigm. But that reluctance is being overcome, as the Templeton agenda makes inroads through a judicious use of funding. Efforts to reach youth, and those who teach the young, are effective means of dissemination for any propaganda effort, whether political, cultural, or religious in nature. Young people are more easily influenced, and they are most definitely being targeted, in a well-funded, concerted effort. 2. Reluctance among unbelieving scientists But there is also resistance from the other side - from unbelieving scientists who reject all religion, any idea of transcendence, and the idea that anything exists beyond the physical. This group is also being addressed by the outreach efforts of the Templeton Foundation, as it works toward fulfilling its long-term goals. Conclusion A spiritual war is being waged against God's people, using that ancient question, "Has God really said?" This is not novel; every generation of Christians faces this reality, in different ways at different times in history. The battle is being played out in a world in which money talks, and a lot of money talks loudly. We cannot afford to be naive on this issue. That’s why we need to be on our guard against the influence of the Templeton Foundation's money, even if it's being spent by organizations that may have been respected among us. That money is being spent to promote an agenda that is radically different from the agenda of God's kingdom. Our allegiance to the One True God must lead us to reject alliances with organizations like the Templeton Foundation, whose agenda is completely incompatible with that of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Rev. Jim Witteveen also blogs at CreationWithoutCompromise.com where this article first appeared in two parts....

Humor

Simply and truly

There once was a man whose parents had given him the highly unusual name of “Amazing” when he was born. They gave him the name hoping th...

Assorted

To appear before the Lord

A young lawyer had a dream. He found himself one morning before a judge at court in a T-shirt and crumpled shorts. The judge asked him how he came to ...

Media bias

Don’t watch the news, read it!

This first appeared in Reformed Perspective in 2000, and yet the thesis of this article is just as relevant for today's Internet Age, as entertainme...

Christian education

Rating books for the school library

Having just reviewed Escape From the Killing Fields (by Nancy Moyer) for the senior section of our Christian School Library, I thought it would be a g...

Transgenderism

You think feelings can redefine reality? What if I told you I feel like they don’t?

There’s a special sort of tyranny at work these days – it is the sort that not only ignore reality itself, but demands that everyone else do so too…or else. There are many examples of this. For instance: there is the idea that there really are no differences between men and women, and that both can perform all tasks to the same degree. there is an idea that the unborn only become human beings when the mother decides they are human beings. there is the idea that marriage is something that can take place between two men or two women. there is the idea that a person who was born biologically male can transition to become female, and vice versa. How they’re pulling off this trick Transgenderism offers a good case in point. Take the recent Gender Identity Guidance issued by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. According to Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post: “Under Massachusetts law, refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronoun would be punishable discrimination. (At least this is true of “he” or “she” — I saw nothing in the document about “ze” and other newly made-up pronouns.) The Massachusetts document … makes that clear in the employment context, and it also makes clear that the antidiscrimination law rules apply to places of public accommodations (including churches, in “secular events” “open to the public”) just as much as to employment.” Now, let’s notice the sleight of hand that has taken place in the whole transgender issue. Take the imaginary case of Bob, who is transitioning to become Carol. He is objectively male, right? That is his factual, actual biological sex. By which I mean that at some point in the past, the midwife present at his birth pronounced him to be a boy, and we can assume that she made this assessment on the basis of objective data, rather than on a personal whim. Indeed, had she pronounced Bob to be a girl, or even non-gender specific, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, Bob’s parents would no doubt have corrected her and, had she still insisted on ignoring the evidence, made a complaint. But at some point after that, Bob came to believe that the objective data was wrong. So he chose to undergo a process of bodily mutilation. Note, however, that the objective data was not wrong. How could it be? It is objective, including physically provable characteristics and XY chromosomes. As a report by two American College of Pediatricians doctors put it: “Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of disorder.” They go on to say that: “No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.” In other words, while we can state with absolute certainty that biological sex is a demonstrably objective reality, Bob’s decision to transition away is based on a subjective feeling. Indeed, the very fact that Bob needs surgery to make the transition rather proves the point. (As an aside, those arguing for transgenderism need to answer the question of why the body, which is objectively one thing or the other, should be made to conform to a subjective feeling of the mind, rather than the other way around.) But having made this demonstrably feelings-based decision, what happens next? Having taken a decision which is contrary to objective reality, Bob now not only identifies as a sex which is opposite to his objective biological one, but now expects everyone else to accept his feelings as having the power to redefine objective reality. Do you see what has happened? We’ve gone through four stages: Objective reality Denial of objective reality The presentation of a subjective experience The insistence that this new subjective experience is now objective truth to be assented to and obeyed Oh and there is now a fifth stage, which is that if we don’t play along, and also pretend that feelings can redefine reality, we get a label pinned to us – hater, transphobe, bigot etc – and possibly accused of a “hate crime.” If feelings beat facts… Here are a couple of questions that we should be asking those who insist on this: If someone acts contrary to objective reality, what grounds do they then have for insisting that everyone else treat their feelings as objectively true facts? If someone chooses to make their identity a matter of feelings, what grounds do they have for saying that the rest of us cannot do the same, and call them “him” or “her” depending on how we feel? The answer to both these questions is that they have no grounds whatsoever. Having denied objective reality in favor of subjective feelings, they have no grounds to then demand that we all accept their subjective feelings as being objective facts. Secondly, having insisted on their own subjective experience as being the ultimate authority, they have no grounds for denying anyone else the same right to exercise their subjective feelings on the subject. So if someone believes Bob to be a box of breakfast cereal, for instance, I can say that they are wrong, and I can do so on the basis that the objective data shows clearly that Bob is not a box of breakfast cereal, but rather a human being. However, if Bob tries to deny someone the right to believe and openly state that he is a box of breakfast cereal, this flies in the face of the logic he used in the first place to proclaim against his own objective biological sex. Who knows – perhaps denying people their subjective rights to call other people boxes of breakfast cereal might even be a new hate crime. Bransphobia? It’s not going to get better soon And yet despite having no grounds to insist on these things, they are insisting on it in increasingly vitriolic tones, and with the threat of the law behind them. This is how the new sort of tyranny works. It tears up objective reality, then imposes a new subjectivity in its place. But it doesn’t stop there. It then insists that society embraces that subjectivity as now being objectively true, and censure, shout down, and even prosecute those who refuse to play ball. The bad news is that things aren’t going to get better anytime soon. Those who are busy denying reality as God has given it and defined it, are too invested in their delusions to give them up. They aren’t suddenly going to say, “Hey, I guess it is really rather stupid to insist that there are no differences between men and women, or that two men can marry.” No, they will double down, and triple down on it for the foreseeable future. And as they do, there will come more assaults on objective reality, more attempts to force others to embrace their delusion, and more efforts to get us all to put our rubber stamp of approval on this folly. Those who dissent will be stigmatized, penalized and coerced into silence. This is what this newest sort of tyranny does. Our hope and our response? But the good news? It is that the Triune God of Heaven and Earth – not these tyrants – is actually the final arbiter of what is real and what is true, and He will not allow this situation to go on indefinitely. It’s his world and his reality, and He will at some point overthrow those who attempt to overthrow his order. Time and time throughout history, He has risen up to overthrow his enemies and deliver his people. And He will do so again. However, these deliverances ordinarily come when his people truly “cry out to the Lord.” So let me finish up by asking a very searching question. I recently held a discussion group with some Christian friends, where I covered a little of the history of how we ended up with transgenderism, same-sex marriage, no-fault divorce, family breakdown, tolerance and diversity, sex education, egalitarianism, feminism, “homophobia” and “hate” crimes. Having gone through it all, and having unanimously agreed that it was all quite mad and more than a little disquieting, I asked the following question: “Put your hand up if you are praying fervently to the Triune God on a regular basis to come and save us and our culture from this mess.” No hands went up. How about you? Rob Slane is the author of “A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe & Everything” which is available at Amazon.ca here and Amazon.com here....

Transgenderism

A is A…except when it wants to be S?

The transsexual debate and the death of logic “Hi A. It is A, isn’t it? I hardly recognized you there. It’s B. Remember me? How are you doing?” “I’m fine. Well I’m … well it’s just … I’m …” “What is it A? Is something the matter? You don’t look quite yourself.” “Look, B. There’s something I need you to know. I’m no longer known as A.” “What do you mean you’re no longer known as A, A?” “I mean I no longer identify as A. In fact, from now on I’d like you to call me S.” “S?” “Yes. S.” “I’m afraid you’ve lost me.” “Look, it’s quite simple. You’ve always known me as A, and all my life everyone told me I was A. But recently I started to question whether that’s really who I am. And the more I questioned it, the more I realized I was just the victim of social conditioning and prejudice. To put it bluntly, I’ve been brainwashed into thinking that I’m A.” “Social conditioning? Brainwashing? But A, you are A. How could you be anything else? Remember the first rule of logic: A = A and so A can’t = non-A.” “Well I simply don’t agree. In fact I believe that’s nothing but an outdated social construct.” “Social construct? But it’s an obvious truth. And it’s true for all times and all places.” “There’s nothing obvious about it whatsoever, and frankly I’m amazed that anyone living in our post-modern culture could still think it is.” “Ah, I thought as much. You’ve been listening to the post-modernists haven’t you? Well frankly I don’t much care what they say about it. It’s self-evidently true that A = A and there’s an end to it.” Do feelings make the man? “You know, B, I had always thought of you as a fairly open-minded letter. But I’m beginning to detect a quite shocking level of intolerance in you. Listen. Maybe this will persuade you. All my life I’ve had this nagging suspicion that I might be different. I’ve never much liked the way I look. That silly pointy bit at the top and that even sillier horizontal bar in the middle. And that’s just the capital “me.” Don’t get me started on the little “me”! But I’ve always admired S. Beautiful curvy letter is S. Well thankfully we’ve moved on from outmoded stereotypes that would have meant that I stayed an S trapped inside an A’s body, and I can now be any letter I want.” If gender, why not species? “But you can’t be an S. Surely you can see that?” “You know, I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a shocking level of bigotry. Why can’t I be another letter entirely, if I want to? Who are you to say what I can and can’t be?” “Why stop at a letter then? Maybe you could identify as a number. I could call you 1. Or 19 if you like. Or maybe even a duck.” “Adding sarcasm to hate speech doesn’t make it any less hateful.” “Hate speech? I said nothing hateful. But A, do you not see what will happen all if you insist on calling yourself S?” “Such as?” You already have a role to fill “Well, I don’t know how we’d get along without an A. I mean, imagine if we tried driving to Alberta without you.” “What do you mean?” “Ever tried driving to Slberts? And what about that fellow who got caught up in the tree after trying to topple his father from the throne. Now what was his name?” “Absalom?” “No. Sbsslom I think it was. Not to mention what we’ll do with the poor old SSrdvsrk. Can’t you see how ridiculous it all is?” “Well I’m not going to stand here all day being lectured by someone who is clearly a Hater and a Transletterphobe.” “You mean ‘someone who is clesrly s Hster snd s Trsnsletterphobe’? You see, all you’ve succeeded in doing by refusing to abide by the simple truth that you are A and that you cannot therefore = non-A is to sow chaos and confusion. Imagine what will happen if T wants to become C, or Y wants to become X.” “As it happens, Y is already well on her way to becoming X thank you very much. She’s a chromosome, you see. She used to be male but now identifies as X. And as for X, he’s sometimes identifying as Y. You have a problem with that?” “Well yes, actually. It’s just a clear denial of objective reality.” “Objective reality? Hah! What you need to realize is that every letter has the right to identify as whichever letter they want, and every other letter ought to respect their feelings.” Why should your feelings win? “Hmm! Fair enough. You win. I will no longer identify you as A.” “Good. Thank you.” “Instead, I shall now identify you as H.” “H? But I just told you I identify you as S, didn’t I.” “Yes you did, but your basis for doing so was based firstly on a denial of objective reality, and then on making subjective opinions and feelings your standard. And, I might add, you said we all have to respect that. Well okay, in my subjective opinion, I no longer identify you as A, or indeed as S, but as H. Are you prepared to respect that?” “But I’m S and you have no right to call me H.” “No right? So let me get this straight. You decree that there is no such thing as objective reality (A = A) and that your feelings are king. Then you insist that I accept your definition as truth and call me a hater, a bigot and a phobe if I don’t. So what you have done is to use your subjective feelings to create your own new ‘objective reality’ and insist that I accept it. Well sorry, I refuse. Two can play at that game and I say you’re an H! Now you’re not going to be a Transletterphobe, a bigot, and a hater and deny me my rights are you? Or is subjectivism taken to its logical conclusion as hard for you to bear as it is for me?” Postscript After this exchange the letter B was hauled off for tolerance training where he is learning that the right to define objective truth is the sole preserve of the Cultural Marxists who denied it in the first place. Rob Slane is the author of "A Christian & an Unbeliever Discuss: Life, the Universe & Everything" which is available at Amazon.ca here and Amazon.com here....

People we should know

A Rare Principled Politician: Ron Paul

The practice of politics notoriously requires compromise. Every politician must bend at some point in order to be electable. Many politicians are very malleable and change their views with the currents of popular opinion. This contributes to their continuing electoral success. Those who won’t go with the flow have a harder time succeeding and will get weeded out over time. Occasionally there are exceptions to this rule. One of the most outstanding examples in recent years has been Congressman Ron Paul who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2008 and 2012. His career and the principles he represented are described in a book by journalist Brian Doherty called Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man And The Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books, 2012). Paul is best known as a “libertarian” but his views also appeal to many conservative Christians. Doctor to politician Ron Paul was originally a medical doctor who became involved in politics. In his medical career he delivered about 4000 babies, and his knowledge of fetal development contributed to his pro-life views. But it wasn’t the abortion issue that ignited his participation in electoral politics. Instead, it was his views about money and government finance. While practicing medicine, Paul had been reading a lot about the importance of free enterprise economics as the basis of prosperity. Then, in the early 1970s, President Nixon implemented wage and price controls to curb inflation. Paul was incensed that an American president would implement such socialistic policies and he decided to do something about it. He ran as a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives in the 1974 midterm election but lost. When the victorious Democratic candidate later resigned the seat, Paul was again the Republican candidate in a special election and this time he won. He served a few months as a Congressman but lost the seat in the 1976 general election. He ran again in 1978 and won. He kept the seat until he decided to run for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in 1984, but lost that contest to Phil Gramm. Libertarian Party Although Paul had been a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan during the 1970s, he became disillusioned with Reagan’s presidency during the 1980s because of the lack of progress in shrinking the size of the federal government. Thus he joined the Libertarian Party and became that party’s presidential candidate in 1988. With the failure of his Libertarian Party presidential campaign, Paul went back to his medical practice and also produced newsletters on financial and political matters. He decided to run for Congress again in 1996. Although he had rejoined the Republican Party, party leaders were no longer supportive of him and tried to derail his candidacy. They convinced the local congressman to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and they supported that guy with money and prominent endorsements. As Doherty puts it, “The Republican Party did not want Ron Paul to be a congressman again.” Dr. No Nevertheless, Paul won and remained in office until 2012. During his time in office Paul became known as “Dr. No” because he voted against so many measures. He believes that the US federal government should be restricted to the powers authorized under the US Constitution. Much of what the federal government currently does is very questionable from a constitutional perspective. It has grown far beyond the bounds of its stated authority. Paul is thus known as a “constitutionalist” for this view. He is more popularly known as a “libertarian” because his views involve a very minimal role for the government. He does not compromise his views on these matters even when standing by principle makes his own constituents angry with him. Doherty quotes one congressman as saying that Paul is very predictable: If proposed legislation expands government or involves activities which he does not consider specifically authorized by the Constitution, then he will vote No. And Paul does not shy away from unpopular stances, even when they involve going against the flow. Doherty quotes Paul as saying, “when I take a vote contrary to a prevailing attitude, instead of hoping no one will notice I send out a press release.” There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and sometimes the vote tally would be 434-1, with Paul being the odd man out. Some people believe Paul’s pro-life position contradicts his libertarian views. But that is not so. As Doherty points out, if an unborn child is a person (and he or she is), then “a libertarian believing in laws against abortion makes exactly as much sense as a libertarian believing in laws against murder.” Paul’s appeal Paul’s constitutionalist and libertarian views have made him very unpopular in many places including large portions of the Republican Party. On the other hand, during his presidential campaigns, his stances have resulted in a great diversity of people supporting his candidacy. Doherty notes that Paul campaign meetings would often bring together the usual Paul fan motley: concerned veterans, pierced anarchists, conservative Christian moms, real estate brokers and homeschoolers and weapons enthusiasts and peace hippies. Although Paul’s core supporters have usually been libertarians, he has also gathered a good number of conservative Christian supporters. Doherty writes, Paul could appeal to the religious right not just on the economic libertarianism and hard-money stuff – which resonated well with them then and now – but on social liberty issues such as free speech and just being left alone by the government to shape your own life in your own way. He could remind these people who valued homeschooling and the health of their own small religious communities that they should fear a government that interferes in their personal cultural choices – even if it means having to let the government respect choices they don’t personally like. Doherty also notes that Paul’s personal life should endear him to conservative Christians. He is a “serious family man, devoted to one woman, successfully raised five children with many happy devoted grandchildren and even great-grandchildren in their wake, a serious Christian.” Wikipedia lists him as being Southern Baptist. Republican presidential candidate Paul created a stir during both of his attempts to win the Republican presidential nomination, but he was never a front-runner. However, his campaigns did create a lot of excitement among libertarians, constitutionalists and some other segments of the conservative movement. He refused to endorse John McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 and was therefore not allowed to speak at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. As a result, his supporters organized another event, the “Rally for the Republic,” that ran concurrently with the Republican convention in Minneapolis. The Rally for the Republic drew over ten thousand people and celebrated the constitutionalist and libertarian ideas promoted by Ron Paul. Doherty writes, “It had Ron Paul singers and Ron Paul intellectuals and Ron Paul economists and Ron Paul celebrities and, most of all, it had Ron Paul.” During his 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination, Paul decided not to run again for Congress, so his career as an elected official was over. However, his son, Rand Paul, was elected as a Senator from Kentucky in 2010 and is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2016. The Revolution: A Manifesto During 2008 Paul wrote a book explaining his principles and policy positions. It is entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto (Grand Central Publishing) and it became a New York Times number-one bestseller. One of the most important matters that Paul addresses in this book is his controversial views on foreign policy. Unlike most conservatives, he believes the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign and military policy. That is, the US should not become involved militarily unless it has been threatened or attacked. “Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue,” he writes. But what is an issue is the use of American military power against other countries that have not harmed the US. The most famous example of interventionist foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush in 2003. But there have been other recent examples such as President Clinton’s attack on Serbia in 1999. And in 2011 President Obama authorized the use of offensive military force against Libya despite the lack of any threat against the US coming from this country. This is what Paul opposes. In fact, Paul points out that the unnecessary use of American military power abroad causes more problems than it solves. He writes that, “when our government meddles around the world, it can stir up hornet’s nests and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people.” Perhaps his most controversial position is his belief that attacks against Americans abroad, and even against the US itself such as 9/11, can result from people who think they must fight back against what they see as American imperialist aggression. Paul cites Michael Scheuer, chief of the CIA’s Obama bin Laden Unit in the late 1990s (and a conservative), in support of this view. Paul writes, His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback – the unintended consequences of military intervention. Small government, at home and abroad Interestingly, Paul’s foreign policy views reflect those of the original conservative movement before the Cold War. As he notes, The so-called old Right, or original Right, opposed Big Government at home and abroad and considered foreign interventionism to be the other side of the same statist coin as interventionism at home. Being in favor of limited government means supporting a small role for the government in domestic policy, but also a small role (or no role) in the affairs of other nations. This is a consistent and principled position. Furthermore, it is useful to note that the aggressive use of military power abroad involves a huge cost in money and lives. As Paul puts it, “we waste a staggering amount of manpower, hardware, and wealth on a bloated overseas presence that would be better devoted to protecting the United States itself.” A considerable amount of money is wasted on foreign aid as well. Over the last few decades there has been tremendous progress in raising the living standards of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. But foreign aid is not the reason for that. Paul notes that, the economic success stories of the past half century have arisen not from foreign aid but out of the extraordinary workings of the free market, the great engine of human well-being that everyone is taught to hate. Conclusion All in all, Ron Paul’s view is that many problems would be solved if the US federal government was restricted to the role authorized for it by the US Constitution. In both domestic and foreign policy the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limitations. The framers of the Constitution did not envision such a large and interventionist federal government. One might think that many American politicians would support following the Constitution. In rhetoric many will speak well of it when doing so is convenient. But in recent years it has primarily been left to Ron Paul to publicly argue for constitutional limitations on government power, especially when doing so is politically unpopular. Receiving harsh criticism for supporting unpopular positions has not caused him to back down. That is because he stands on principle. He will not waver even when the political consequences are harmful to his career. This marks him as a rare bird in contemporary politics....

People we should know

A couple friends you should meet: Jay Adams & D. A. Carson

It’s no secret that I love books. Here in my study I often feel like I’m surrounded by good friends. Some are old friends, centuries old, but the two I’d like to introduce you to in this article are still writing today. The aim of this brief introduction is to help you find good friends for yourself — in other words, to find edifying reading that will give you a better understanding of the Christian faith, a greater grasp of the gospel, and a deeper love for Christ. Jay Adams (1929-2020) What does Jay Adams have in common with the Puritans? I mean, besides many theological commonalities? Both are objects of intense prejudice. Everybody knows that Jay Adams and his counseling methodology is bad, but very few people have actually read anything by Jay Adams. In the Canadian Reformed community, the source of this deep antipathy for Adams can be traced back to a 1977 article in Clarion by Dutch theologian C. Trimp. The article (originally a lecture he delivered at our seminary here in Hamilton), while expressing some appreciation, generally took Adams apart. Trimp’s critique would be echoed by CanRC leaders for years to come. However, what Trimp wrote was based on just one early book of Adams (Competent to Counsel) and, in the meantime, Adams had written several more books. In some of those books, he explained himself further and negated many of the criticisms that Trimp offered. I began reading Adams in university and was immediately impressed by his deep commitment to Scripture and the Reformed faith. Jay Adams is the author of more than 100 books and remains an in-demand lecturer. He did his seminary training at Reformed Episcopal Seminary and completed a Ph.D. at the University of Missouri. From 1963-1983, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Prior to that, he pastored a number of Presbyterian churches, including an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church currently holds his ministerial credentials. He was the founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF.org) as well as the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (now called the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors – see BiblicalCounseling.com). He’s currently involved with the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (Nouthetic.org). Why is Jay Adams important? Jay Adams is important for precisely the same reason I first appreciated Adams back in university: he takes the Bible seriously. He writes on a variety of subjects, from Christian living to counseling to preaching, but whatever the topic, sola Scriptura is his touchstone. You may not always agree with his conclusions, but you have to agree that this is the right approach. Basically, Adams takes the presuppositional approach of Cornelius Van Til and applies it to pastoral theology. I’ve read about a dozen of Adams’ books and have learned a lot from them. Where do I start? As mentioned, Competent to Counsel was one of Adam’s earliest books, published in 1970. It’s an important book, but it does leave a lot of questions hanging. If you’re interested in Adam’s counseling methodology, a better place to start would be A Theology of Christian Counseling: More Than Redemption. A good follow-up would be How to Help People Change: The Four-Step Biblical Process. A couple of other books that are more directed to the regular “person in the pew”: What To Do on Thursday: A Layman’s Guide to the Practical Use of the Scriptures and The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image. Preachers and aspiring preachers need to read his Truth Applied: Application in Preaching. What to watch out for? Adams is a controversial figure. On a formal level, some people have a difficult time getting past Adams’ tone and style. For some, he’s too strident, too forceful, too critical, or too this or that. Theologically, questions have sometimes been raised about Adam’s concept of habituation. George M. Schwab wrote an article in the Winter 2003 Journal of Biblical Counseling (published by CCEF) alleging that Adams was more influenced by O. Hobart Mowrer and William Glasser than by Scripture on this point. When someone has written as much as Adams, you can expect that there will be disagreements and critiques. Meanwhile, another generation of counselors has arisen and some of these (esp. at CCEF) have modified Adams’ approach in what may be described as a kinder and gentler direction. And while this is not a serious theological faux pas, if I remember correctly, Adams is also postmillennial in his eschatology. Conclusion Writing about Jay Adams in a positive way is a risky endeavor. For every positive point that one might rise, there will be a host of people who raise the negatives. Adams is not infallible, but he does respect the infallible Bible and he is Reformed in his convictions. I know that my life and ministry have certainly been enriched by his writings. Perhaps he has something to offer you too. By the way Jay Adams blogs at nouthetic.org/blog. D. A. Carson (1946- ) Donald Carson has a Canadian connection, being born in Montreal in 1946. His father was a Baptist pastor and missionary, first among English-speaking Quebeckers, then among the French. For Don Carson, one of the results is bilingual fluency. He did his undergrad studies at McGill University in Montreal, and then obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto. Carson was ordained in 1972 at a Baptist church in Richmond, BC. He then went on to obtain a Ph.D. in New Testament studies at Cambridge. After some years as a professor at a Baptist seminary in Vancouver, he moved to Wheaton, Illinois, to take up a position teaching New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s still there today. He’s written numerous books and articles. He frequently speaks at conferences and is actively involved with The Gospel Coalition. Why is D. A. Carson important? Carson has three endearing qualities. First, he is a New Testament scholar with a high view of the Bible. He believes fervently in biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Unfortunately, there are not many high-level NT scholars with such views of their subject matter. Second, Don Carson loves the gospel. This is reflected in his work with the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. His passion for the good news also surfaces in just about everything he writes. Third, Carson, like Mike Horton, is able to produce both high-quality scholarly writing and popular works that will edify any Christian. Where do I start? If you’re looking for something to whet your appetite, the best place to start is Carson’s biography of his dad, Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor (which can be downloaded for free at The Gospel Coalition). Then ease into Carson’s biblical scholarship with his helpful little volume, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. If it’s devotional reading that you’re looking for, check out his Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. If you’re a seminary student, or if you’re a pastor and haven’t read it yet, Exegetical Fallacies is a must-read. If you have an interest in postmodernism and hermeneutics, The Gagging of God is a thorough treatment. What to watch out for? Well, if you haven’t guessed it already, Carson is a Baptist. I don’t view the denial of infant baptism as a minor, insignificant matter. However, honestly I don’t recall reading anything from Carson that has ever leapt out at me as being distinctly Baptist. It’s not as if he makes a point of arguing for believers’ baptism in each of his books, or even laying the foundation for that position. I think his purposes are higher. Another point worth mentioning is that Carson is not a cessationist — he believes that charismatic gifts did not cease with the time of the apostles. But again, this is not a strong theme tainting his writings. With regards to the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), Carson is Calvinistic. He holds to the doctrines of grace. Moreover, he frequently refers to the importance of confessional Christianity. He doesn’t mean that as a reference necessarily to the Three Forms of Unity or Westminster Standards, but to the kind of Christianity that grounds itself in confessions generally oriented to the Protestant Reformation. Though I don’t care for the expression myself, some would call him a “Reformed Baptist.” Conclusion I heard Don Carson speak a few years ago at the Canadian Gospel Coalition Conference just a few streets over from us here in Hamilton. I was impressed. He writes well, but speaks even better. Pretty much anything that Carson writes, I’ll read. If he’s speaking nearby, I’ll be there. I guarantee that this friend will edify you as well. Dr. Bredenhof is the author of many books including God Did Say! which is available at here....

Homosexuality

One in ten? Alfred Kinsey’s most famous lie

Even if you haven’t heard of Alfred Kinsey you probably have heard about one of his key “findings” – that 10% of all people are homosexual. Dr...

Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews

The Thunder: A novel on John Knox

by Douglas Bond 2012 / 400 pages Rating: Good/Great/GIFT John Knox turns five hundred this year and I can't think of a better way to mark the occ...

Theology

How are we to read the Bible?

From January 16 to 18, in 2014, the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary hosted a conference on the topic of hermeneutics. It's a big word, but the...

Magazine, Past Issue

December 2013 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: Ho Ho Ho Virginia! / Wasn't it just yesterday? / Same-sex "marriage" and slavery / Proclaim it grandfather! / In a Nutshell / Lena in t...

Assorted

A game for every situation

Visitors to my house are often surprised at the number of board games I own. OK, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably have too many games. What’s nice about a game collection, though, is having games for different situations. Besides the obvious variation in the number of players and available playing time, different groups like different types of games. I’m not going to play the same game with my kids as I will with adults. Even adults vary in how much rules complexity and strategic depth they will tolerate in their games. Here are some suggestions for some games to fill those niches in a game collection. Most of these are pretty recent releases. 7 Wonders A quick game with strategic depth This game hit my gaming group’s table for the first time in 2011 and it was a huge hit with all of us. In this card game, each player takes on a particular civilization, with a wonder to build. The game progresses through three ages. In each age, each player has a hand of cards and in your turn you choose one card to play. You can either play that card face up, playing any resource cost to bring the card into play, turn the card face down to build a stage of your wonder, or discard the card for money. What makes the game interesting is that once you’ve done that, you pass your hand of cards to your neighbor and that player chooses a card from the hand you had. This creates some difficult decisions: do I build the card I want to build or do I discard a card to prevent it from going to my neighbor? At the end of the game, players score points for buildings they’ve built, how far they’ve progressed their wonder, the size of their military relative to your neighbors, coins they’ve earned and how far they have developed their science. There are multiple paths to victory and exploring these is part of the fun of the game. What makes 7 Wonders so great is that it’s easy to learn and quick to play. Once you’ve got the rules down, a game of 7 Wonders can be completed in about a half hour, making it a great way to start or close out an evening of game playing, although you’ll probably find that you want to play several games in a row. It also scales very well, accommodating anywhere from two to seven players. Because all of the action is simultaneous, adding more players doesn’t add to the down time. Forbidden Island A game when you’re in a cooperative mood Co-operative games are a nice change of pace in that players work together instead of against each other. Matt Leacock’s Forbidden Island takes the co-operative system he developed in Pandemic and distills it to its essence in a game that’s simpler and faster and more suitable for playing with kids. In Forbidden Island, players are stranded on an island made up of tiles. Slowly, tiles get flooded, making parts of the island inaccessible. Players are racing against time to acquire four treasures before the island disappears into the sea. Each player has a particular skill that allows him or her to break a particular game rule. Succeeding at the game requires players to work together and utilize their particular skills as effectively as possible. What’s terrific about Forbidden Island is the wonderful sense of urgency and tension created by the game. Success and failure are balanced on a knife’s edge. In games where we’ve successfully escaped with the treasures, we just made it; games we lost could have been won with a different card draw. Either way, it’s exhilarating and fun. The game is relatively inexpensive, accommodates up to four players and takes 30 minutes to play. Chicken Cha Cha Cha A game to play with the kids As you can probably tell, I’m a big fan of gaming with kids. But finding games to play with younger kids is difficult; those games either bore adults to tears or are too difficult for children. Chicken Cha Cha Cha is a game for children that hits all the right notes. It has sturdy, kid-friendly components, plays quickly, and relies on a skill that children can compete pretty equally with adults – short-term memory. Players move their chickens around the track by remembering where tiles are hidden. The more tiles you can remember correctly, the further you go. When you pass someone else’s chicken, you get to take their tail feathers. The first player who gathers all of the tail feathers wins the game. You’ll be surprised at how good kids are at this game. Telestrations A game for a party Pictionary is an old stand-by among people who like party games; Telestrations takes this to the next level by combining it with that old classic game of Telephone. In Telestrations, each player gets a card with a word or phrase on it and then has to draw that word. When time is up, every player passes their picture to their neighbor. That player then looks at the pictures and writes his or her best guess as to what that picture is. Players then pass those words or phrases to their neighbors, who draw a picture based on that word or phrase. This alteration of words and pictures happen until each player gets their original pad back. At that point, players go through and everyone gets a good laugh as to how the phrase or word evolved over time through misunderstandings. You could probably play this game with a Pictionary set and some paper, but Telestrations is fairly inexpensive, comes with neat pads and dry erase markers that make the process much easier. It’s a lot of fun and leads to a lot of laughter. I do have to say that the scoring rules provided in the game don’t work very well, but if you’re primarily concerned with games where winning or losing is the point, this probably isn’t for you. The game can handle up to eight players and, as with all party games, the more players you have, the more fun it is. Qwirkle A game for camping Camping is a great time for game playing. There’s no television or other distractions of modern life, so it’s a good time for boardgaming. An ideal camping game shouldn’t have lots of little bits or paper that can get dirty, wet, or lost. In this way, Qwirkle is perfect. It comes with a whole bag of big chunky wooden tiles with colored shapes on them. Qwirkle is an abstract game, played with wooden tiles that have colored shapes on them. There are six colors and six shapes. In a turn, players can play a set of tiles all in one color, as long as all the shapes are different) or a set of tiles of one shape, as long as they’re all different colors. This abstract strategy game feels a lot like Scrabble when you play it. If you don’t camp, it’s still an excellent and accessible game for all ages. In 2011, Qwirkle won the most prestigious game award in the world, Germany’s Spiele des Jahres. Jaipur A two-player game There are lots of times when there are only two of you and you want to play a game. In my house, Jaipur has become the go-to game in that situation. Jaipur is a game of trading and collecting sets of goods represented by cards. In a turn, a player can take one card from the market, trade multiple cards for multiple cards in the market, or sell goods. The clever thing in Jaipur is that the first good of a type sold is worth the most; as the market gets saturated with a particular good, its value decreases. Players can earn bonuses if they trade in larger sets of goods, but trying to build up a large set of goods in your hand might allow the other player to sell off a few goods first for higher prices. To succeed, you have to play close attention to what your opponent is doing. This one is probably the hardest to find of the games on this list; you may have to try an online game store if you want to locate a copy. Dixit A game when you’re feeling creative Most games are decidedly left brain activities, relying on logic and reasoning. Dixit is a right brain kind of game, rewarding creativity over strategic play. The game consists of a deck of beautifully illustrated cards, with no words on them. Every player has a hand of cards. In each turn, one player is the storyteller and chooses a card to play. That player comes up with a word, a phrase or a sentence to describe the card. The other players all chose a card from their hands that they think best exemplifies that phrase. All of the cards are then mixed and the players who are not the storyteller vote on the one they think is the storyteller’s card. What makes the game work is the scoring system. In the case that all players choose the storyteller’s card or none of the players choose it, the storyteller gets no points and every other player gets two points. In all other situations, the storyteller and any player who correctly identified the storyteller’s card gets three points. Furthermore, any of the other players who attract votes get a point. This system encourages the storyteller to choose a phrase that is neither too obvious nor too obscure, a tricky balance to maintain. Dixit is a simple game to play, but I find it taxes it my brain in a way no other game in my collection does. Oh, and in 2010 it also won the prestigious Spiele des Jahres (Game of the Year). Ascending Empires A game when you want to get physical In many ways, Ascending Empires is a pretty classic space empire game. Players start with one planet and expand to nearby planets, colonizing them, mining resources and establishing science stations. Planets come in different colors and in order to advance in technology, it’s necessary to establish a presence on several different color planets. This inevitably leads to conflict with other players and space battles. Here’s what’s different about Ascending Empires: in order to move the wooden disks representing your ships around, you have to flick them with your finger. This leads to a lot of laughter and fun as carefully planned flights go astray. The game manages to strike a near perfect balance between physical dexterity and strategy. Flicking your ships across the board is a blast, but clever strategic play is ultimately going to decide who wins, much to the relief of those of us who are not particularly coordinated. This is another one that may not be easy to find; on-line game stores are probably your best bet. Mouse Guard Role Playing Game A game to indulge your inner storyteller Role playing games are games where players collectively tell a story. One player runs the game; the others play characters in the story. When done well, it’s an incredibly fun and immersive experience. Most of these games, however, are set in fantasy settings with warriors, wizards and dragons. If the idea of role playing is appealing, but these typical games settings are not, Mouse Guard may be for you. Based on David Peterson’s graphic novels of the same name, players take on the role of mice dedicated to protecting their civilization from the perils of the outside world. When you think about how small mice are, there’s plenty of material for compelling adventures in seemingly mundane things. In one mission I played with my children, the mice had to save a mouse settlement from flooding after beavers built a dam near the town. Although an excellent game to play with younger players, it also works well with adults, with plenty of opportunity for interpersonal drama and darker conflict. All you need to play are some dice and the 320-page rulebook, which is readily available from online bookstores. Alternatively, you can opt for the beautiful boxed set, with additional missions and play aids. The game materials are well-written and gorgeous, with hundreds of Peterson’s illustrations. It takes a bit of reading to get a handle on the rules, but it is a more streamlined and easy-to-grasp system than most role-playing games. The book provides lots of guidance in how to structure and run missions, and rewards good role playing, not clever dice play....

Magazine, Past Issue

October 2011 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: Saving some is not compromise: the case for advancing abortion legislation in Canada one step at a time / When it is compromise / Best books: 3 on progressing pilgrims / Marring the perfection / Sex is powerful but dangerous / Christians are a friend of sex / God's plan for sexual purity: Marry earlier / Miniature machines that matter: even tiny viruses are a marvel to behold / God made incredibly-designed killing machines? / Looking for ET / Parent rests while toddlers play: film at 11 / People we should know: Francis Schaeffer: Intellectual leader of the Christian Right / John Bunyan on "How can we know what is in a Man's heart?" Click the cover to view in your browser or click here to download the PDF (39 mb) ...

Magazine, Past Issue

April 2011 issue

WHAT'S INSIDE: "Just wait until I'm elected" / What if a candidate had courage? / Canada's law was based on God's law / John Piper on "One issue politics" / Deliverance from this body of death / 5 things I'm surprised I can't find in the Bible / Were there fossils in Paradise? Did Creation take six days? Or millions of years? / Guidance on what it means to be a successful woman / A different sort of Cuban vacation: Two Canadian Reformed couples decide to take up smuggling... / Earthquake research makes us humble / Read the Bible in 90 days Click the cover to view in your browser or click here to download the PDF (4 mb) ...

Book Reviews, Teen non-fiction

Fish out of Water: Get equipped for college

by Abby Nye 2005 / 229 pages Rating: GOOD/Great/Give Nye wrote Fish out of Water, while in the third year of university, at the suggestion of her journalist parents. She was shocked, and overwhelmed by her first year on campus, but stuck it out, and started taking notes on the strange and perverse goings on at today’s secular campus. It started with her Welcome Week orientation activities, which included a meet and greet where guys and girls who had just met were greeting each other with a French kiss. Throughout the year, the weirdness continued – some of the activities included “National Condom Day” followed shortly after by a “campus-sponsored activity called ‘Just How Kinky Are You?’” The campus “Counseling and Consultation Center” prepared for February by handing out a flyer title, “Road Trip?” which advised students to set up a “drinking plan” for Spring Break and gave tips on what to do if your drinking buddy was so drunk he stopped breathing. But it isn’t just the weirdness that Nye addresses. She also tackles some of the day-to-day challenges Christians will face. She notes the hypocrisy many colleges have towards everything and anything, except Christianity, in a chapter titled, “We will not tolerate intolerance.” Her most helpful and practical advise can be found in the chapter “Pick your battles” where Nye shows how to stand up in a godly, respectful and effective way, and also shares thoughts on when it is probably best to just walk away instead. While Nye probably isn’t Reformed, her advice is biblically sound. This is a great volume for parents and college-bound students to read. The entire contents of the book can be read for free at AnswersInGenesis.org/articles/foow but for this to be properly digested you should pick it in paperback....

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

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

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

Search thousands of RP articles

Helping you think, speak, and act in Christ.

Get Articles Delivered!

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

Kids

Magazine

Articles

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Daily devotional

More of Reformed Perspective!

Newsletter

Real Talk

Manna

About Us

Advertise

Contact Us

Shop our merch!

Magazine

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Articles

Kids

All Contests

Bucket List Book Club

Transgenderism

The transgender debate isn't about washrooms

Or, how to argue like a Christian

Secular arguments can’t stand on their own

Secular arguments miss the point

Christian arguments have a firm foundation

In the transgender debate

Conclusion

Pornography

FIGHT! A message from the most porn-riddled country in the world

Internet

One week in: Facebook isn't for everyone

Pornography

No satisfaction: James’ Epistle on pornography

Transgenderism

3 problems with transgender surgeries

Transgenderism

Transgenderism 101: Share the truth with compassion

Culture Clashes

Overpopulation is a myth, and we should have known

Pornography

Is Porn more like heroin, or driving a car?

Science - Creation/Evolution

Not all humility is humble

Humor

Simply and truly

Assorted

To appear before the Lord

Media bias

Don’t watch the news, read it!

Christian education

Rating books for the school library

Transgenderism

You think feelings can redefine reality? What if I told you I feel like they don’t?

Transgenderism

A is A…except when it wants to be S?

People we should know

A Rare Principled Politician: Ron Paul

People we should know

A couple friends you should meet: Jay Adams & D. A. Carson

Homosexuality

One in ten? Alfred Kinsey’s most famous lie

Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews

The Thunder: A novel on John Knox

Theology

How are we to read the Bible?

Magazine, Past Issue

December 2013 issue

Assorted

A game for every situation

Magazine, Past Issue

October 2011 issue

Magazine, Past Issue